I quite frankly don't see why that is so difficult to comprehend.
I have no difficulty comprehending it, none at all. We simply had different focuses in last night's transaction.
The rules of engagement, and your take on them, notwithstanding, I think it is still odd to feel no compassion for those who are injured and no remorse for one's role in that. LT was affected by Theisman's injury even though he was operating within the rules of engagement. He had difficulty playing the remaining downs of the game and often spoke of how, years later, he was still haunted by the experience. He thought about how, if he had just made the hit a little differently, the outcome might not have been so devastating. He told Theisman that he was sorry, even though he thought, correctly, that he had done nothing wrong. Because he felt bad about the outcome.
You successfully touched.
You didn't successfully persuade.
Your metaphor about the linebacker and the quarterback gave me an opportunity to make a point in your own terms, two points really. That the linebacker removes his weight when he quarterback cries "uncle" and that he feels bad about the broken leg even if it occurred on a legal hit and the quarterback was too scrawny to have been in the game in the first place.
I took that opportunity because I thought you might be able to acknowledge at least one of those points to someone that you recognize as not hostile to your POV on the rules of engagement, particularly given that the hostiles were apparently in the process of departing the field of play. I thought there was an outside chance that you might see that as an opportunity to do something other than restate your mantra. |
