This is exactly what I mean. You are a very intelligent person. You cannot tell me you believe Dave Scott was alone at fault for everything that happened over the last 4 years. I don’t believe you believe that.
You don’t have opinions. You find opinions to oppose. You exist in this corner of the internet to find things with which you disagree and then argue them endlessly. It’s not contrarianism. That would at least have some substance. You’re an opinion vampire, sucking minutes of life out of anyone dumb enough to get bitten. Yes, I’m calling myself dumb.
1) Thank you for the compliment.
2) No, I am not arguing (and have not argued) that Dave Scott is ”alone at fault for everything that happened over the last 4 years.” You are correct: I do not believe that at all.
3) I believe there is a ton of blame to be shared for the current state of the Flyers.
4) I believe many fans have focused their ire on Chuck Fletcher, placing 90% of the blame on him.
5) I do not believe that is an accurate apportionment of the blame that should, I agree, be shared.
6) I do believe that Dave Scott’s “win now” mandate placed Chuck in an untenable position, once it was clear that the organization’s ability to execute that mandate was a misevaluation (compounded by injuries).
7) I do believe Chuck encountered a pretty remarkable amount of bad luck.
8) I do believe that Ron Hextall deserves a much larger share of the blame than this board tends to acknowledge.
9) I support the decision & timing in moving on from Chuck, as the unfortunate fact remains that after 4 years too many of his moves were unsuccessful/didn’t work out. And, with his job hanging by a thread, the trade deadline did nothing to salvage any confidence for the future.
10) If you believe that all of the above equates to me screaming that Chuck was treated unfairly, you have a right to your interpretation.
11) I do believe he was overly scapegoated by many fans who fail to acknowledge the significance of others’ roles in the current state of the Flyers.
12) So maybe it’s a matter of semantics/my misunderstanding what you meant. In the above respect, I do believe he was treated unfairly by many fans & posters.
13) I object to your characterization that I don’t have my own opinions & only seek out opinions to oppose, as if it’s some kind of performance art. I think your perspective exhibits hubris, as if no one could seriously hold a belief counter to yours or the board consensus.
14) In that respect, your stance reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s recent comments, “I’m interested in medical consensus & scientific consensus… The individual scientist does not matter,” for which he IMO rightfully received criticism & many a Galileo meme.
15) This situation also reminds me of Dave Hakstol, of whom I took a middling stance & defended against claims he was a moron while opining he was neither great nor bad.
16) Similarly, the board accused me of not actually believing Hakstol wasn’t a moron, but simply finding an opinion to oppose. No, just as with Fletcher, I expressed my true opinion & analysis, & feel vindicated by Seattle’s season.
17) It has always been part of my nature to stand up for others who I genuinely believe are being attacked unjustly or if I believe facts are being misrepresented.
18) Which is to say I am genuine with my opinions, & I try very carefully to avoid having my analyses influenced by groupthink. If I arrive at a different conclusion than the consensus, so be it.
19) In circumstances of disagreement with the majority, this predictably annoys those with the prevailing opinion, & the mob rulers inevitably blame the schism on intentional contrarianism, lack of genuine belief on my part (“trolling”), or just plain lack of intelligence.
20) This is example 1 million, & why message boards are simply a reflection of tribalistic human nature.
