What is our "official" relationship with the ESC?

Agreed.

So far as I know, we have no official relationship at all, and I'm not sure we should.

I have (or had) friends in the ESC. That group has been brutalized by their front office. We have offered nods of commiseration, suggestions for improvements, etc. I don't know what else we should be doing.

pointing and laughing?

Again, that's written into the Articles

I wonder what happened to the old guard like Sandy Canetti, Tom Beck, and Kevin McAllister. We always used to meet and say hello. I wonder if they just got tired of running their heads into the brick wall that was their FO.

You know, Ray, I happen to know one of the main guys with the ESC, and I'm fairly certain that pretty much the last thing they want is our help. If they want it, and they ask for it, then I suppose the SE Board can figure out what our "official" relationship should be. Until they do, though, it's rather condescending to be posting on our board about what we can do to help them. They've managed considerable growth this year in spite of the rather difficult circumstances they face, and they know the local lay of the land much better than any of us.

If that were all I had to say, I would not have bothered with this post. But I have another thing on my mind: you asked a question, you got serious answers from SE leadership explaining what our "official" relationship is (none) and what the SEs have done in the recent past to address concerns with Giants Stadium that affect both groups. To add to that, I believe the SEs helped work with DCU and the DCSEC to make sure that the ESC were placed in the upper level of RFK during last year's playoffs (a situation that has greatly improved everybody's game day experience when they visit here).

You also got some snarky answers. But you know what? If you post on a supporters' group's internet message board to ask what that group's official relationship is with one of its biggest rivals, and you don't expect some very heartfelt answers to the tune of Dick Cheney's reply to Pat Leahy, then you're being naive. And when you then take people to task for those answers, which, snarky they may be, are both heartfelt and (believe it or not) valid, you're just trolling...and when you take people like Jessica to task for answers which are actually enlightening (I didn't happen to see that conversation between Lalas and K written up in the Washington Post), if slightly out of date (though I don't think much has changed in the way RBNY deals with the ESC), then you're just being rude.

What I'm getting at here is that you do not help foster reasoned discussions when you post a question that a reasonable person would expect to generate a certain percentage of snarky responses, and then post your own snarky replies, like:

You know what? That wasn't very constructive of you. It was rude. It's the sort of thing I would expect in a thread about the SEs' relationship (or lack thereof) with the ESC. Sort of like this gem:

Are you serious? Is this your personal thread? Just because you start a discussion doesn't mean that you get to impose your own TOS on the thread. I'll read whatever I want, and if I think you're being "holier than thou," I'm not going to stop reading it, I'm going to say, "Hey, Ray, you're being holier than thou."

Yes, she is. But that doesn't mean that her friends can't choose to defend her, too, especially if they think that you might have missed the point of her post...of course, if you hadn't attacked her, she wouldn't need to "defend herself."

You are indeed free to appreciate these responses or not. However:
1) "Pointing and laughing" is actually just a blunt way of expressing the following sentiment: "We have no official relationship with them, and we seek no official relationship with them. We do not care one way or the other what happens to them." How does this not answer your question? The thread is titled "What is our 'official' relationship with the ESC?" Not, "What can we do to help the ESC deal with its issues, thereby improving the matchday experience for all fans?" "Pointing and laughing" is just a snarky, short-hand answer to the question posed by your thread title.
2) I'm not going to speak for JH6, Jessica, or anyone else on this point, but I personally don't care whether you appreciate this or any other response you personally deem to be nonconstructive. I've already explained that, for me, "pointing and laughing" was indeed a constructive response, so it wasn't a total waste. More to the point, however, is that when you write sarcastic things to people (like "Nice. Constructive. Just like your previous post. Thanks for participating.") and then excoriate them for not improving the level of dialogue in this thread, well...you're not exactly being constructive yourself.

Finally, if you had attempted to write a more patronizing sentence than this:

you probably would not have succeeded.

You asked a potentially inflammatory question. You got some well-reasoned, thoughtful, constructive responses, along with some sarcastic remarks (far fewer than I would have expected, by the way). You responded to those sarcastic remarks with snarky sarcasm of your own, and then followed the sarcasm up with a lecture on civility. Bravo, sir. Brav-O.

EDIT: I will note, for posterity, that fb's "pointing and laughing" post came after Ray's most recent post. Feel free to substitute in any of the prior snarky comments...but I thought it was about as concise as could be, and since I have (obviously) a tendency to ramble, I used it as a nice bit of shorthand. If it's not the sort of post that Ray considers nonconstructive, then I apologize for using it and would be glad to replace it with a different, equally snarky remark, like this one:

neither of those two replies of mine are snarky, I mean them completely

But he was asking for, at the very LEAST, snarky.

Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that once the founder of the Screaming Eagles has spoken, that should pretty much end the conversation.

Yeah, I know he's no longer the "official" president, but I look at Matt as sort of the "Elder Statesman in Charge." Call him President Emeritus or something.

I'd just like to point out that I absolutely do not speak for the Screaming Eagles. Presuming to do so would be disrespectful of the current leadership.

I'm also known as "old guy who used to know stuff"

Use whatever label best applies.

Well, I do try to lead the club in the spirit with which you founded and ran it. I always appreciate your input.

Incidentally, Matt's official title is "Grand Poobah Emeritus".

I appreciate the message, although I disagree with much of it.

I agree that I should not have responded to snarkiness with snarkiness. I acknowledge the mistake, and I will learn from it.

I was not being condescending. If you read through the NY boards, you will see that despite their successes, they are continuing to have serious issues with their in-stadium experience. I fail to see how it is condescending to consider offering assistance to a fellow supporters' club.

Condescending, to me, is what I found in much of your post. But then, you were taking me to task, so it certainly was within its proper context.

I do not apologize for posting a thread that asked a question in earnestness and then attempting to keep the topic on the specific topic. You failed to note that I thanked those who responded with civility (see posts #6 and #22).

You (rightly) take me to task for responding to snarkiness with snarkiness. Let me ask--in all earnestness--this; is your response to this thread any different from my responses to their posts?

Finally, you make the assumption that I should have expected snarky answers, and that not expecting such answers makes me naive.

I disagree. On the whole, I received meaningful answers, which I expected from the SE leadership. Please note that I did not post to the Barras, nor did I post on the general DC board. I intentionally posted to a specific audience. I would not have been as pointed in my responses were it in a more "public" area of the site.

Once I had responses from the current and previous presidents, I thanked them. I also felt compelled to thank them again later in the thread for "cutting through the noise."

If you re-read my initial post, my intentions were clear.

As I said, I appreciate you post. I will learn from my mistakes.

I also appreciate the serious answers and thoughts offered by people who were able to see past the rivalry. This is especially true of your first paragraph (with the exception of the "condescending" bit).

Again, thanks for your constructive feedback.

In future, I will address such questions in PMs.

I thought we would be able to have a reasonable discussion here. My mistake.

See, there's no reason for that - and this is what prompted my post - you actually GOT real, constructive answers. Current and former SE leaders posted with additional background about what has been done in the past and what is currently being done (which is nothing, but now we know this). Still other long-time SE members posted their (admittedly blunt) opinions that they did not care about the ESC (which, seriously, is an opinion that the SEs would need to be at least aware of before doing anything official). Given the subject matter, I'd say that's a damned good set of responses, and hardly a reason to take things to PMs (though if you feel like volunteering to work on this, then yeah, PMs or e-mail with SE leadership would probably be the way to go, at least initially).

I understand your desire for constructive responses to your question, and we are agreed that you got them, and that other people (at least, me) found both the question and the responses to be somewhat enlightening. It's just that I haven't seen anything in this thread that should make a guy like you - who has more than a little familiarity with BigSoccer - pack up your ball and go home (or to PMs). Just breathe a little, remind yourself that it's BigSoccer, and move on.

I didn't know I was capable of being snarky, yay me!

I am aware that Alexi is gone from NY and has been for some time. But, I believe his attitude regarding K's question was/is the attitude NYRB have towards their supporters club in general. That was the point I was trying (poorly apparently) to make.