A negative Nancy is you who went negative IMMEDIATELY after Ranch asked for no negativity. It’s a public forum so you can post whatever crap you want but you’re exposing yourself in the process.
With all due respect to you and Ranching, two members who have brought a lot to this forum, I need to make a couple points here.
First, Ranching did not ask.
Second, there seems to be a much broader, ambiguous definition of negativity that some conveniently use to shut down opposing viewpoints. An opinion might be more easily accepted if it is the only one available on the subject.
Even so, Ranching stated no "Negative Nancy's". which I took as meaning certain personalities that never have anything positive to contribute and only make unreasonable, unsubstantiated comments with little to no insight into the topic. A "Negative Nancy" is a person, not a statement.
A "negative Nancy" would say things like, "This team sucks!" or "The Cowboys will never be in another Super Bowl!"
When is candor the same as negativity? When is an honest concern about the team we all love considered negativity?
Third, this is a discussion forum. We discuss issues relating to our team. If there is disagreement then we each state our cases as best we can. It is up to each member to determine, for themselves, which argument is the more persuasive.
If someone posts a topic with the requirement that there be no no disagreement then it is not a discussion. Why post it at all? What new information or perspective will we learn from it? How does a single, unopposed perspective enrich our understanding of the topic?
In the end, the accusation of "negativity" becomes nothing more than a shield against those who disagree with an opinion that the person is not even willing to defend.
I prefer my Cowboys news, information, and diverse perpectives to be honest, true and real. If I wanted to build some fantasy idea of the Cowboys ability to compete for a championship then i would switch from watching games to playing them on a PlayStation.
