Sometimes, it's hard not to get despondent.
You kiss your wife goodnight, explaining that you simply must respond to the latest salvo against your Packer-related reasoning, and hunker down at the computer, Firefox Bookmarks at the ready, and spend the better part of an evening putting together what you think is a fairly coherent, well thought out response to a fellow blogger taking exception to your hatred of futile instant grading of the NFL Draft.
You feel good about the post overall, though perhaps a bit disappointed you couldn't quite work everything in that you really wanted to say, but overall, you think it's an excellent post, full of passioned ideas that can better help explain your reasons for being, and I quote, an "Anti-Grade Zealot". You head to bed, knowing that a response will follow at some point, but fairly sure you have at least opened an eye or two.
You read the response from your intended audience, and feel as though you have wasted a good part of your and his time, because it's obvious that he is not the least bit interested in trying to learn why you've taken the position you've taken, and all the more interested in finding the "roots of my rage" (A phrase that is repeated yet again in Steve's post - rage? Really? See, I would equate rage with, um, maybe, firebombing the NFL's Park Avenue headquarters. That's 'rage'. Calling the instant grading of the draft bullshit? Not so much.)
It's obvious we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, (because goodness knows, if I can't convince someone of my position in two posts, I never will.......that's a joke.....) but I would like to point out what I consider the underlying difference between us, with the following quote from Steve's latest missive:
Of course we can’t know whether the draft is going to be great right after the draft and of course readers know this.
So, in other words, he agrees with me, he just doesn't mind engaging in useless exercises that only serve to waste the time of those involved.