This may be true Zach, but when you are challenged on an opinion on YOUR site, you try to trash the opinion or thought of the person writing it.
I am the most recent example of this.

You launch a flame attack on a writer. You question their writing ability, then set it up for a punchline. And you don’t expect to be fired upon?

It isn’t me or the writers on this site who can’t take the heat. It’s the trolls who can’t handle it when fired back in their face. This has nothing to do with criticism of writers and has everything to do with the cheap shots. There’s a big difference between being challenged on facts and being open-endedly cheapshotted by someone intentionally looking for a pissing contest. Congratulations.

As far as Zach Paraphrase ” I control no one – for better or for worse – in regards to their thoughts when writing on this site.”
This may be true Zach, but when you are challenged on an opinion on YOUR site, you try to trash the opinion or thought of the person writing it.
I am the most recent example of this.

Uh, no. That was one example out of many from the recap that got on my nerves. If you think I’d bother with a paragraph of buildup just to call somebody a dork, you’re mistaken. I could have gone with other things as well, from the fact that she mentioned she likes Godsmack (yeah yeah, personal taste) to the implication that Eastman and Rampage having a close stare-down might imply that they’re gay (tee-hee).

The writing style was not being question, the depth of the article was.
Is it possible that on the Fight Opinion site, Zach Arnold only wants the correct opinion to be his?
Food for though Zach.

You’re the one who continues, in every reply, to perpetuate a situation on this site that doesn’t exist. I’m calling you out on your bull**** – that’s what I’m doing.

So am I correct in saying that no writer should ever be criticized no matter what? Is that the point that’s being made?

That is completely incorrect. The troll is trying to market the assumption that everyone who writes on this site is somehow under my ’spell’ as far as what to politically say or write. That’s 100% false. I control no one – for better or for worse – in regards to their thoughts when writing on this site. I’ve had people before tell me that I should be a copy editor for all the op-eds that other writers do on the site. If I did that, you would have people cry censorship.

News Flash: I’ve seen pictures, Erin…you look considerably dorkier than Cro Cop in a long fucking t-shirt.

Don’t try to take the high road, Ben, when all you were doing in your reply was presenting a front and then setting up for the silly cheap shot at the end. Enough out of the marks, already.

As for Lutter, he specifically stated that he had trouble motivating himself to lose weight. I’m not sure of the EXACT quote, but the term “motivation” (or some variation thereof) was used, by him.

Also, it was a huuuuge fuck-up for Lutter not to have made weight, but I doubt it was due to a lack of motivation.

I alluded to this before, but Erin is choosing to use her own voice and allow her personality to play in her commentary. Nothing wrong with that.

Another person might make the decision to be more analytical, that would also be fine.

But the very aspects that bother Dave are the same things that likely draw some people to read Miz Erin.

I edit for a Crime Fiction Magazine. I deal with plenty of writers, almost all of them are nationally published with some being award-winners and bestsellers.
Some, like Christopher Moore, choose a lighter style, while others, like George Pelecanos, take a more serious and harder approach.

There is no right or wrong.

Personally, I think Zach’s response had more to do with Dave belittling Erin’s contributions (suggesting that by not taking the route you prefer, she is simply Zach’s puppet) than you being on the money.