Unfortunately, this inability to accept and move on is affecting the quality of the dialogue on the blog. I hope this response helps bring things around.
In other words, the blog would be a better place if everyone agreed with your point of view.
I know you didn't quite put it that way, but in substance that seems to be the gist of it. For me personally, I don't have a lot of interest in a completely one-sided dialogue; I like reading different points of view, so long as they're presented respectfully.
A lot of folks aren't in love with the trade, and have valid viewpoints about the wisdom of it. By the same token, a lot of members are in love with the trade, and they've got legit views, as well.
I agree that I'd like to see more focus on the team now and less on Perk, but it's not just the trade detractors who are repeatedly citing the trade. I mean, if JO plays well, the argument is "he couldn't have played so well if Perk was here", rather than celebrating him potentially having a breakout game.
So, I guess my thought is, if people want to move on from the trade... stop posting about it. Bring something new to the table. If people don't want to move on, then accept the right of others to express their viewpoint. However, if the desired outcome is "I want everyone to agree that my view is the valid one", that's probably not going to happen.
Thanks for responding Roy, though your patronizing is beneath you.
At least I would have thought so before all of this nonsense. This garbage of pulling out the big mod gun to warn someone about baiting and trolling by commenting "queen perk," which is quite soft in terms of commentary about men's sports (and didn't even happen in that thread), along with the endless circular arguing that you yourself have promoted, and your refusal to accept more gentle nudges from posters such as myself have brought me to this. I've posted "let it go, buddy. let it go." That was perhaps over a week ago? Yet you've jumped on every thread about this and have so kept it going, drowning out other, more pertinent dialogue by ensuring this topic stays on the "latest forum topics" list. Those who want to stop posting about it will apparently have to go somewhere else to discuss Celtic basketball.
Many of your opinions, though I don't always agree, have been fruitful reading in the past, but those are coming fewer and farther between. CB is losing something valuable with this continuing distraction, and two months on, it's a distraction.
And this patronizing, insulting response from you, the exalted "Forums Manager"...that I only want to be agreed with, which is an insult to character...when I'm complimenting another poster and making a plea, after two months of circular and, at times, bitter argument (as opposed to dialogue), to move onward only brings CB to yet a new low.
A few things here:
1. My tone wasn't meant as patronizing. I summarized what your argument seemed to be in a tongue-in-cheek manner (thus, the smiley), but I went on to explain my position with four paragraphs. I didn't mean to talk down to you, but since you're generally pretty logical, I did hope to get you to be self-critical of the argument you were making. Looks like that flopped. (At the same time, why are your admonitions "gentle tweaks", while my post above was a patronizing, insulting, "new low" for CelticsBlog?)
2. I don't think I was unfair to your argument. You responded to a post that essentially said "Danny did the right thing", by saying, in essence, "There are many observers who can't accept that Danny did the right thing. Until they do, the quality on this blog will be poorer." My response was that I think the blog can be a rich experience even for those who don't accept what they don't believe to be true. The world becomes a pretty boring place when everyone agrees.
3. I can't understand any viewpoint that calls out others for failure to "move on", when the poster expressing that viewpoint is actively involved in promoting their own viewpoint on the trade. As I've said multiple times now, if the goal is really to move on, start some new, non-trade topics for people to talk about, and ignore the Perk stuff. However, if people are still going to post their feelings on the trade, while telling others to move on, it comes across as a pretty shallow effort to silence those who disagree with you. Next time, if your goal is to plea with others to stop the endless bickering, then I personally think it would carry more weight if that plea wasn't attached to a statement that Danny was right.
4. Ironically enough, the majority of new / bumped threads related to Perk recently have been of the anti-Perk variety. Perhaps these are the folks who need to "move on"? I noticed several threads criticizing Perk, but I didn't see a lot of mention of Jeff Green's and Nenad Kristic's contribution to an exciting playoff victory.
5. I respect your disagreement with the way the staff moderates the blog, but I'm a bit confused by your objection to us putting an end to the term "Queen Perk". It's baiting and it's sexist. In another thread, you called the phrase "welfare queens" a pejorative; I'm not sure how this is any different. We've had pretty long-standing rules regarding baiting, and some of the insults and disparaging nicknames being thrown around lately are a textbook example.
6. Bottom line: We allow people to express whatever viewpoint they want on here, so long as it is respectful and otherwise complies with our rules. If the blog is becoming less pleasant for you because you see a lot of discussion over subjects you find distasteful, you have two options: you can try to re-direct people by helping start new interesting conversations, or you can move on.