Well written Voepel piece on Sue Bird

#1
L

lvocd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
6,554
Likes
22,165
#1
deleted

Hope everyone is okay! I certainly don't want to be the cause of anyone having a mental breakdown or, worse, a life-threatening aneurysm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
cool always love reading about ex-uconn players on a lady vols forum.
at least post it in "around the ncaa" next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5
#5
Hey, I purposefully worded the subject line so that anyone who didn't want to read about someone from another program wouldn't have to open the thread and be offended.

Why in the world did you even waste time opening it? Makes no sense!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7
#7
Topia, did you not know who Sue Bird was before opening and reading the story?

I think I'll pass on your suggestion. I figure you must be joking. Either that, or extremely immature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
lvocd said:
Hey, I purposefully worded the subject line so that anyone who didn't want to read about someone from another program wouldn't have to open the thread and be offended.

Why in the world did you even waste time opening it? Makes no sense!
Click to expand...

Why did you waste time posting it in the LV forum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#13
#13
Slydell said:
And, yes, we know it's a Lady Vols Forum. I would have put this in some other forum. This isn't a catch all forum for any female playing any sport unless they're dressed out in or have worn the Big Orange.
Click to expand...

A much too narrowly defined opinion of what should be posted on this forum.
You've just eliminated any discussion of our opponents.
Just when I thought that opinions here couldn't get anymore parochial, we reach new heights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#14
#14
volnationnj said:
A much too narrowly defined opinion of what should be posted on this forum.
You've just eliminated any discussion of our opponents.
Just when I thought that opinions here couldn't get anymore parochial, we reach new heights.
Click to expand...

It has been a long time since Sue Bird matched up against the LVs. There is plenty discussion about opposing teams on this board, all the time in fact during the season.

But a puff piece on a WNBA player who hails from another institution is just not LV relevant.

It is not parochialism so much as maintaining this boundaries which make this board a LV board, rather than one about women's basketball in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#15
#15
madtownvol said:
It has been a long time since Sue Bird matched up against the LVs. There is plenty discussion about opposing teams on this board, all the time in fact during the season.

But a puff piece on a WNBA player who hails from another institution is just not LV relevant.

It is not parochialism so much as maintaining this boundaries which make this board a LV board, rather than one about women's basketball in general.
Click to expand...

Good post, as usual.👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
madtownvol said:
It has been a long time since Sue Bird matched up against the LVs. There is plenty discussion about opposing teams on this board, all the time in fact during the season.

But a puff piece on a WNBA player who hails from another institution is just not LV relevant.

It is not parochialism so much as maintaining this boundaries which make this board a LV board, rather than one about women's basketball in general.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is not LV relevant and belongs in another forum. If UConn fans don't like it, the can get on their little doggie and ride out of town. They add little value to this board to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#17
#17
madtownvol said:
It has been a long time since Sue Bird matched up against the LVs. There is plenty discussion about opposing teams on this board, all the time in fact during the season.

But a puff piece on a WNBA player who hails from another institution is just not LV relevant.

It is not parochialism so much as maintaining this boundaries which make this board a LV board, rather than one about women's basketball in general.
Click to expand...

You've missed my point completely.
I neither condoned nor criticized the posting of the SB article on this forum in my post. In fact, I never mentioned it at all. Why you would cite that article in a response to my post is baffling and a non sequitur. I simply critiqued Sly's definition of what content should appear here.
Do you agree with Sly that "unless they're dressed out in or have worn the big orange" they should not appear here on the LV forum ?
If you do, that would eliminate posts regarding our opponents, prospects and anything else that occurred in wcbb that did not involve a past or current LV.
I consider Sly's view, of what subject matter should appear here, much too narrowly defined.
The very definition of parochial.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
volnationnj said:
You've missed my point completely.
I neither condoned nor criticized the posting of the SB article on this forum in my post. In fact, I never mentioned it at all. Why you would cite that article in a response to my post is baffling and a non sequitur. I simply critiqued Sly's definition of what content should appear here.
Do you agree with Sly that "unless they're dressed out in or have worn the big orange" they should not appear here on the LV forum ?
If you do, that would eliminate posts regarding our opponents, prospects and anything else that occurred in wcbb that did not involve a past or current LV.
I consider Sly's view, of what subject matter should appear here, much too narrowly defined.
The very definition of parochial.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are not all that baffled. It seems a fair assumption that you knew that Slydell's post was in direct reference to the Sub Bird article. Right, you realize that it was on this particular thread for a particular reason. I am sure you do. By logical implication, if Slydell is suggesting that Bird post does not belong on this forum for reasons X,Y, and Z and you charge that those reasons constitute new level of parochialism, that would suggest support for the idea that Sue Bird post is appropriate. But, if that was leap too far, I apologize.

But since we are into legalistic parsing, Sly's statement was
this isn't a catch all forum for any female playing any sport unless they're dressed out in or have worn the Big Orange
Click to expand...
.

His statement was focusing on individual female athletes not teams who the LVs are competing with. So, if we apply your strict interpretation lens, then your response to Sly could also be deemed as baffling and a non sequitur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#21
#21
madtownvol said:
I suspect you are not all that baffled. It seems a fair assumption that you knew that Slydell's post was in direct reference to the Sub Bird article. Right, you realize that it was on this particular thread for a particular reason. I am sure you do. By logical implication, if Slydell is suggesting that Bird post does not belong on this forum for reasons X,Y, and Z and you charge that those reasons constitute new level of parochialism, that would suggest support for the idea that Sue Bird post is appropriate. But, if that was leap too far, I apologize.

But since we are into legalistic parsing, Sly's statement was .

His statement was focusing on individual female athletes not teams who the LVs are competing with. So, if we apply your strict interpretation lens, then your response to Sly could also be deemed as baffling and a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

I accept your apology.
Your suspicions and assumptions are inaccurate.
Fwiw, I don't think the SB article should have been posted in this particuar forum. Though I'm not outraged by it's appearance.
I deliberately left out any mention of the SB article, in my initial post, because I wanted to focus on Sly's narrow definition on what belongs on this board. Even if we limit Sly's definition to only individual female athletes, that would still eliminate everyone who hasn't played for Tennessee.
Not that you're required to, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with Sly's interpretation that the subject matter, on this board, should be limited to only those athletes who have played or are currently playing for the LV's ?
 
#22
#22
volnationnj said:
I accept your apology.
Your suspicions and assumptions are inaccurate.
Fwiw, I don't think the SB article should have been posted in this particuar forum. Though I'm not outraged by it's appearance.
I deliberately left out any mention of the SB article, in my initial post, because I wanted to focus on Sly's narrow definition on what belongs on this board. Even if we limit Sly's definition to only individual female athletes, that would still eliminate everyone who hasn't played for Tennessee.
Not that you're required to, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with Sly's interpretation that the subject matter, on this board, should be limited to only those athletes who have played or are currently playing for the LV's ?
Click to expand...


Really? I think you know the answer and it comes down to common-sense application. You saw no complaints about a post which concerned Diana Taurasi's reflections on CPS. In that case, there was a relevant tie to the LV program. On the other hand, Taurasi has had lots of articles written about her but those in general are not a topic area for a LV board.

That is all I have to say on this topic. Good day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#23
#23
madtownvol said:
Really? I think you know the answer and it comes down to common-sense application. You saw no complaints about a post which concerned Diana Taurasi's reflections on CPS. In that case, there was a relevant tie to the LV program. On the other hand, Taurasi has had lots of articles written about here but those in general are not a topic area for a LV board.

That is all I have to say on this topic. Good day.
Click to expand...

So we are in agreement that Sly's definition is parochial. Thank you and have a good day yourself.
No need for LV fans to be at odds with each other.
 
#25
#25
Rickster said:
Mad Town and Sly are right and you are wrong. Get over it and move on.
Click to expand...

?????
I was over it, until you deemed it necessary to interject yourself in a discussion that ended long before you posted.
Did you not see a flurry of posts between Madtown and myself, in the middle of the afternoon, then a cessation on the thread until you posted more than 8 hours later ?
Can you explain to me why some posters feel compelled to act as a self appointed moderator and tell other members that they should " Get over it and move on ? Especially a discussion that had, in fact, ended long before you posted.
You must have twisted yourself into a pretzel, using logic as convoluted as you did, to come to the conclusion that Madtown was right and I was wrong, when we are in agreement on both the SB article and Sly's definition. Either we are both right or we are both wrong. Which is it ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top