Chris Kirschner: Hawks quiet in free agency but already nailed off season

[sturt]

Like I've already told you... tell that to... someone... else.

So, if the old shoe still fits, it still fits.

Or, in my best Roger Daltrey.... as the song goes... meet the new passive aggressive boss... same as the old passive aggressive boss.

 

[REHawksFan]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

I apologize for the part about generating income from clicks.

It's not clicks.

It's subscriptions.

I kinda knew that, having been a subscriber, but misspoke.

The commission part though... which is central to my assertion... remains.

The business model inherently isn't going to work if they're not drawing subscriptions from ATL fans to pay for ATL coverage.

Surely you understand that EVERY writer that is paid would fall under that definition. If no one subscribed there would be no pay for the writers. Any writers. Same goes for reporters on air. Or do you only "trust" free lance writers? 

Also, my sub isn't for Atlanta content. You get all of their content. May be another misspeak, but it's an important distinction. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by REHawksFan

[JayBirdHawk]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Like I've already told you... tell that to... someone... else.

So, if the old shoe still fits, it still fits.

Or, in my best Roger Daltrey.... as the song goes... meet the new passive aggressive boss... same as the old passive aggressive boss.

 

But see....I might have missed that because.....all I see is blah blah blah blah blah...................................................................................blah blah blah blah......................................blah blah blah blah.....etc.......to infinity +1.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Surely you understand that EVERY writer that is paid would fall under that definition. If bo one subscribed there would be no pay for the writers. Or do you only "trust" free lance writers? 

Also, my sub isn't for Atlanta content. You get all of their content. May be another misspeak, but it's an important distinction. 

Why do you think they ask you right away when you subscribe what your teams are?

Why do you think they only expanded into markets one or a few at a time?

Why do you think each of the writers are so prolific in promoting their own and their colleagues' content?

Now, I do try to be fair, and you're right that there's no crime in trying to start and run a business and make a profit. Not at all. I'm as capitalist in my perspective as you'll usually find. Profits keep people employed. Profits good, red ink bad.

But then, the point remains, writers have never been so directly responsible... and thus, their continued employment so reliant upon... people subscribing to content for which the writer is directly responsible....

And thus, it's important for the writer in question to persuade his readers of his exceptional insider sources. And he's explicitly tried to do that.

Sorry, but skepticism will continue until that's better established than it is so far.

 

And with that, continued snickering on my part as a few people cite his words as gospel.... which is what peeves some, evidently, and compels them to passive aggressively take their shots at said skepticism.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

But see....I might have missed that because.....all I see is blah blah blah blah blah...................................................................................blah blah blah blah......................................blah blah blah blah.....etc.......to infinity +1.

Not my concern.

 

[kg01]

Anybody got a good Queen Elsa gif?

Asking for a friend who needs someone to just let it go, let it goooo.

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Why do you think they ask you right away when you subscribe what your teams are?

Why do you think they only expanded into markets one or a few at a time?

Why do you think each of the writers are so prolific in promoting their own and their colleagues' content?

Now, I do try to be fair, and you're right that there's no crime in trying to start and run a business and make a profit. Not at all. I'm as capitalist in my perspective as you'll usually find. Profits keep people employed. Profits good, red ink bad.

But then, the point remains, writers have never been so directly responsible... and thus, their continued employment so reliant upon... people subscribing to content for which the writer is directly responsible....

And thus, it's important for the writer in question to persuade his readers of his exceptional insider sources. And he's explicitly tried to do that.

Sorry, but skepticism will continue until that's better established than it is so far.

 

And that is fine. You seem to like to ask questions you have no real interest in knowing the answers to because you simply have no interest in changing your made up mind. 

 

[sturt]

40 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Anybody got a good Queen Elsa gif?

Asking for a friend who needs someone to just let it go, let it goooo.

Prior to this, I believe the last post of the thread had went up Wednesday afternoon.

Two days ago.

So there's that.

 

[kg01]

[JayBirdHawk]

10 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Anybody got a good Queen Elsa gif?

Asking for a friend who needs someone to just let it go, let it goooo.

Happy to oblige! 

 

Where's my gif??? I want the gif, not the image....lol.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

And that is fine. You seem to like to ask questions you have no real interest in knowing the answers to because you simply have no interest in changing your made up mind. 

 

If you want to take issue with my reply, take issue with the reply, my friend.

That I have an opinion is no great fault. Right? It's "fine."

That I ask questions and invite others opinions also is no great fault...

And I would argue, to the contrary, is at least acknowledging there's potential legitimacy in others' opinions worth exploring... doesn't mean I have an inherent obligation to dispense with mine and accept others.

 

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Happy to oblige!

Why of course you are.... hehe...

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

If you want to take issue with my reply, take issue with the reply, my friend.

That I have an opinion is no great fault. Right? It's "fine."

That I ask questions and invite others opinions also is no great fault...

And I would argue, to the contrary, is at least acknowledging there's potential legitimacy in others' opinions worth exploring... doesn't mean I have an inherent obligation to dispense with mine and accept others.

 

No offense. Merely an observation. I certainly have no expectation of you yielding to anyone else's opinion.

[sturt]

I'm sorry, @REHawksFan... I thought I was reading that you take offense to my asking questions, but having some opinion of my own before I ask the question. Did I misunderstand? Not being sarcastic. That's truly what I thought I was reading, but correct me if I assumed too much.

[REHawksFan]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm sorry, @REHawksFan... I thought I was reading that you take offense to my asking questions, but having some opinion of my own before I ask the question. Did I misunderstand? Not being sarcastic. That's truly what I thought I was reading, but correct me if I assumed too much.

 No, I don't take offense at all. In fact, I don't generally take much of what you seriously BECAUSE.....my observation is simply that you ask questions disingenuously as I do not believe you have any real interest in having your opinion changed. You seem more interested in parsing words and engaging in formal debate as opposed to being persuaded by someone else's opinion. And that's fine. We all have our reasons for reading and posting on a message board. Again, just an observation. 

 

[Spud2nique]

Damnit people can’t we just get along. We are entering a fun stage of the Hawks. Let’s just go in like a fam..damn.

[sturt]

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

disingenuously

 

 

So, to your mind, I'm deliberately misleading people to think I'm going to agree with their opinions if they post their responses to questions I put up, and so, when I don't, then I've effectively just played a head game.

Is that it?

 

 

[REHawksFan]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

 

So, to your mind, I'm deliberately misleading people to think I'm going to agree with their opinions if they post their responses to questions I put up, and so, when I don't, then I've effectively just played a head game.

Is that it?

 

 

I don't pretend to know your intent. Don't know if it's deliberate or not. Regardless, I don't believe there's ever any fact or evidence that would persuade you in any of your debates. In that sense, I do believe you asking the question is a bit disingenuous. 

[sturt]

At the risk of parsing words and offending, "disingenuous" normally is associated with intent... so that's why I ask.

So, to the contrary, if that's accurate then it seems you do "pretend to know (my) intent."

What am I missing in that assessment?

And. Ironically enough, I'm asking that question, yes, but it's also true there might not be any other way you can construe it to convince me otherwise... but it's at least worth asking the question even though there's no apparent way for it to be taken.

So.

If the accusation is that I'm opinionated, guilty as charged.

If the accusation is that I enjoy comparing notes with others to see how they think about this or that, and I enjoy, then, engaging in some deliberation/debate accordingly, guilty as charged.

(Sidebar: There are three things that can come of a conversation like that... one can be persuaded that the other person has some substantive points, and the previously held opinion has to be modified or completely changed to accommodate that... or... one can be persuaded the other person did his/her best, but nothing offered was convincing, and so one learns that there is even better reason to affirm his/her own original opinion... or one can be persuaded that the other person was not actually engaged in any substantive way that allowed either to occur. In either of the first two cases, something productive came out of the conversation.)

If the accusation is that I am disingenuous, deceptively leading people to think my mind is a blank slate, and I'm asking them to write on that blank slate when I pose a question, then that's just simply not accurate. Not in the least. That's not me. That might be someone else you know, but if so, then it's almost certain that you're doing that psychological projecting thing.

 

Edit: I'm sorry... not "accusation"... I meant "observation" if that's less offensive and more accurate from where you sit.

[REHawksFan]

29 minutes ago, sturt said:

At the risk of parsing words and offending, "disingenuous" normally is associated with intent... so that's why I ask.

So, to the contrary, if that's accurate then it seems you do "pretend to know (my) intent."

What am I missing in that assessment?

And. Ironically enough, I'm asking that question, yes, but it's also true there might not be any other way you can construe it to convince me otherwise... but it's at least worth asking the question even though there's no apparent way for it to be taken.

So.

If the accusation is that I'm opinionated, guilty as charged.

If the accusation is that I enjoy comparing notes with others to see how they think about this or that, and I enjoy, then, engaging in some deliberation/debate accordingly, guilty as charged.

(Sidebar: There are three things that can come of a conversation like that... one can be persuaded that the other person has some substantive points, and the previously held opinion has to be modified or completely changed to accommodate that... or... one can be persuaded the other person did his/her best, but nothing offered was convincing, and so one learns that there is even better reason to affirm his/her own original opinion... or one can be persuaded that the other person was not actually engaged in any substantive way that allowed either to occur. In either of the first two cases, something productive came out of the conversation.)

If the accusation is that I am disingenuous, deceptively leading people to think my mind is a blank slate, and I'm asking them to write on that blank slate when I pose a question, then that's just simply not accurate. Not in the least. That's not me. That might be someone else you know, but if so, then it's almost certain that you're doing that psychological projecting thing.

 

Edit: I'm sorry... not "accusation"... I meant "observation" if that's less offensive and more accurate from where you sit.

 Thanks