Beau Allen

Submitted by wolverinepride on September 9th, 2009 at 1:47 AM

Says he has an offer from Mich. Has some decent offers, he is a DT prospect. I know we could use all we could get. Just passing it on.



September 9th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^

I was under the impression that we were done w/ DT unless Shariff Floyd wanted to commit as well. I think a lot of these players might have offers that are no longer committable.


September 9th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^

And a link would provide additional credibility to the assertions. It's fairly standard operating procedure when relaying information, even if it's not explicitly spelled out as a guideline. jg2112 noted this politely and respectfully. There is no problem with it.

No offense, but sometimes you can be a little pedantic and annoying.


September 9th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^

That's strange . . . I was pointing out the fact that the previous post was pedantic. So if I'm pedantic for making that observation, doesn't that also make you pedantic for making that observation about me?

Anyway, basically saying "Don't post unless you have a link or the kid's social security number" is probably crossing the line for a message board. It's a message board, not the Free Pr-I mean, Wall Street Journal.

Again, he gave a name and some info and asked a question about what this means for our other DT prospects. I don't think adding a link to the kid's recruiting profile is necessary. I don't see TomVH linking every recruit's webpage and that seems to be just fine...


September 9th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^

There is very little about him on rivals. This offer was behind a pay wall that i pay to see, and even then there was very little. All i was attempting to do was pass on that there might be another DT that we were pursuing that was not listed on our boards here. And as for the rest i was trying to follow the rules set down by Brian and just pass on some news that i pay out of pocket to see


September 9th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^

jg2112's post was helpful. It pointed out something that might be useful in editing the post or simply for the OP's future reference, as opposed to a merely policing the board for trivial matters. Notice the way the comment was phrased. It did not simply assert that the OP was defective for failing to conform with generally accepted custom. Instead, it suggested that a link would provide more content or information to the post. And, in my opinion, added credibility to the assertions.

Your response to him narrowly focused on his supposed policing of the board. Instead of accounting for how the comment was phrased or how the comment might, in fact, be helpful, you focused on an otherwise minor, unimportant aspect of the comment over what you already perceive is a trivial matter and chastised him for it. You were being pedantic. Constructively helping someone write a better, more informative post is not pedantic. See the difference? I'm not going to hold your hand through the explanation any further, Magnus.

If you're going to quote, use things that were actually said. At no time did I, jg2112 or anyone else say "Don't post unless you have a link or the kid's social security number", basically or otherwise. There was nothing that even came close to saying "post the kid's social security number" and no one said the OP shouldn't post. Now you are being hyperbolic.

The OP, and I'll quote is here for reference, states only:
Beau Allen - Says he has an offer from Mich. Has some decent offers, he is a DT prospect. I know we could use all we could get. Just passing it on.
He is passing on information, which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. No one really had a basic problem with it, but there are some comments above that indicate more information is desired. If this is new information being relayed to the board, it would be helpful to identify the source of the information, which is most commonly done with a link. This is not unreasonable.


September 9th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^

I could carry an old woman across the street, and that would be helpful. But is it necessary? No. That's the point.

I know I was being hyperbolic. Thank you for pointing that out.

Anyway, the OP made an informative post on a GD message board. He shouldn't have to do the research for us. I appreciated the post, as I didn't know about Beau Allen previously. That was enough for me, and I'm sure it was enough for plenty of other people.

If you want more information, there's a neat thing called Google. Maybe you've heard of it.


September 9th, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^

Carry a woman across the street, Magnus? No one is asking the OP to take on a burden of that magnitude. That's a horrible analogy. You should probably refrain from using them.

As for the hyperbole, if you knew you were being hyperbolic, then you should have know that there was no need to include it. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Nonetheless, by your logic of differentiating between what is "necessary" and what is "helpful", there was no reason to even provide any information beyond a name. That's all that was necessary. Anything beyond that was merely helpful. If people really wanted to know more, then they could google it, no? Someone mentioned to me that it was a pretty neat thing to look into. Maybe throw in some additional search terms like "football", "college", "Michigan" or other similar terms that have a high probability of relating to the subject. However, I sincerely doubt that would go over well.

The point, which you fail to grasp, is that there are certain guidelines for original posts on MGo. Some of them are explicit. Others are implicit. Of the implicit ones, we can generally take our cues from Brian, and, to a lesser extent, other posters. Brian regularly links to the sources of his information, even if it's premium content. There is no reason why posters should not do the same.

And just as a community tends to form its own social mores and patterns of behavior, the community on MGoBlog has done the same with respect to posting conventions. They may not always be adhered to, but they are generally followed. Among these is providing a link to the source of the information being relayed. It is not asking much of the poster to follow those norms, and certainly not asking him to do something on par with carrying a woman across a street.

Lastly, perhaps the information in the OP was enough for you. But this isn't just about you. Or is it?

(And as a note to the OP, this really isn't a bash against you. Your information is appreciated.)


September 9th, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^

This is boring.

To the OP: Your information was appreciated. Keep on keepin' on. If you feel like adding more information, by all means, please do. Information is great. If all you can provide or all you know is what's posted, that's great, too. I can use Google and I can use Rivals to figure out what I want to know.


September 9th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^

Because I rarely make ad hominem attacks based on message board posts. I keep my arguments topic-based. You're the one who called me "pedantic" and "annoying" and said "Let's not have this conversation again, okie dokie?" You don't see me calling you names, do you? No. Every comment from me has been based on what was said, not name calling.

Chill out.


September 10th, 2009 at 1:28 AM ^

Ad hominems are irrelevant. You brought up the issue about talking down to people, which you most certainly do. You have a reputation for it. Ad hominems do not necessarily come into play in that respect. You can keep your post on topic without ad hominems and still talk down to people. Do you even know what you are talking about?**

And yes, you are pedantic and annoying. That's not name-calling. Those are adjectives, not nouns.

You are completely disingenuous by asserting that every comment you have made is based on what was said, particularly when you quote people as saying "Don't post unless you have a link or the kid's social security number" yet admit that this was hyperbolic and not said by anyone whatsoever.

You also stated: "He gave you a name, the fact that he has an offer, and a prompt for thought." You then further stated that "Again, he gave a name and some info and asked a question about what this means for our other DT prospects." No such question or prompt was ever given. The OP stated (again):
Says he has an offer from Mich. Has some decent offers, he is a DT prospect. I know we could use all we could get. Just passing it on.

There was no question. There was no prompt. There was no assertion that the OP should not post or should have provided a social security number. Yet you now say that "Every comment from me has been based on what was said." You are full of shit, Magnus. Completely full of shit.

Tell you what. You are clearly both bored (based on what you said earlier) and intrigued (based on your continued argument) by this conversation. How about you go back to whatever the hell it is that you do here, and I'll to back to largely ignoring your posts. Okie dokie?

**See what I did there?


September 9th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^

There wasnt a lot on him through rivals ad it was just in there forums which is why i did not post a link. And it was posted in the late evening. And the offer is supposedly recent and i thought since he was not on the board here i would point out there might be another DT we were going after.