I believe that paragraph was either misunderstood or taken out of context.
In the story you quoted, I wrote: "Matt's career advancement is unqualifiedly good news, which is both well deserved and long overdue . . . but, while I am glad Matt has been given this opportunity, I am sad to see a colleague and a friend moving on from SB Nation."
I agree that this is a good thing and I was nothing but congratulatory to SMQ. However, as an SB Nation blogger, I regret his departure, however happy I am for him. I am sure, Brian, that you felt much the same way when Jamie Mottram left The FanHouse: pleased at your colleague's deserved success, yet sorry for his departure.
That's all I was saying. Nothing in what I wrote about SMQ's advancement is in any way inconsistent with what you wrote about SMQ's advancement, except the part about it being "[w]eird," which, rather clearly, it is not.
. . . is attributable to the fact that stating explicitly what you clearly inferred was implied, Daniel, would have been an instance of cognitive dissonance after Brian recently (and rightly) criticized a columnist for jumping to conclusions based on too few facts.
Recent Comments
I believe that paragraph was either misunderstood or taken out of context.
In the story you quoted, I wrote: "Matt's career advancement is unqualifiedly good news, which is both well deserved and long overdue . . . but, while I am glad Matt has been given this opportunity, I am sad to see a colleague and a friend moving on from SB Nation."
I agree that this is a good thing and I was nothing but congratulatory to SMQ. However, as an SB Nation blogger, I regret his departure, however happy I am for him. I am sure, Brian, that you felt much the same way when Jamie Mottram left The FanHouse: pleased at your colleague's deserved success, yet sorry for his departure.
That's all I was saying. Nothing in what I wrote about SMQ's advancement is in any way inconsistent with what you wrote about SMQ's advancement, except the part about it being "[w]eird," which, rather clearly, it is not.
. . . is attributable to the fact that stating explicitly what you clearly inferred was implied, Daniel, would have been an instance of cognitive dissonance after Brian recently (and rightly) criticized a columnist for jumping to conclusions based on too few facts.
That, at least, is how I see it.