😁 That's fair, if that's what you truly don't want. I'm fairly certain you see Nerd just as much but he isn't the "issue" I am.

Of course, you know how I feel... the mindset of the board is that everything Packers is good for the most part. If you have someone counter to that that person is going to get hammered for being "different". 68md talked about this in the CIC thread. Boards determine what they don't want in way of opinion. It has NOTHING to do with being a "troll"...that is just some convenient label to throw out and hide behind and used to justify actions. IE: We had to ban that guy because he was a "troll". LOL...No...what that guy was was...DIFFERENT. Not a troll...just different. Sadly, because of your insecurity and desire for sameness and the refusal to openly examine an issue you'll slam the door with your fingers in your ears saying...Troll!...Troll!...Troll! Same reason fans call Bob McGinn a troll...they simply don't like what he has to say and it doesn't compute to them so therefore he must be a troll because when I read him I don't get the warm and fuzzy I get when I read Wilde, Silverstein, posters at Packershome, etc. It's childish and a sign of personal immaturity and poor character to run around using the word "troll" when you're challenged on a position.

The best threads are quite long threads that offer multiple viewpoints. The threads I get hammered for is when I offer one viewpoint and the other 17 offer the exact opposite. However, the 17 sounds of sameness are completely fine but the voice crying of dissent in the wilderness is the troll because the majority has concluded because there's 17 on one side and one of the other the one just has to be a troll? Ludicrous...childish...etc.

You and I are having a nice little back and forth. If this same thread was going and 16 others jumped on me as you have all of a sudden I'm a troll. It makes no sense.

Ironically, there hasn't been a single reply to the actual point in this thread? I just wanted to hear why this was an issue? I was told that being a positive Packers fan had no bearing on objectivity. I wanted to know how the replay official being a Broncos fan had any bearing on him being impartial? When you honestly answer that question perhaps it might give you pause and rethink your answer from the objectivity thread. Oh, that's TROLLING! TROLLING...TROLL! No. It's an honest fair question that is tangential to the stifled objectivity thread. I have no doubt that I was right in that thread but that's what makes me a troll. That someone can't admit that I am right? If someone came here and honestly laid out why a person being a Broncos fan had no bearing on impartiality intelligently, perhaps, I would revisit my thoughts on why being a fan of something negates objectivity.

Any of you watch MAKING A MURDERER? Mantiwoc had no business involved in the Avery investigation and were told to stay away and agreed to but got involved anyway. Why were they told to stay away and initially agree to? Their objectivity was in complete question. Being too close to something skews views but I was told repeatedly it doesn't until the thread got locked and I get to feel like I'm the problem when the issue is the other parties can't admit the truth...and make no mistake it is truth. Look at the definition.

This probably belongs more in the CIC thread but it's very disappointing to continually be labeled for correctly characterizing the definition of a word. The color black has a definition...you can holler all day that it's really more grey than black but black is black. If I say it's black I'm going to hear it's gray over and over until I'm the issue for saying it's black....and....no, this doesn't mean on things of opinion I'm always right...that's in the eye of the other 17 here who determine that but it doesn't matter if there's 1700 the word objective means what it means and has to be applied whether it cuts you to the quick, or not.

---

Oh believe me, he is an issue too. Ask him. He's heard it from me, lol. If you ever created a topic from the front page, you'll notice one cannot do so within X amount of minutes. Nerdmann would create like five in thirty seconds!!

You're a lot more persistent than he is. Something he does, that you do not do is rebuttal to what was replied to. You often times ignore someones counter and pretend it didn't happen while going on another tangent. That's annoying for me personally and maybe others too.

I am focusing on the improvements so I apologize for not reading past what I've quoted.

---

Cut me some slack...it is quite hard replying to every single objection. I've been told the volume of my replies is already an issue so you really want me replying MORE? I'm so, so, so confused. 🤣

What I will try doing is waiting until everyone has their swing at me and then craft one long doozy of a response to ALL the issues raised so I don't hear garbage like this. You just got done telling me Nerd "rebuttals". Now, that is hilarious to me. Nerd will label and drop crazy, but funny, quips in reply. That is rebuttal but not rebuttal pertaining to what has been written. I do reply to what has been written but my tangents are to further and strengthen my original argument. Again, I'm blasted for saying the same thing over and over and now I'm off on tangents. Which is it? It's balderdash to me.

I'm not sure the issue is that I'm smarter than other people, although, it could be, but people act very very immature here when something makes them feel "bad" about their Packers. Sometimes feeling bad is the appropriate response but that goes to objectivity which I guess I'm not supposed to discuss because it upsets those who want a word to mean something it doesn't. 😁

---

Why are you harping on poor, ole MintBaconDrivel? Isn't he merely the successor to SlickVision? And why was the moist one laid to rest anyway?

Can't a guy leave for a few months without everything changing?? 😕

---

I remember when this site was enjoyable to come to. There was discussions, and just about everyone treated each other with respect, even when they didn't agree with each other.
It was more like a "family". Love and respecting each other regardless of political or religion or race.
I miss those days.
I understand Kevin wanting to give people a lot of "freedom" in their posts, but I think sometimes the owner of a site has to step down on those that don't respect him or other known long time posters here.
Just my 2 cents.
(That's all I can afford!)

---

IMO, this threads original post was not only valid, but also relevant. The article to which the link directs the reader presents a story that merits discussion. The poster could have, and probably should have offered some commentary on the article. I can however understand, perhaps, why he did not. It may have swayed the discussion and was therefor left blank.

As for stomping on a poster for presenting their thoughts, the Republicans have not been sworn in just yet. I pray that freedom of speech, thought, or opinion will remain steadfast no matter how annoying, childish, or in opposition to the majority.

As to the article that the link in the original post refers to, I found it a pleasant read and its points well presented. I do not see a conflict of interest as the author does. Many married couples respect differing opinions among themselves.

An interesting article for a discussion, my compliments .

---

Smokey.....again.....why is it always called "stomping" when a republican voices their opinions, but just fine for all the name calling and belittling democrats do?
I always try to voice my opinions WITHOUT the petty name calling, and to give valid reasons WHY I believe so.
I also don't understand why rich democrats are seen as OK, while any republican that is rich is somehow "evil".
I wonder how many rich democrats don't take advantage of tax breaks they rail on republicans for also taking?
I know it's off subject, sorry for that.

---