While We’re Waiting… Josh Cribbs’ Agent, Donte’ Stallworth and Julian Edelman

Does anyone else feel like Frowns’ act is wearing thin? I don’t know the guy and have no axe to grind but people who intentionally play the role of provocateur over and over again just rub me the wrong way. That’s why I appreciate the tone and substance of what you guys are doing here.

Hey Denny, I’m referring more to his total body of work, which is mostly serving as a gadfly and responding in inflammatory ways to people who challenge his views. In this new ecology of “social media” tone matters a lot; again, that’s why I love what you guys do here. There are a lot of people like Frowns who generate noise and are self-aggrandizing, and I’m just a little worn down by it and prefer rational discussion w/o excess rhetoric

Hey humboldt, are you sure your problem isn’t more with the opinions that I hold more than the way I express them?

Believe it or not, I don’t “intentionally play the role of provocateur” at all. Rather, I intentionally express opinions that I believe in. I don’t know how you could possibly claim otherwise other than by pure speculation, so I have to assume that your problem is with the opinions themselves. So why not just address those?

It’s common for folks who don’t like an opinion to just attack the person who expresses it (like someone who’d prefer not to think about what it might mean to wear a hat with Chief Wahoo on it, for example). Without any specific examples of where I’ve written something I didn’t actually believe in, or where I responded to disagreement in an especially unnecessarily inflammatory way, I’ll just assume that that’s what’s going on here. I’ll also note that I’ve never levied such a personal attack on someone as you’ve done here, at least not while failing to support it at all with evidence (again, as you’ve done here).

Also, thanks for the advice on the ‘new ecology.’ Despite your professed distaste for my tone, I’ve managed to find a decently-sized readership (growing week by week) that seems to not be entirely put off by it, and I have reason to believe these folks aren’t a bunch of Rush-bots.

That said, I love what the guys do here too. Maybe you ought to stop hating and just focus on what you love?

“Frowns’ act is wearing thin.”

“People who intentionally play the role of provocateur over and over again just rub me the wrong way.”

“Frowns generates noise and is self-aggrandizing.”

“His total body of work, which is mostly serving as a gadfly and responding in inflammatory ways to people who challenge his views.”

And I’m the one who’s “on the attack”?

Those charges cover a lot more than just “tone,” and with respect to them, I’ll stand by my analysis above, which you haven’t addressed in any meaningful way.

It’s especially interesting for you to raise all of this regarding the Cribbs post linked here. (“This isn’t just some errant ad hominem attack on you, it is in response to this latest flare up w/ Cribbs’ agent . . . .”) Where do you suppose my “tone” is unnecessarily abrasive at all there? Can you point to even one line? Or are you too busy with your “real research” to bother to do that (yet somehow not too busy to pen the above unsupported personal attack on me).

If I get “combative” at all here or anywhere else, it’s generally with respect to unsourced/non-fact-based claims, or baseless personal attacks, just as I suppose anyone would. I’m sure I’m not perfect with my tone, but I’m also sure that you’re really just hating on me here. And again, ironically, in a way that I’m sure I never have.

Finally, whatever other differences between the WFNY folks and me, one relevant one that you’ve missed is that I write more opinion pieces at Frowns than they do here — the sort of thing that tends to generate more conflict. “Excessive conflict”? I don’t know, but it’s funny to be lectured to on that by someone who’s just commented as you have here.