Shock Talk: Melissa Granville

[SpanglerFan316]

Bye bye. :lol:

[Maggie]

Spangler,

I'll respond quickly. I am at a loss to understand why you seem to be so bent out of shape about my comments. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion and so am I – I assume. It is a minor critic of your opinion, by me, that appears to have really upset you. Also, if you want to write about honesty – stop writing stuff like this: “I don't recall saying that the team or any player should express public embarrassment.” It is good that you don’t recall writing this because I never said you did.

Anyway, here we go -- your quote, in its entirety, yet again:

I like Mel. Her comments seem too upbeat to me, however. I would think the team would be embarrassed over the loss to Pitt. And maybe PO'd about it? Of course, these are her own thoughts and maybe she (or the team) prefers to look to the future and not dwell on the past.

Let’s discuss how you expressed your opinion and how I (dis)honestly perceived it – line by line:

I like Mel. Her comments seem too upbeat to me, however. [sic – I read this as a comma not a period] I would think the team would be embarrassed over the loss to Pitt. And maybe PO'd about it?

First, “I like Mel.” I think that’s super. I don’t know Mel but from what I can tell she appears to have her head on straight.

Second - your words, my impressions in parentheses:

“Her comments seem too (excessively) upbeat to me, however (“however” in this context means “on the other hand” or “conversely” or “then again”), I would think the team would be embarrassed over the loss to Pitt (rather than being so upbeat?). And maybe PO'd about it? (they should not simply be embarrassed but angry?)”

In your opinion (your own words) Miss Granville was excessively upbeat and you suggest some other emotion would be more appropriate – like you later wrote: : “if it was me, I'd be embarrassed”. Like it or not you expressed tacit disapproval of Miss Granville’s “tone” (or, I suppose, at the very least surprise – although that is not what you wrote) seemingly in favor of your own. This, in turn, gave rise to my questions.

You continue:

“Of course, these are her own thoughts and maybe she (or the team) prefers to look to the future and not dwell on the past.”

While you suggest an obvious alternative (one that I actually supported) you express no approval or disapproval of this alternative.

[ShockCity]

Wow, you two really need to get lives!

[Maggie]

Wow, you two really need to get lives!

For the second time this week, I actually agree with you.

[SpanglerFan316]

Bye bye. :lol:

[WuDrWu]

I am in no way, shape or form speaking for Maggie, but I did not read anything in his always brilliant posts that sounded remotely close to an apology.


:wsu_posters: :goshocks: :posterwu: :posterwsu:

[SpanglerFan316]

Bye bye. :lol:

[WuDrWu]

You are rarely wrong. :D

Rarely???? When was I ever?

[SpanglerFan316]

Bye bye. :lol:

[Maggie]

Spangler,

Please accept this as an attempt to respond to your rambling public and private correspondence.

Your objection to me replacing your period with a comma, a fact upon which your entire argument now seems to precariously hinge, does nothing to advance your vendetta against me. I simply thought your sentence(s) would be better constructed by the substitution. “However” is commonly used as an adverb or a conjunction – that you intended to use the latter, of course, a reasonable person would never conclude. The definition I used is the only one that could possibly be in play – so to speak. Whether you used a comma or a period is of no consequence. In fact, now that I think about it you could even eliminate the word “however” altogether and it would not change anything.

You start off by stating that you “like” Miss Granville. While I didn’t think much of it initially, this is clearly an attempt to demonstrate some reservation about what you are about to write. As the entire world is now aware (although most wish they probably were not) you continue by stating: “Her comments seem too upbeat to me”. As I previously noted, and you ignored, “too” in this context could mean, and probably did mean, excessive. I guess this “upbeatness” (made up word) did not sit very well with you because you go on and state your own opinion about the situation: “I would think the team would be embarrassed over the loss to Pitt.” To sum up, so far, you determined that Miss Granville was too (excessively) upbeat following the loss and you would have thought the team would be embarrassed (as opposed to upbeat). But apparently embarrassment might not be sufficient, in your mind, because you take it a step further by asking a question: “And maybe PO'd about it?”

Again, any reasonable reader could easily conclude, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise, that you were questioning Miss Granville’s attitude (or “tone” as you seem to prefer) following the loss and that you were suggesting other emotions might be more appropriate. Additionally, if Miss Granville happened to share your feelings privately whether or not she should share said feelings publicly is another matter entirely.

One last comment, you wrote:

It is possible that Maggie's last post was an attempt to explain how he/she originally read my post and might be an attempt at an implicit apology. I can't tell if this interpretation is correct and it may well be wrong.

Tongue and check I’m sure – Notwithstanding, after careful consideration and a review of all my past posts related to this unwanted, unexpected and dreary exchange, I see no reason for me to offer you an apology.

Cordially,

Maggie

P.S. Editing your post to exclude your “research” on the national perception of the loss to Pittsburgh doesn’t mean much to me – I just found its inclusion curious because I never addressed that issue. But that doesn’t mean it is not important in the grand scheme of things.

[Wuzee]

Spangler,

Please accept this as an attempt to respond to your rambling public and private correspondence.

Your objection to me replacing your period with a comma, a fact upon which your entire argument now seems to precariously hinge, does nothing to advance your vendetta against me. I simply thought your sentence(s) would be better constructed by the substitution. “However” is commonly used as an adverb or a conjunction – that you intended to use the latter, of course, a reasonable person would never conclude. The definition I used is the only one that could possibly be in play – so to speak. Whether you used a comma or a period is of no consequence. In fact, now that I think about it you could even eliminate the word “however” altogether and it would not change anything.

You start off by stating that you “like” Miss Granville. While I didn’t think much of it initially, this is clearly an attempt to demonstrate some reservation about what you are about to write. As the entire world is now aware (although most wish they probably were not) you continue by stating: “Her comments seem too upbeat to me”. As I previously noted, and you ignored, “too” in this context could mean, and probably did mean, excessive. I guess this “upbeatness” (made up word) did not sit very well with you because you go on and state your own opinion about the situation: “I would think the team would be embarrassed over the loss to Pitt.” To sum up, so far, you determined that Miss Granville was too (excessively) upbeat following the loss and you would have thought the team would be embarrassed (as opposed to upbeat). But apparently embarrassment might not be sufficient, in your mind, because you take it a step further by asking a question: “And maybe PO'd about it?”

Again, any reasonable reader could easily conclude, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise, that you were questioning Miss Granville’s attitude (or “tone” as you seem to prefer) following the loss and that you were suggesting other emotions might be more appropriate. Additionally, if Miss Granville happened to share your feelings privately whether or not she should share said feelings publicly is another matter entirely.

One last comment, you wrote:

It is possible that Maggie's last post was an attempt to explain how he/she originally read my post and might be an attempt at an implicit apology. I can't tell if this interpretation is correct and it may well be wrong.

Tongue and check I’m sure – Notwithstanding, after careful consideration and a review of all my past posts related to this unwanted, unexpected and dreary exchange, I see no reason for me to offer you an apology.

Cordially,

Maggie

P.S. Editing your post to exclude your “research” on the national perception of the loss to Pittsburgh doesn’t mean much to me – I just found its inclusion curious because I never addressed that issue. But that doesn’t mean it is not important in the grand scheme of things.

http://quu.nu/hlie98

[SpanglerFan316]

Bye bye. :lol:

[Snapshot9]

Are you two submitting this little repartee' as a thesis for a graduate degree?

Yes, the loss to Pittsburgh is embarrasing, IMHO.

[Maggie]

I will ignore your future posts.

Spangler, I love you too (“too” as in “also”).

Thank you for saving me a bit of time today and, hopefully, in the future as well.

Have a wonderful holiday weekend.

[Wuzee]

As predicted, Maggie got the last word. (I hope)