OT: Curt Schilling sacked by ESPN

[curmudgeon]

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big- ... 9660.html#

Just wondering??? What would happen if an ESPN lackey voiced an opinion supporting the issue that Curt opposes on air, what would happen??..........

[c_hawkbob]

Obviously nothing. I think ESPN has made their stance on the issue clear.

[burrrton]

Now just thinking dudes shouldn't be able to shower with my daughters is racist. Or sexist. Or whatever the pet offense is this week.

This country has lost its f*cking mind, the perfect bookend to our "Missionaries" thread.

Admiral Painter: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

[obiken]

Burry you cannot be as far right as Curt Shilling and post political stuff and keep your job, period. Not and work for a major network. I don't like the guy but he knows his goop. I am just not much of a Baseball fan to care. He is Ted Cruz, my big sister Mary, Sarah Palin, trying to play two fields at once.

[burrrton]

Obi, I'm not really protesting the firing- I'm of the mind that you just have to keep your politics completely to yourself if you want to keep a public job anymore.

However, that doesn't dismiss the larger issue of how unspeakably ridiculous society has become.

Not only is acceptance required, but fealty is demanded, and not just of rather reasonable positions like "This guy is genuinely attracted to that guy, so let their union be called a marriage" (which is philosophically impossible to argue against, and which I support), but also of "This guy was born with XY chromosomes and a penis, but he's *sure* he's a woman so let him shower with your daughters" (which is scientifically unsupportable, and which I will never, *ever* support).

In 2016, a large portion of society expects that any jackass that puts on a dress should be able to legally climb in the shower with any group of women or girls he chooses- nothing is required of him except to say he "identifies" as something he's not.

Not only is it wrong, and will lead to violence against them, but it's going to undermine legitimate claims of homosexuals for acceptance.

[HumanCockroach]

Sure you can Obi. It just has to be one that encourages it. Fox News could certainly do something with Schilling... I even have a couple workable names...

Out of right field?

How about.... High inside heat?

Chin Music?

Strike Three?

Could give them a platform to reach people who have little interest in politics, but love sports, and are conservative. As well as giving Curt a platform for his clearly strong conservative opinions. There's major networks out there looking for exactly what he brings, just not one that markets to all people..

[obiken]

Obi, I'm not really protesting the firing- I'm of the mind that you just have to keep your politics completely to yourself if you want to keep a public job anymore.

However, that doesn't dismiss the larger issue of how unspeakably ridiculous society has become.

Not only is acceptance required, but fealty is demanded, and not just of rather reasonable positions like "This guy is genuinely attracted to that guy, so let their union be called a marriage" (which is philosophically impossible to argue against, and which I support), but also of "This guy was born with XY chromosomes and a penis, but he's *sure* he's a woman so let him shower with your daughters" (which is scientifically unsupportable, and which I will never, *ever* support).

In 2016, a large portion of society expects that any jackass that puts on a dress should be able to legally climb in the shower with any group of women or girls he chooses- nothing is required of him except to say he "identifies" as something he's not.

Not only is it wrong, and will lead to violence against them, but it's going to undermine legitimate claims of homosexuals for acceptance.

No doubt there's a line there like with everything.

[monkey]

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/espn-fires-curt-schilling-after-latest-controversy-000359660.html#

Just wondering??? What would happen if an ESPN lackey voiced an opinion supporting the issue that Curt opposes on air, what would happen??..........

He'd get promoted.
Didn't you know that we're no longer ALLOWED to disagree? No one can, not publicly, certainly not at your place of employment. Not if you don't wan to get terminated anyway.
You may not get jailed (yet) for disagreeing but that is coming soon.
Just ask those 17 idiot Attorney Generals (one from Washington, and one from my current home state of Minnesota) who are trying to make it a punishable offense to disagree with the idea of man made global warming...err....cooling....err...climate change, (whatever they want to call it now, since there has been no warming since 1995). They want to actually make it a LAW, that you have to think a certain way or you will be fined, and or other punishments.
These are attorney generals.

[NorthHawk]

As a broadcaster with an audience, you can't contradict the company policy. It's that simple.
If ESPN had Schillings policy and he said the opposite, he would be fired for cause as well.

ESPN and all companies try to create an image to attract and keep customers. If a high profile employee undercuts the efforts to create or maintain that image (no matter what that image is), his employment would probably be terminated or he severely demoted or suspended. It really doesn't matter what the violation is. The bottom line is it could effect the image of the company and the finances from advertisement revenue, and that will get you fired more times than not.

[HumanCockroach]

To be fair as well, this isn't Schillings first issue with this type of stuff. He's been warned multiple times by ESPN to avoid these topics, ultimately, Schilling knew either this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, or something else would. Either he felt strongly enough to lose his job, or he wanted out anyway, either way, this didn't come as some sort of shock to him.

[burrrton]

To be fair as well, this isn't Schillings first issue with this type of stuff.

True, but let's be clear- it's not the "wading into controversy" aspect that got him fired (not saying you necessarily believe that, just pointing this out). It's, as North said, that he's not toeing the company line.

Many other ESPN personalities have said controversial things, but they were things ESPN management (apparently) agreed with. They disagree with Curt, and that's what got him fired.

Kinda sh*tty, but that's the world we live in now. People get fired for their (rather mainstream) political views.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

This a price to pay for having social media. One has to be very careful about anything they say or do that may end up on these.

[obiken]

Imus in the Morning is a perfect example.

[NorthHawk]

This a price to pay for having social media. One has to be very careful about anything they say or do that may end up on these.

It's just a tool to communicate, how Social Media is used is important.
35 - 40 years ago when I was at the beginning of my career, if people were out of step with the company and said so in front of the boss, they'd be sent off down the road.
You are in effect talking to the boss as well as a wider audience when using Social Media and therefore a larger possibility of making the top brass uncomfortable if you stray outside of the company lines.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I agree NorthHawk. Social media isn't the culprit, but you can just as easily die by it as live by it.

[RiverDog]

[It's (social media) just a tool to communicate, how Social Media is used is important.
35 - 40 years ago when I was at the beginning of my career, if people were out of step with the company and said so in front of the boss, they'd be sent off down the road.
You are in effect talking to the boss as well as a wider audience when using Social Media and therefore a larger possibility of making the top brass uncomfortable if you stray outside of the company lines.

Social media is a game changer. It used to be that after work, you'd go down to the bar with the guys, talk trash about the company to all in the establishment that cared to listen, and go back to work the next morning and still have your job. Even if someone from top management were to catch wind of your tirade, he would be challenged to prove it.

Nowadays, you don't express yourself at the local bar or in the barber shop. You do it over Facebook or Twitter. It's instantaneous and documented. You can't change your story or deny what you said. If you have a big mouth nowadays, you pay for it.

I agree with what burrton is saying. Our society is FUBAR. But I also think that ESPN was fully within their rights, both legally and ethically, to fire Schilling.

[savvyman]

No dissenting political and social opinions to what the norm is or what society currently believes must be protected everywhere - including the workplace. This is one of the pillars of a free society is freedom of speech. The cost of this freedom is having to hear opinions that an individual might find disturbing. This is a small price to pay. At one time "disturbing opinions" were black people should be able to attend any school or live in any neighborhood, women should be able to work in any profession, gay people should be able to be public with their relationships ans should be treated equally. We as citizens of the USA must be vigilant to always protect the rights of citizens to speak as they believe without consequences of punishment. ESPN should re-instate Schilling.

[NorthHawk]

No dissenting political and social opinions to what the norm is or what society currently believes must be protected everywhere - including the workplace. This is one of the pillars of a free society is freedom of speech. The cost of this freedom is having to hear opinions that an individual might find disturbing. This is a small price to pay. At one time "disturbing opinions" were black people should be able to attend any school or live in any neighborhood, women should be able to work in any profession, gay people should be able to be public with their relationships ans should be treated equally. We as citizens of the USA must be vigilant to always protect the rights of citizens to speak as they believe without consequences of punishment. ESPN should re-instate Schilling.

The examples you gave are all examples of inclusion and acceptance. Schillings were of isolation and discrimination which apparently violate ESPN company policy. Even if on his own time, he was still a representative of the network and if he had previously been warned as suggested previously, he deserved to be fired. Individual freedoms are fine until they hurt an innocent person or group.

[burrrton]

Schillings were of isolation and discrimination

Wha?? He expressed that he thought men should shower and sht in men's restrooms, and women should do so in women's. That cannot be fairly characterized as isolation and discrimination even if you believe people should be able to choose where they shower and sht.

Nobody is isolated and/or discriminated against when they're told to stick to the locker room matching their anatomy. It's the opposite of that, in fact.

[FolkCrusader]

So let's get this straight, Burrrton. A sales rep works for you representing a company you built block by block for 30 years. One day he decides to insult a small group of your customers, just using his freedom of speech. No big deal, you are all for freedom of speech. So we close the books for the month and our sales are off 5% over projection. Hmm. Next month, same thing. So you call a few old customers and ask why they stopped doing business with you. "Well Burt" they say, "we liked doing business with you but your new sales rep insulted us and several other customers. We decided to look elsewhere for a vendor." In conversation your former customers might be willing to come back, but you are not willing to let your sales rep go (because of freedom of speech and all) so they decide not to.

You talk with the sale rep and say hey, you know I don't want to tread on your ability to say stuff but when you insulted those customers we ended up losing half my profit for the month. This hurts. Could you maybe be more careful next time? But of course the following month the sales rep not only insults the customers he insulted before, but he insults anyone who was offended by his insults. So this month closes and you are off 15% over projection. On top of that friends and family members are bringing you twitter and facebook reports that say *you* must feel this way as well since you are allowing your sales rep to insult this group repeatedly.

So now you are losing money, you try to get new customers to replace your lost customers but the marketspace you work in is pretty full and acquiring new customers is expensive. So, you go to the bank to get a credit line so you can fund a sale to get more customers but shoot, wouldn't you know the VP at the bank is part of the 5% your sales rep insulted and he knows all about what happened. He replies "He would love to help but Bank of Billions is an inclusive business and we don't want to be associated with non-inclusive businesses. We lose too much money you see." Yeah you are seeing this all too well.

The next month sales are off 20% because of course your sales rep is still freedom of speaking. You call up one of your oldest customers that stopped doing business with you months ago. You say Bud what do I do? And Bud says "Fire the damn sales rep, most of us would rather do business with you but we are not going to be insulted by your employee. Freedom of speech or no."

Pretty sure your belief in freedom of speaking dies that day. If not, it dies for your wife who gets 51% of the business in your divorce and fires the sale rep the next day.

[burrrton]

So let's get this straight, Burrrton. A sales rep works for you representing a company you built block by block for 30 years. One day he decides to insult a small group of your customers, just using his freedom of speech. No big deal, you are all for freedom of speech. So we close the books for the month and our sales are off 5% over projection. Hmm. Next month, same thing. So you call a few old customers and ask why they stopped doing business with you. "Well Burt" they say, "we liked doing business with you but your new sales rep insulted us and several other customers. We decided to look elsewhere for a vendor." In conversation your former customers might be willing to come back, but you are not willing to let your sales rep go (because of freedom of speech and all) so they decide not to.

You talk with the sale rep and say hey, you know I don't want to tread on your ability to say stuff but when you insulted those customers we ended up losing half my profit for the month. This hurts. Could you maybe be more careful next time? But of course the following month the sales rep not only insults the customers he insulted before, but he insults anyone who was offended by his insults. So this month closes and you are off 15% over projection. On top of that friends and family members are bringing you twitter and facebook reports that say *you* must feel this way as well since you are allowing your sales rep to insult this group repeatedly.

So now you are losing money, you try to get new customers to replace your lost customers but the marketspace you work in is pretty full and acquiring new customers is expensive. So, you go to the bank to get a credit line so you can fund a sale to get more customers but shoot, wouldn't you know the VP at the bank is part of the 5% your sales rep insulted and he knows all about what happened. He replies "He would love to help but Bank of Billions is an inclusive business and we don't want to be associated with non-inclusive businesses. We lose too much money you see." Yeah you are seeing this all too well.

The next month sales are off 20% because of course your sales rep is still freedom of speaking. You call up one of your oldest customers that stopped doing business with you months ago. You say Bud what do I do? And Bud says "Fire the damn sales rep, most of us would rather do business with you but we are not going to be insulted by your employee. Freedom of speech or no."

Pretty sure your belief in freedom of speaking dies that day. If not, it dies for your wife who gets 51% of the business in your divorce and fires the sale rep the next day.

I'm honestly laughing out loud. MAN you wasted a lot of time typing thinking you had a point there (I was careful to quote it all so everyone can see what an elaborate scenario you created).

I don't think ESPN violated Curt's "free speech" firing his ass. If you impact an employer's bottom line, or if the employer *thinks you might* impact their bottom line, they're entirely justified in dumping you.

I lament only that such benign attitudes as Curt's are considered fireable offenses now.

[FolkCrusader]

I'm honestly laughing out loud. MAN you wasted a lot of time typing thinking you had a point there (I was careful to quote it all so everyone can see what an elaborate scenario you created).

I don't think ESPN violated Curt's "free speech" firing his ass. If you impact an employer's bottom line, or if the employer *thinks you might* impact their bottom line, they're entirely justified in dumping you.

I lament only that such benign attitudes are considered fireable offenses now.

Perhaps you and I differ, it doesn't take me that long to type out a few sentences.

But you said "Many other ESPN personalities have said controversial things, but they were things ESPN management (apparently) agreed with. They disagree with Curt, and that's what got him fired. Kinda sh*tty, but that's the world we live in now. People get fired for their (rather mainstream) political views."

Just pointing out the views had little to do with it other than the fact that they were insulting. It's just dollars and cents. Plenty of people have voiced their view supporting these laws without losing their job. Disagreeing is not the issue, being disrespectful is.

[burrrton]

Perhaps you and I differ, it doesn't take me that long to type out a few sentences.

A few sentences? You used a little over 500 words there. I type all day every day, so I'm ~90wpm or so, but no matter how fast you type, that's a lot of composition to convey an irrelevant scenario.

Just pointing out the views had little to do with it other than the fact that they were insulting.

Go read what he said again and tell me what you think a majority of ESPN viewers (or the country at large, or you) would find outrageous.

[FolkCrusader]

A few sentences? You used a little over 500 words there. I type all day every day, so I'm ~90wpm or so, but no matter how fast you type, that's a lot of composition to convey an irrelevant scenario.

Go read what he said again and tell me what you think a majority of ESPN viewers (or the country at large, or you) would find outrageous.

Ok man, I'll be sure to write less next time. I didn't realize that the number of words in a post would be so vexing for you.

As far as what he wrote. He shared a meme and commented on it. ESPN, and others found that meme to be insulting. It ridiculously overstates the issue. Do I find it or what he said insulting? No, probably not. I just find it stupid.

[kalibane]

There is a difference between voicing your political views and being inflammatory by propagating negative stereo types. If Schilling had just stated that he supports the Carolina law he may not have been popular, but nothing would have happened to him.

Instead he found the most ridiculous looking picture of a man wearing women's clothing he could and acted like it was representative of the trans community. That guy may not have even been trans btw. It's like using a picture of Sambo to make a political point regarding black people. That's where he crossed the line and the combination of that and his track record just makes him more of a headache than they're willing to deal with.

ESPN has always taken the stance that no one is bigger than the brand. The moment you become too much of a distraction you're out. Ask Bill Simmons, Keith Olberman and Dan Patrick. Those guys were more popular, brought more viewers and had zero political baggage to contend with when they were let go initially (obviously Olberman has picked up baggage since his first dismissal).

[burrrton]

I didn't realize that the number of words in a post would be so vexing for you.

Vexed?? No. Just entertained when it had no point.

Yeah, the meme was stupid, but again, what he said can hardly be considered so controversial as to be a fireable offense.

To be fair to ESPN, though, I do think it's a valid point that they could just find someone who obviously likes stirring the pot too much of a headache, and they're well within their right, legally and morally, to decide to let him go.

[burrrton]

If Schilling had just stated that he supports the Carolina law he may not have been popular, but nothing would have happened to him.

I tend to agree, but society at large gives us plenty of precedent indicating otherwise, too (eg. Mozilla CEO).

Instead he found the most ridiculous looking picture of a man wearing women's clothing he could and acted like it was representative of the trans community. That guy may not have even been trans btw.

So we're back to being able to decide who's a 'real' trannie and who isn't?

ESPN has always taken the stance that no one is bigger than the brand.

This is true (although they have been a little uneven in what they tolerate, so hypocrisy charges aren't entirely baseless).

[kalibane]

So we're back to being able to decide who's a 'real' trannie and who isn't?

The point is this is not a picture typical of a trans person. They went and found a completely inaccurate representation of a trans person in order to stoke fear. It's far likelier that the person in the photo is someone with severe mental issues or is just in costume. It's the same ugly tactic people used in the past against black men, portraying them as sex crazed predators who obsessed with savaging white women.

An actual accurate representation of what is going to happen now as a result of this law is people who look like this will now be required to use the same bathroom as your daughter. Because this is an ACTUAL trans man who was born a female.



I understand that people don't like trans women being able to use the same bathroom as women for various reasons. That doesn't mean you need to resort to that kind of ridiculous and baseless stereotyping.

[burrrton]

An actual accurate representation of what is going to happen now as a result of this law is people who look like this will now be required to use the same bathroom as your daughter. Because this is an ACTUAL trans man who was born a female.

There aren't really any easy answers, but do you think it's better for a 10yo girl to have to shower or piss next to a man-ish looking person with a vagina, or a feminine looking person with a penis??

Neither is going to be fully comfortable for her, but I can guarantee you which would be more traumatizing.

To be clear, I don't think trans people themselves are really the biggest issue (I think most are sincere and would rather avoid exposure, etc). However, when you open up locker rooms and bathrooms to such indefinable criteria, you're granting everyone access to any locker room they want, and I'm sorry, but that's a bridge too far.

Of course that meme is over the top, but ask yourself: if that dude walked up to the women's locker room door and said he "identified" as female, on what basis are you going to deny him access?

Easiest solution: just shower where your plumbing directs you- if you really "identify" as a woman, get the surgery. Short of that, stay the fck out of my daughters' showers.

[HumanCockroach]

Regardless of the opinion, at what point did it become necessary to voice those opinions to the world? Schillings issue wasn't having the opinion, it was expressing it in a way that insulted a large group of people, from a platform that ESPN created for him.

This is the world we live in, and having to toe the company line isn't some new thing, it is just easier for a company to see when an employee isn't. Schilling has no one to blame but himself in this instance.

[burrrton]

Regardless of the opinion, at what point did it become necessary to voice those opinions to the world?

I'm guessing these might serve as pretty good timestamps:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2535150

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/unive ... rdes-seleh

[kalibane]

if that dude walked up to the women's locker room door and said he "identified" as female, on what basis are you going to deny him access?

It's a worthless question to ask because whether liars will try to exploit it or not, no man trying to exploit the situation is going to go to the lengths of looking like the guy in that picture in order to gain entry with the ironic exception of someone who support's Schilling's point of view and wants to make a symbolic point. That's one of the problems. The open shower room hypothetical I get but outside of that I see a bunch of people throwing around hypotheticals that are never going to happen.

For instance... how is your daughter going to be traumatized from seeing a penis by pissing next to a trans woman? Women's bathrooms have individual stalls. She is not going to see what her hypothetical neighbor is packing, one way or the other?

I agree there may not be a simple solution but there are different ways to go about things and I don't find Schilling's way to be particularly tasteful. I get why it would be offensive to the trans community and I get why ESPN is just over him at this point. That's all I'm saying.

[burrrton]

I agree there may not be a simple solution but there are different ways to go about things and I don't find Schilling's way to be particularly tasteful. I get why it would be offensive to the trans community and I get why ESPN is just over him at this point. That's all I'm saying.

We don't disagree there, kal.

Regarding the bathroom stalls, of course those situations where everything is entirely private won't be an issue for our hypothetical 10yo girl. But a law granting access to people based merely on "identification" doesn't just apply to private stalls- it applies to everything.

As such, test cases where complete privacy *won't* be maintained are what's relevant to consider.

You can say they'll never happen all you want, but I think that's already being proven false, and more importantly, they *can* happen and it's being codified as legal.

[HumanCockroach]

Top
Re: OT: Curt Schilling sacked by ESPN
by burrrton » Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:59 am

Regardless of the opinion, at what point did it become necessary to voice those opinions to the world?


I'm guessing these might serve as pretty good timestamps:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2535150

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/unive ... rdes-seleh

burrrton
Legacy

Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:20 am

I wasn't speaking solely of this particular opinion, but the "need" of people to express all opinions with the world. Good, bad, indifferent opinions used to be shared with people you knew. The issue isn't having the opinion, it's sharing it with every single person.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a man in the restroom with my daughter, that said, I do not feel the need to insult every transgender person I can find to share that feeling, I don't need to post fanatical, inflammatory photos on every social network available, nor spout a bunch of hate on them to people defending it. I'm a fairly tolerant person, and to be honest I could care less about creating a "third" restroom that is "non sex specific", my concerns on the matter is the safety and well being of my daughter, I am concerned with predators using this as a loophole to have access to my child, that's the ONLY issue I really have, but it IMHO is a pretty big one.

[burrrton]

I'm a fairly tolerant person, and to be honest I could care less about a "third" restroom that is "non sex specific"

That's another solution I could support. Pretty expensive for a fraction of a percent of our population, though.

[Hawktawk]

Whatever happened to the first amendment in this country? Why in the hell can our employers yank if from us, especially if we voice a conservative, traditional American values position?

As a GCS I attended my spring meeting and we had a media guy warning all of us to say nothing controversial on social media. I told him I push the envelope quite a bit. I'm a flipping golf turf janitor for chrissakes and I can't voice an opinion about lets say the most bizarre election cycle , the most insane time we have ever lived in this country?Or this insanity of allowing whoever to go wherever they feel most at home to do their thing!!!!

Its really no different in most industries. If you have a job don't say anything on social media. So i guess that leaves the far left sitting on their ass taking my tax dollars to spew their anti american anarchist BS all day long. WTH????

[NorthHawk]

Whatever happened to the first amendment in this country? Why in the hell can our employers yank if from us, especially if we voice a conservative, traditional American values position?

As a GCS I attended my spring meeting and we had a media guy warning all of us to say nothing controversial on social media. I told him I push the envelope quite a bit. I'm a flipping golf turf janitor for chrissakes and I can't voice an opinion about lets say the most bizarre election cycle , the most insane time we have ever lived in this country?Or this insanity of allowing whoever to go wherever they feel most at home to do their thing!!!!

Its really no different in most industries. If you have a job don't say anything on social media. So i guess that leaves the far left sitting on their ass taking my tax dollars to spew their anti american anarchist BS all day long. WTH????

Rights have limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater (when there isn't one).
Someone much brighter than me once said your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. We aren't talking about physical actions here, but it's a metaphor that seems to fit.
One good thing about social media is people's ignorance is on display, however businesses have a right to separate employees that continue to spout ignorance from their company or brand.
It's not about free speech at that point, it's about money and a business's freedom to include everyone as a customer. If your employees cause you to lose business or limit your profit potential, the businesses are within their rights to remove that someone who is limiting their success or tarnishing their brand.

[burrrton]

If your employees cause you to lose business or limit your profit potential, the businesses are within their rights to remove that someone who is limiting their success or tarnishing their brand.

They certainly are, but I don't think profits are what motivated ESPN here- I'd be willing to bet there are vastly more people who think men should stay out of the women's locker room than support unfettered access based on "identity" only, especially among those who watch sports regularly.

I think the decision makers simply disagreed with him and/or grew tired of controversy.

[NorthHawk]

They want to have an image that welcomes everybody. If one of their employees pops off publicly that some are not welcome, it becomes an issue.
As well, an employee that creates controversy by definition divides people and in a business where a small percentage probably means millions of dollars, they have to remove that person to ensure the money train isn't in any way derailed or limited.

[burrrton]

They want to have an image that welcomes everybody.

Respectfully disagree. They're potentially alienating far more people defending men having access to women's locker rooms. In fact, you can count me among them at the moment.

If Curt had been talking about wanting trannys thrown in prison or something bizarre (that nobody but the most rabid could defend), your point would be valid. As it is, though, his position was crassly presented, but is hardly out of the mainstream.

[edit]

Yeah, that crass presentation could be argued to be alienating, though, so your point is valid if you feel it was that egregious.