It IS possible to attack an idea without attacking the person who expresses it, right?
Correct: "Warner and Chucky are guys who know football well and seem to have a very high opinion of Ewers. Their videos show Ewers has great knowledge of how to run a complex offense and outstanding throwing skills. He's got some correctable issues and the injury concerns, but should be an early round pick. The idea that he's ranked below anyone not named Ward or Dart is mystifying."
Wrong: "God dammit, jimmyjazz, there you go again, drinking and posting at the same time! Not that we can blame the alcohol; that would imply that you've got neurons in your shitty skull worth affecting. You have the stinkiest farts in the room; stop eating beans. In fact, stop eating entirely, so that you can pass on and we don't need to read your inane attempts to post. How are you even able to effectively use a computer? That implies a certain minimum level of intellectual processing that is not demonstrated by your posts. Are you dictating to one of the orderlies there are the Home for the Mentally Deficient?"