Post Game - Dallas, Home

The word "apologist is not insulting.
It is neither positive nor negative.

Those are the facts.

If anyone wants to take offense where none was intended and where none exists, that's not my problem.

Berlin-T wrote:The word "apologist is not insulting.
It is neither positive nor negative.

Those are the facts.

If anyone wants to take offense where none was intended and where none exists, that's not my problem.

Sure, a word in and of itself doesn't necessarily have to define any sort of positive or negative recognition, but the way a word is used can alter its meaning as well as it's interpretation. From what I've seen, people typically use "apologist" as an insult. Otherwise, they'd just say "supporter."


KJ

sam wrote:In that post, I can't see any intent to focus the word "apologists" on any particular person.  Moreover, the word "apologist" is defined by Merriam Webster as "a person who defends or supports something that is being criticized or attacked."  There's nothing mentioned about the term's implying anything other than a descriptive fact.

This is a frustrating time for Celtics fans.  I suggest that we all bend over backwards to cut one another some slack when it appears that posts may be influenced by a little more emotion than we'd ordinarily expect.  As a moderator, the most important governing rule is still: "Don't make it personal."

Sam

Sam

It was used in a way to insult KJ.

He was referred to as an apologist for Rondo.  Calling someone an apologist is an insult.  

It is not personal but certainly fuels the fire for animosity.  Same as when I referred to Kleen as a basher because it appeared to me that he was piling on with the leadership comments about Rondo.  I should not have referred to him that way.  That was not productive.  

The fact is that regardless of which side of the fence we may find ourselves on, no one on this board or anyone else will be able to evaluate all the changes that have occurred with the Celtics until much further down the road.  

There must continue to be fair and balanced debates where differing opinions reflect a degree of restraint.  

dboss

too much ado about nothing guys

Dboss,

I see no indication that any specific person was an intended target for Berlin's comment. The fact that he used the plural (apologistS") would seem to buttress my takeaway. I've already presented dictionary evidence (as contrasted with personal opinion) that there's nothing particularly egregious in the term although the way it's employed can refine the meaning.

I agree that the word "apologist" is virtually never used in a positive sense. The question is how much it was used in a negative sense. My judgment, as the moderator of this board, is that it described a group of people with (at the very most) a touch of disapproval but without intended malice—the same as the words "Rondo naysayers" in the post that immediately followed. In short, I don't believe either post "made it personal" or was intentionally insulting.

Dboss, if you want to pursue this, I suggest that we take it off the board via private message.

Sam

Sam

No need to do that.

Dboss

Dboss,

Whatever, you say. Thanks for reading my diatribe.

Sam