13.Jul.2011 Duck Fan Backlash
There's been a lot of backlash via email, (Duck) web forums, and the comment section. I'll address some of the public complaints here.
Look, I really used to like this site because you kept it real and I even help support it. But you guys have seriously gone the way of all fan-atical sites regarding your rivals and have now traded in good insight into tabloid journalism for, "ya, and guess what else I heard, Phil gave Lache some rare shoes…".etc.
If it were football season and there was anything going on, I probably wouldn't have written about the Ducks at all. But what they did was too interesting and can't be ignored. We're (a) having fun with it and (b) making sure the media does their job. Of course you hate the site; you have a vested interest in these "rumors" going away. You're misdirecting blame, and this is a you problem. I'm not going to allow your attempt at manipulation via claiming disappointment with me.
Its been a fun ride, sorry to see the site turn into "just another Beaver love fest.
Hilarious. Beaver fans still call me a Duck.
Beaver fans should stop pretending like there is any reason, moral or otherwise, that they spend more than 5 minutes on this story, other than a rivalry over a game. I can list 30+ issues in the world involving morality that have far more substantial implications than whether or not Lyles represented the UO while being paid. If this was about morality for Beavers, this would be the last issue they would be frothing over.
This is a flawed argument. To say morality x is more important than morality y is a logical fallacy (i.e. association fallacy). Also, even if I accept there are moral issues with more substantial implications happening somewhere in the world, why make the jump and deduce that it means we shouldn't look into this moral issue? Should a detective only investigate murder and ignore robberies?
Also, I have yet to see "angry" respond to the central complaint casey has made. That starting unsubstantiated rumors about people is unethical.
This is how my mind works: it's more unethical to out a source who wants to remain anonymous than to start substantiated "rumors" based off a figurative (hey, one has to make this distinction when discussing the Ducks) "smoking gun". I am not a journalist. I don't abide to a strict set of journalistic creeds. Again, your argument runs into a logical fallacy because you are treating me like a journalist when I am, in fact, a blogger. You are also attacking me rather disproving the story. This is called an ad hominem argument.
Really? This is what you are now writing about? If you have proof you should post it and allow it to speak for itself. Or, better yet, send whatever proof you have to the NCAA and let the authorities deal with the matter. But posting rumors and innuendos is just fishing for attention.
Nope, I can't legally share any more than what I did. End of story. If I could, it would be in the Oregonian right now since they approached me asking for the story. And, for what it's worth, I believe the original source did send the information to NCAA compliance. With regard to fishing for attention, that is called histrionic, and it's the opposite of my personality.
Then there is this site:
http://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10681 "You're a moron." etc etc
Enough with the ad hominem arguments. Attacking the source because you can't discredit the claim is weak. If I were to go to a psychologist and tell him, "Doc, people told me I am a moron" he'd probably come back with, "What evidence do you have to support that claim?" at which point I'd be speechless. I did well in school; I have a respectable career; I live with a beautiful woman; I've written and published a well-received novel; etc, etc. Why would I believe I'm a moron when there's no evidence to support the claim? You are wasting your time with these ad hominem arguments. They make you, the Duck fan, feel good for a few seconds. They are the sugar high of debating. If you want an argument with meat on the bone, come at me with proof and sources proving me wrong or don't come at me at all, because anything less is at best a (transparent) jab to make yourself feel good, but more likely it is a complete logical fallacy. And I know what your retort will be: "Angry, you have no proof to support your claim." Choosing to withhold evidence is not equal to dispossessing it.
Finally, don't get on Beavers' cases for having fun with this. As a rival, they have that right. Sometimes I feel bad for Duck fans, and sometimes I feel they're getting their due. Punishment is complex. Sometimes I want to seriously analyze the Duck's situation, and sometimes I just want to poke fun. Human nature is complex. I'm not going to "write to the audience" and tailor opinion so I don't lose Duck readers. If I lose you that is a you issue, and I mean that in the kindest way possible.