So I am away from the Interwebz for a few days, doing more important things, and I log back on to discover this gem:
Now, I know all the people involved and get along well with all of them. But whenever there is strife in the world of velocipedes, it is the job of Guadzilla to come in and restore peace, sanity and the allure of bling.
So with that, let me get in my few cents - I hope it does not upset any of my friends, but the Guads demand a correct verdict, without being biased by personal feelings. So here goes.
1/ The original post is a very valid point. Blindly applauding everything is not always the appropriate thing to do. Note - no one has said that ALL encouragement is bad: only that some of the encouragement is often ill-advised and that always being a rah-rah, pom-pom waving cheerleader is not always a good thing. Does anyone really disagree with this? No, I thought not. Dont bother trying to justify any encouragement you may have provided. Supporting a beginner athlete with his achievements is NOT the same as blindly saying "good job" to everything. If you can think of atleast a few cases where blind encouragement is bad, then the OP is valid. QED and the Guads will brook no more argument here.
2/ The post about it being a "brant" is a personal attack. Period. The OP's motives are not up for discussion, and it doesn't really matter WHY he posted what he did. Discuss the point raised, don't attack the OP for why he raised it.
2a) Brant - great word.
2b) The Guads don't think the OP is guilty of bragging. When you achieve a certain level of excellence in something, you have earned the right to challenge others and even use your own achievements as an example. It isn't bragging when you can walk the walk. It is called "stating facts." The Guads dont like false modesty.
3/ The response to "some types of encouragement are bad" is not "so why are you here". That is again attacking the person, not refuting the message. Besides, it is illogical. There is a big difference between not liking some aspects of Dailymile and finding it completely worthless.
4/ Again, the OP's comment is extrapolated to the extreme - "it is a social forum so if you want silence, go somewhere else". Saying "some encouragement is bad" is not the same as saying "all encouragement is bad." Logic fail.
5/ More personal attacks, calling the OP delusional - not cool. Very defensive and emotional. To be honest, I think the OP showed a lot of restraint despite repeated unwarranted personal attacks. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the way the Guads see it, and the Guads dont let personal prejudices come in the way of saying what needs to be said.
6/ Encouraging someone for taking the baby steps is not a bad thing, and I challenge anyone to show me where the OP said it was. People, stop clouding the issue by setting up strawmen or jousting at windmills. Argue the point that was made - viz, the blind encouragement on DM can, and does, lead to people encouraging training which is not appropriate.
7/ Was "fuck you" appropriate? After a bunch of repeated and somewhat excessive personal attacks, being told to STFU is fair game. Maybe a little excessive, but whatever - on the interwebz, we are all just names and the Web has its own code of conduct. However, this is the least relevant issue.
What the Guads find interesting is how many people seem to have gotten their panties in a wad and over-reacted when told that not everything is worthy of encouragement. Despite repeated clarifications from the OP, people kept putting words into his mouth and arguing against it.
As a society, we are a little too careful about saying anything that might be construed as confrontational or offensive. Everything is applauded. I've had people say "good ride" to exceptionally mediocre achievements, even by my relative low standards. Well, the Guads say "fuck it" to that whole mindset. Let's have the intellectual clarity and logical rigorousness (is that even a word?) to challenge our thinking, and separate the person from the point.
Even if this WAS a brant, was it invalid? No. Argue the point, people, dont attack the person. Even if you dont like the delivery style, have the intellectual integrity to separate the delivery style from the content.
So in summary - the Guads rule in favor of the OP.