View Single Post
11-30-2012, 03:54 PM
Go on, do your duty
7even's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Georgia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,439
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
What has happened is Reality, and what people hope will happen in the future is referred to as Optimism.

Only 1 is fact based while the other is fiction at this point in time, and that is an important distinction.
What? So you're saying the future hasn't happened yet? Colour me and everyone else here surprised. I hope to get Job X. Job X requires me to have experience in fields A, B, and C. I have experience in fields A, B, and C. Job X requires a GPA of Y+. I have a GPA of Y+. Job X requires a residency of 2 years. I have 2 years of residency. I hope to get this job, and I likely will, and that's based in fact. I'm optimistic about the sun rising tomorrow. That's based in fact. I'm optimistic about graduating. That's based in fact. Optimism isn't irrationality.

Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The great Burke debate is divided by those evaluating him on his current .422 winning % and 4 straight non playoff years and on what he has done, verses those that plead for more time and patience in hopes of what the team he assembled will do in the future.
No. There's not some line in the sand. You're not either a "Burke Supporter" or a "Burke Denier." That's bizarrely black-and-white thinking. I really don't get the "us versus them" mentality that's going on here.

Originally Posted by Mess View Post
When an employer calls an employee into his office in any business and does a performance review, do you believe he is basing his evaluation on what you have done for his business since you were hired, or what he hopes you will do from this point going forward?
This is called prospective versus retrospective evaluation, and guess what? You make the same call every time you elect an official to public office. What has this person done in the past? What is he likely to do in the future? Neither is particularly more valid than the other. You need to weight them accordingly.

Originally Posted by Mess View Post
In Burke's case the actual results show the team is lower in the standings today, then when he took over the job 4 years ago. So believing the team is better on paper is an intangible debate as they're not better on the ice where it counts and is measured by the evidence in hand.
Maybe not, but this is a frightening state of mind to take. It's like you've completely dismissed any argument that takes into account the posturing of the team. And I have no idea why. It's like you're voluntarily refusing to evaluate the state of this team holistically. Why would that be?

7even is offline