The bottom line here is you had two choices in how to arrange this podcast you seek, and you chose the wrong one.

There are links on the front page and the message boards on how to get in touch with us. You know they’re there, you used them to complain about your bad deletes in the past. You could have used one of them to send us a politely-worded email suggesting the online debate and laying out how it would work. The three of us would have talked about it and decided whether or not it met our schedules (since we all have other jobs and families) or otherwise was a good idea. Your status as a banned poster probably wouldn’t have helped, but we would have considered it, and might even have done it had we thought the whole thing was being handled in a mature manner.

You, on the other hand, chose to slip a snarky request chock full of half-truths into the comments in a blog article, including the almost mandatory insinuation that we “can’t handle contrary opinions”. That way, if we decided not to do it, the request was public, so you could go back to whatever site you post on and crow about how the NDN board ops are “scared of you” or whatever. Because that was almost as big a goal (if not bigger) than getting us to appear on the podcast to begin with. Win-win for you, in your mind.

Vannie can decide to do whatever he wants, I’ll bring this little exchange to his attention. But I’m choosing not to “debate” you not because I’m somehow scared of you, but because, based on how you’ve behaved on our boards and on this page, you’re an asshole. I have to deal with enough assholes in real life. I’m not about to voluntarily spend time with another.

Nice story. The only trouble with it is even though you claim you were “never a regular”, you registered for the site in February of 2009 and got banned in November of 2011. If you’re suggesting you were so prescient that you knew you were going to need to “respond to the posting that was taking place” on that day, Ms. Cleo, well, that’s your boggle.

As I said, you weren’t banned because of a couple bad deletes — not even enough to get suspended — but because of the obnoxious emails you sent in response to them. Had you asked to have your handle turned off or otherwise “accepted the choice” not to post here, your handle would be inactive, not banned. That’s why we have both statuses, so we can remember which side prompted the decision. Since you’ve now reprised your obnoxious tone in the “still cannot handle an open discussion” snark, methinks I have all the evidence I need.

There are plenty of people on the site who post contrary opinions. What they do that you did not is handle themselves in a way that doesn’t cause us problems and force us to clean up messes on the board. If we’re “notorious” for anything, it’s removing posters that act like pains in the ass and make our jobs more difficult.

In any event, we’re not about to bring hit count to whatever podcast you operate. You want to “debate” me, call in to Mike Frank’s postgame show when I’m on and I’ll be happy to do so.

Having Mike Frank or Dome and Domer hosting the debate would be fine, if you are worried about format and fairness. There are plenty of podcast formats available. Heck – I would be fine with Mike Frank acting as Moderator, if that will make you feel more comfortable.

If you doubt that one of your members made recommendations to me as to who would be good candidates for debate – I can have that person confirm it for you or show you copies of what was provided to me. I was never a regular on this Site, and I did not know who is who until I was informed.

I post on another Site. When I showed up in October, as you mention, it was in reaction to hearing about the posting that was taking place here at that time. And the posting that I did then is no different from posts I have done here in response to this Article – you can read them. When I was informed that my posts violated the Site standards and that I needed to change or be banned – I politely replied that such standards were not acceptable to me – in effect, accepting the banning choice. This Site is quite notorious for banning contrary opinions.

If you still cannot handle an open discussion where you confront a contrary opinion – that’s fine, but you needn’t make up excuses for ducking a debate.

Let me get this straight. You, under the handle “Artful Dodger” (and don’t try to deny it, the email address and IP addresses match), got a couple bad deletes last October, sent the Ops obnoxious emails in response, and got yourself banned as a result. But now you come on here alleging you’re relying on “someone related to you” and “a reliable source” for info on how the site works, asking if there’s “a JT or Across”, like you don’t already know who those posters are since they’ve been with us for years?

Given that rather shameless level of disingenuity, how big a grain of salt should I take with your assertion that this alleged podcast will be a “fair/neutral format”? Maybe if you’d been straightforward from the get-go, it might have had a chance. But a transparent attempt to draw our audience to whatever group you operate with for what you think will be some kind of ambush? Not going to happen.

I podcast with Dome and Domer frequently, and appear on a lot of Mike Frank’s post-game shows along with the occasional Power Hour. That’s all the podcasting I feel like doing. You want to debate me, call in to one of those shows.

I would guess you’d be better off clicking on the contact ops button on the message boards than guessing they might see a blog comment buried more than halfway down.

This is exactly right – I agree with El K. The question shouldn’t be about the choosing of a kid to play QB (which places the too much onus on players) but on Kelly’s ability to develop QBs and structure a gameplan that puts the players in a position to succeed. While “finding” and “choosing” players may be appropriate for the first year (and the pros – which is a model we too often import), it isn’t the right model for 18-22 yr olds. Systemic mistakes fall on the coach and we’ve seen too many of those.