Katy Taylor's Interview

Kwanford Wife · Jun 26, 2007

Mathman,

Once again, you have proven why we all adore you so very much!

Paula,

To echo Mathman, you are simply awesome!

To my fellow posters,

Aren't we lucky that we get to play with adult supervision?

Zuranthium · Jun 26, 2007

People don't go "out of their way" to answer questions here - they are getting free publicity! Knowledgable performers who are trying to move up in the World recognize the value of that.

When you put yourself in the public eye, you open yourself up to all the criticism that comes with it. That's simply life. Nobody here is slandering Katy Taylor (or "libel" in this case).

If it is the wishes of the forum owner to allow only comments that amount to "awww, how nice" in regards to articles about a skater, so be it. But that's awfully boring and certainly not realistic. It's confusing to me that someone would need to take that stance in the first place, since the comments by any poster of this forum do not reflect the views and opinions of anything written on the Main Page. There are sites out there that interview big-name movie stars and those forums have about 10x the amount of "bashing" you'd find here and yet those sites flourish. Just something to think about.

~Z

R.D. · Jun 26, 2007

Oh man, I didn't want to get in all this mess, but here goes. I think there's something in what Z is saying. I won't speak for the Golden Skate website but often times a forum that's affiliated with a website will have a disclaimer that claims that the views expressed by the members aren't necessarily reflective of the views of the site itself. It's just a soundboard for people to chat. I mean, for example I've been to the Dell forums and nonflattering things have been said about the company there. Of course, it's up to the admins and mods of this forum as to whether they wish for the forum to be reflective of the site itself or not. Personally, I have always thought of the Golden Skate forum as separate from the site itself even though there's the "affiliation" with the site. I mean, take a look at the USFS boards- it gets down and dirty there too.

Of course we want to stay away from outright bashing. But there are bound to be disagreements, arguments and squabbles. It's just the nature of a discussion forum (live or internet) for that to exist, plus it contributes to the forum. What do I mean by that? Imagine if every post was gushing endlessly...or if everyone agreed on every topic. It would be pretty boring, and the forum wouldn't be nearly as active. I hope folks understand that I'm not trying to pick anything apart here.

Mathman · Jun 26, 2007

It's tricky, Red Dog. Censorship = bad, free-for-all = good.

But we don't want the forum to be dominated by those who happen to have the loudest voices. We don't want for people to be afraid to post because their opinions might be ridiculed. We don't want to lose members because every time they log on they are confronted by a litany of insults against their fave.

(What the world...needs now... ♫♪

)

SeaniBu · Jun 26, 2007

OK, coming from me this sounds rediculous, but think about it. K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid!

There is a point when "specific types" words and comments do not need to be used to convey a message. It could be stated as you think it showed her true self and you didn't find it flattening to her. Just be decorous about the whole thing.

Back to K.I.S.S.
No "name calling" in a negative manner toward skaters - particularly the ones who are giving something (for what ever reason) to the forum in which you are reading.

It is not what you are saying as how it is said.

And to what RD said - it is all about the balance of the two? Sorry, but not everywhere. That is life. This is not one of those "other forums," this is GS and most here have manners. I can go off on a tangent - remember my dislike of MK's actions - but no bashing came. Same with Caroline Zhang, but I said "it seems to me like..." NOT "she is a..." See the diferance? It is not that hard and people still understood and discussed the issues I had. They didn't go off on this as we are dealing with now. I think the problem arises or escalates because someone might conceder it a "peeing contest."

Great post gsk8!

I never forget, the mods can block me at any given time. And if someone else would just think after being blocked, " I'll just sign in with a different name" You have just defined what a pissing contest is.

MM pointed it out the first time, and same with PB. The point was not "understood" then and it seems now the hole is just more and more deep in some posters inability to understand there is difference in a poster voicing an opinion, and just being a big jerk.
EOS.

Zuranthium · Jun 26, 2007

SeaniBu said:
It could be stated as you think it showed her true self and you didn't find it flattening to her. Just be decorous about the whole thing.

I can go off on a tangent - remember my dislike of MK's actions - but no bashing came. Same with Caroline Zhang, but I said "it seems to me like..." NOT "she is a..." See the diferance?

"It seems to me like Caroline Zhang's program is horrible."

"Caroline Zhang's program is horrible."

There's no difference. Only an added element of superficiality. Painting a bomb with pretty colors doesn't change the effect.

It's understood that discussions of this nature are opinion based. Me saying "Kate Taylor's performances are superficial" is not a fact. It's how I feel and that shouldn't be hard to comprehend. There is no need to clutter up the discussion with flowery little additions..."When I watch Katy Taylor's performances it seems to me like they are very superficial". In fact, I was taught in JOURNALISM courses that using statements such as "it seems to me" are the absolute BANE of all written works. It's unnecessary fluff. Everyone here lives on planet Earth, as far as I know. With all of the starkly horrifying things that happen in the real World, it's actually offensive to me that someone can be so guileless as to not be able to handle some critical discussions on the subject of FIGURE SKATING.

IMO.
IMO.
IMO.
IMO
(remember, add one IMO for everything you say that certain people just can't handle....4 is about right for this post, yes?)

~Z

R.D. · Jun 26, 2007

Mathman said:
But we don't want the forum to be dominated by those who happen to have the loudest voices. We don't want for people to be afraid to post because their opinions might be ridiculed. We don't want to lose members because every time they log on they are confronted by a litany of insults against their fave.

And you're right. I agree with that. I can relate completely because once upon a time it happened to me as well.

All I'm saying is that people should be free to express their opinions, of course staying within the bounds of the rules of whatever forum they're posting in. I am against censorship but only to the point where bashing and offensive name-calling begins. The tough part is striking the balance between harsh criticism and bashing. Different folks seem to draw the line in different places, and that makes it tough for everyone. That said, I must agree with Sean that GS is definitely one of the more civilized boards that I frequent. It's harsh out there, and IMHO we can either deal with it head on or edit it out in hopes that it will go away.

To make a long story short: this thread. Saying you don't like Katy- fine with me. Speculation about her? Fine with me. Outright judging her based on perception? Grey area. We all do it to some degree. I'll be straight up and say I partially agree with what Z is saying- but it's only an impression to me. Doesn't mean she really is like that, which is what I think Z was trying to drum home. (Z, correct me if it's a misunderstanding.) That's where I personally draw the line, but as I said earlier, others might draw it sooner or later.

I do think the name-calling should be toned down, though. That's what scares posters away. That and bullying- whether it's blatant or subtle (i.e. your opinion is less important than mine or does not matter).

SeaniBu · Jun 26, 2007

Zuranthium said:
"It seems to me like Caroline Zhang's program is horrible."

this takes ownership of the said IMO

Zuranthium said:
"Caroline Zhang's program is horrible."

This does not, it attempts to be a fact.
If you are mad at just me now you can just PM me. I put that quote out for I think it is a great example of opinion and facts. And due to the guideline of "no bashing skaters" - the the agreement we all "had to read" to become a member here - the necessity for courteous semantics is even more vital when writing a comment, for the vocal aspects can not be conveyed... *skrach* so own up to IMO when it is it is a IMO. Particularly because it is "writing."
.....I just had to go check past posts in this thread used by Zuranthium =0
Most just ignore comments/posters like that, I like the comments myself, but there is a better way to discuss it with "writing." I mean what is the point not to avoid making people feeling bad compared to them just taking it as criticism, just by use of a couple of words? Three words or letters in a entire post can help real truths come out as well... Yadda yadda....

Zuranthium · Jun 26, 2007

Red Dog said:
Doesn't mean she really is like that, which is what I think Z was trying to drum home.

Yes, precisely.

SeaniBu said:
this takes ownership of the said IMO

This does not, it attempts to be a fact.

It only attempts to be a fact if others look at it that way. People should obviously understand that any statement of the sort is clearly just one person's opinion. That is the power of a grown-up brain - being able to make these kinds of distinctions and being able to think for ourselves without accepting everything that is told to us as a fact.

Perhaps the definition of "bashing" someone is not mutually understood? Defining how you feel about a skater (ie. - they are superficial) is not bashing them. It is your criticism of them. Me calling Katy Taylor a worthless ***** would have been bashing her as that's a simple insult without any kind of insight as to why I feel the way I do.

(No, I'm not mad at you. You're too sexy for that.)

~Z

R.D. · Jun 26, 2007

Yes, precisely.

OK, thanks for clarifying. Now, this is where I'm sorta lost. I'm assuming you haven't met Katy- then how can you assert to us her personality? We only know her persona- the image she chooses to present to us in public (or maybe more accurately, the way the press chooses to present her to us)- but we don't know what she's really like. We'd have to spend enough time with her, and while we can talk about the IMPRESSION she makes on us, we're in no position to make outrageous claims as to what she really is like. Ugh, I can't believe I could actually be defending the girl but this goes for anybody. You just don't know. So what if she wants a pink hummer. Suppose it's just something that she likes?

Zuranthium · Jun 26, 2007

No, I haven't met her. I can only go by what I'm told from the girls I know who DO speak with her at Nationals.

Regarding the Pink Hummer I don't believe it's a "so what if she wants one". Something of that magnitude which a person wants/desires is part of who they are. It's not as simple a your preference between Pepsi vs. Coke. Extreme example here but if someone WANTS to drop a nuclear bomb on a certain nation I think that's a VERY clear indication of a part of their personality. It's not just "oh well, that's what they want".

Wanting a Hummer means that (A.) you are not aware of the negative environmental effects of such a vehicle or you simply don't care, and (B.) you feel fine with spending an excessive amount of money on something which has no purpose other than to make you look gaudy.

It's a clear indication of who she is. You certainly can't judge somebody 100% based on one such thing but it is definitely a part of how they choose to be. We as humans decide how to feel about a person based upon the traits which they have displayed. I myself do NOT love the traits Katy Taylor has shown.

~Z

R.D. · Jun 26, 2007

Neither do I. But my point is that it's only your PERCEPTION (and mine too, for the record) of how she is, not what she ACTUALLY is like.

SeaniBu · Jun 26, 2007

Zuranthium said:
It only attempts to be a fact if others look at it that way.

We're reading your thoughts on a topic Z, not a open ended questionnaire of potential (WTF) meaning within your posts. You have to write what you mean for we all read what is said, your thought is...???? Not some "encrypted message of possible meaning." :laugh:

Geesh, you may know her for all some would know - although fairly obvious NOW that it has been clarified your opinions were opinions. Why are you trying to blame the people who read and responded. You wrote it, you didn't get the desired response - then try a different rout. ??? Or are you desiring the negative response??? I would much rather be reading your comments on actual skating for that is something you seem to "get."

I don't understand the lack of desire to communicate better???

Zuranthium · Jun 27, 2007

SeaniBu said:
We're reading your thoughts on a topic Z.

Exactly. So when I say "Sasha Cohen has poor Skating Skills" that is obviously my opinion of her ability. Not a fact and not an insult either (that, btw, is not an actual opinion of mine).

If you were to say something like "Michelle Kwan has ugly spins" we would understand that is your opinion. You don't need to say "IMO, Michelle Kwan's spins are very unpleasant to look at". No need to be repetitive every time an objective subject is called upon.

BTW, Watermelon tastes really bad.

Red Dog said:
Neither do I. But my point is that it's only your PERCEPTION (and mine too, for the record) of how she is, not what she ACTUALLY is like.

Yes very true. I never stated that I know what she is actually like, though? :scratch:

Nor does ANYBODY know what she is actually like just by reading the interview. We are all just judging from perception, which is an incredibly important part of how we form opinions and viewpoints as humans.

~Z

Spun Silver · Jun 27, 2007

IMO Z makes a perfectly valid point about the pink Hummer. He's employing a basic principle of ethics, that our desires (which motivate our actions) have objective moral value. Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle would have agreed with that (if not with Z's sweeping judgment on a 17-year-old).

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy said:
In this life, then, our intellectual limitations prevent us from apprehending what is good simpliciter. Instead, we are presented with competing goods between which we must choose (ST Ia 82.2 ad 1). Some goods provide immediate gratification but no long-term fulfillment. Other goods may precipitate hardship but eventually make us better people. Indeed, sometimes we must exercise considerable effort in ignoring superficial or petty pleasures while attending to more difficult yet enduring goods. To employ Aquinas’s parlance, the will must exercise efficient causality on the intellect by instructing it to consider some goods rather than others (ST Ia 82.4). This happens whenever we, through our own determination, direct our attention away from certain desirable objects and toward those we think are more choiceworthy. Of course, our character will often govern the goods we desire and ultimately choose. Even so, Aquinas does not think that our character wholly determines our choices, as evidenced by the fact that we sometimes make decisions that are contrary to our established habits. This is actually fortunate for us, for it suggests that even people disposed toward evil can manage to make good choices and perhaps begin to correct their more hardened and inordinate inclinations.

Of course this concept would apply not just to economic choices but all other lifestyle choices in our very choice-oriented society.

I don't think Z is wrong to look at Katy's public and longstanding goal of owning a major gas-guzzler as an ethical issue. It's more his desire to condemn a teenager - and one of our teenagers! a skater! - based on one piece of evidence that makes me unhappy. Aquinas at least would have examined the matter carefully before reaching a conclusion, and would have placed his conclusions under the criterion of holy Scripture which says "judge not...."

SeaniBu · Jun 27, 2007

^I think you are getting it. At least providing good examples. Now think about how the ones you have been providing differ form ...

Zuranthium said:
Katy Taylor's performances are superficial and who you are ALWAYS reflects in your skating. The television networks aren't "showing" her as anything - that's really who she is. It's her own desire to have a hot pink Hummer which, again, is indicative of her personality. Not that we should be surprised anyway...she is an over-priveleged girl who was brought up in conservative Texas. Hopefully she can mature and broaden herself as a person.

~Z

Zuranthium said:
She is certainly well-off, though.

...yes they do, don't be silly.

And notice how this was totally missed in the response due to the first paragraph. comments.

Zuranthium said:
Again, your character and personality are reflected in the decisions you make...which would indeed include spending grand amounts of money on certain clothes or material possessions.

BUT...Katy's life outside of her skating shouldn't matter at all.

Now I know I am hypocritical from time to time as well, so I shouldn't comment. but... is this how obvious???

Zuranthium said:
We have to just judge her skating, when it comes down to it. On her skating alone, she is being eclipsed by a dozen others. And that's just in the U.S.....

So, again, I hope she can improve herself.

EDIT: Also, I don't really feel like she will be able to magically improve and become one of the best skaters in the World. I think that, at best, she could get on the World team this year. I don't see any room for her after after this year with all the other talent out there that will be striving to constantly improve themselves as well.

These were good comments that were totally over looked. Why???....

You will not be able to get people to change how they read everyones post, but you can change the way you write them to convey proper meaning/ intended meaning.

R.D. · Jun 27, 2007

Zuranthium said:
Yes very true. I never stated that I know what she is actually like, though? :scratch:

Nor does ANYBODY know what she is actually like just by reading the interview. We are all just judging from perception, which is an incredibly important part of how we form opinions and viewpoints as humans.

We're on the same page again...or so I think

You said this, and this is what confused me:

* Katy Taylor's performances are superficial and who you are ALWAYS reflects in your skating.
* The television networks aren't "showing" her as anything - that's really who she is.
* It's her own desire to have a hot pink Hummer which, again, is indicative of her personality. Not that we should be surprised anyway...she is an over-priveleged girl who was brought up in conservative Texas.
* Hopefully she can mature and broaden herself as a person.
* The kind of money a person spends (or desires to spend) on their clothes, car, etc. is a VERY revealing aspect into who they are. Katy wants to have a big, flashy car that is bad for the environment. That definitely tells me something about her.
* Working hard doesn't mean a person has good values. Lots of people work really hard to be thieves, or conartists, or drug overlords.
* I have no idea in this particular case but, in general, a High Schooler doing volunteer work is no indication if they are really a person with good judgement or values.
* I honestly don't care. Katy Taylor is not a part of my life, it's not something I ever dwell on.

The bold statements are the ones in question. Especially the first one. But I take it from your recent comments that it was simply a misunderstanding. This exact same thing happened to me here a year or two ago...then I learned how to pepper my posts with plenty of I THINK, MY THOUGHTS ARE and IMO and IMHO. Around here, boy do you need them. :yes: In fact that goes for any forum.

dutchherder · Jun 27, 2007

A thought:

If someone posts something you find obnoxious, don't respond. As they say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Even the most irritating folks eventually get tired of posting into thin air.

Joesitz (RIP) · Jun 27, 2007

I have no problem with posters using the 'my opinion'kind of thinking. But when they come out with statements like 'she's under pressure' which reads like no other competitor is under pressure except her. that's when I realize their posts are just about the generalizations of any sport. Nothing about the actual skating, and often by a non fan of the skater.

another doozie, imo, is the 3A. Apparently, once failed, it is a failure forever.

The TV judges know better than the officials about underrotations, flutzes and lips, No one ever mentions overrotation which I see quite a few or the flat take-offs on flips and lutzes.

I have no problem with stylized-bent-knee spins, as long as they don't look like their in toilet training, but I will not call them a sitspin.

Oh the summer nitpicks.

Joe

Mathman · Jun 27, 2007

Thomas Aquinas said:
In this life, then, our intellectual limitations prevent us from apprehending what is good simpliciter. Instead, we are presented with competing goods between which we must choose (ST Ia 82.2 ad 1). Some goods provide immediate gratification but no long-term fulfillment. Other goods may precipitate hardship but eventually make us better people...

All right! :clap:

Indeed, this is just what we expect from Thomas Aquinas, the most profound intellect of Christendom.

A teenaged figure skater? Yeah, that's where the "Judge not that ye be not judged" comes in. :agree:

PS. Welcome to Golden Skate, Tom. Post often, post long! (Well, medium-long, anyway)

Katy Taylor's Interview

Kwanford Wife

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

R.D.

Mathman

SeaniBu

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

R.D.

SeaniBu

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

R.D.

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

R.D.

SeaniBu

Zuranthium

Match Penalty

Spun Silver

SeaniBu

R.D.

dutchherder

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

Similar threads

Connect with us