15.Feb.2011 Regarding Paul Buker’s Reference
As you guys know, we were referenced in Buker's article this morning. You can read it here.
First off, I had no idea the article existed until a reader told me. Secondly, I dislike meta-blogging (i.e. blogging about this blog) because it strays from the agenda, but I've been forced to do it yet again because of misconceptions that need clearing up. Forgive me.
Moving on, I found two reader comments particularly frustrating/ignorant.
The first is by Beaver13. He writes:
I have another reason to dislike you Buker, you gave the idiots at angrybeaver some ink. Don't encourage those guys.
Verbatim, including what I will assume are just typos and grammatical laziness. Anyway, I've heard this sentiment a lot. The guys at Rivals, many of whom post at pure-orange.net as well, have a pact to never mention this blog. They believe that ignoring, censoring, and banning dissenting opinion will make the site go away. That I'm only doing this for attention and self-promotion. They believe this because I link the blog on other websites in an effort to promote it.
Okay, let me address this once and for all because it is highly frustrating. It is true; I do post the link on other sites, and in the past couple months I have tried to promote it more. I have reasons for doing so, which I've stated numerous times since starting the site in June of 2009. How about my "critics" ask "why?" instead of jumping to conclusions? I'm easily accessible (see contact button) to answer that question if anyone desires to ask it, and I can take the criticism and address it just like like I dish it out. What gets old is people making assumptions and implying the blog is about ego, some latent desire to be a journalist, fame, or money. I don't care about any of those things (on second thought, money never hurt). But if that was a goal I'd be accepting ads I've been offered. Enough said.
The second frustrating comment was authored by billybeav. He writes:
I think the angry beavs site is retarded as well….. Of course a duck would enjoy it, it is nothing but beaver bashing.
Again, I see this sentiment a lot. Does anyone who actually reads the blog truly believe it's just some bitter asshole blindly bashing the Beavers? There's reason and justification behind all the criticism. Pure Beaver bashing would be writing something like "James Rodgers is a terrible receiver!" if he drops one pass…and then finding ways to justify or exaggerate such a blatant lie. That would be ridiculous. But saying "Keith Pankey should not be near a football field" is the truth; a truth that bothers ardent fans like myself who want to see their team win games.
The guys who wrote those comments, sadly, probably won't read this post and respond to it intelligently. But, I encourage them to inquire about the purpose instead of jumping to conclusions. Is the blog perfect? No. My biggest flaw is that I have about a dozen other hobbies, and therefore I sometimes get lazy with my research. I also never edit my posts for grammar, etc. These would be valid criticisms. But the overall sentiment of this blog is spot-on accurate, and I will never apologize for the agenda, but I will gladly explain it to those who inquire instead of assume.