"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet;"
What is a "True Fan?" I've seen that tossed around here lately, and on the blogs, and frankly it disturbs me. Is a UGA grad any more a fan than a redneck in Dallas Georgia, living in a trailer? Are you more of a fan because you understand X's and O's better than the next guy. Perhaps you have a collection of Bowl programs that is the envy of the bulldawg nation, and this is somehow your claim to superior fandom over lesser dawgs.
We've got the pro and con-Richt crowds going at it as though one perspective trumps the other, and taking a stand somewhere marks you as more or less of a fan. The same goes for the vocal crowd that laments losses at the top of their lungs, with vitriole and spit pitted against those who suffer losses in silence, wearing their hearts nowhere near their sleeves.
I, for one, can't see a difference between any of these and myriad other differences that are the hallmark of a large school with considerable regional influence. It's sort of the reason some people shouldn't get into politics--you know, when the thought of a differing point of view drives a person into a frenzy.
"What!! You think we should keep Richt?? I'll bet you wear orange underwear. You're not a true fan."
"What!! You want Richt fired?? I'll bet you have a secret collection of protractors. You're not a true fan."
So what's the deal with using that term or any similar term as a negative on your fellow Dawgs? How about before tossing around the "you're not a true fan" turd, we first post what makes our particular position superior to the next? Hell, it'll make for interesting reading if nothing else.
"The freedom of individuals to verbally to oppose or to challenge police actions without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."