Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 18:57:53 GMT -4
The issue as I see it is this- Lets says Player A crosschecks Player B in the face: 1) If Player A does it to a Mooseheads player ( Player B) then Player B caused it or had it coming to him and shouldn't be suspended. 2) If the situtaion is reversed then by all means Player B should be suspended and Player B fan base is a bunch of whiners. Your opinion on here is not objective whatsoever- it is a) usually full of shit b) sometimes trolling which you get away with c) a tiny fraction of the time it is legit but some here don't give a fuck if it is because you come across as being a major dickhead most of the time. I've realized that is the way it is- you don't like getting shit fired back at you then don't throw it in the the first place. I'll be more than happy to have a civilized conversation with you... just cut the crap and stop acting like a fucking martyr. Why are you so angry ? Why resort to post what you just did ? Not angry at all; just telling it like it is and not taking your bait.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Mar 29, 2014 20:29:49 GMT -4
How about those Blue Jays?
|
|
|
Post by Fryar on Mar 30, 2014 7:43:02 GMT -4
Just because it diverges from your opinion ... doesn't make it shit ... and doesn't make it trolling. I have no problem when people disagree with me ... I'm usually happy to discuss the topic. But when the poster says "get lost" or "get off our board" or take a personal shot because they can't back up anything they say ... that gets old and needs to be corrected by the mods. If you are getting angry enough on here to attack somebody else ... then you need a break. But ... I fully understand that every once in awhile somebody needs to be told. But somebody sticking to a topic of discussion should never be attacked by somebody that can't come up with a reasonable response. The issue as I see it is this- Lets says Player A crosschecks Player B in the face: 1) If Player A does it to a Mooseheads player ( Player B) then Player B caused it or had it coming to him and shouldn't be suspended. 2) If the situtaion is reversed then by all means Player B should be suspended and Player B fan base is a bunch of whiners. Your opinion on here is not objective whatsoever- it is a) usually full of shit b) sometimes trolling which you get away with c) a tiny fraction of the time it is legit but some here don't give a fuck if it is because you come across as being a major dickhead most of the time. I've realized that is the way it is- you don't like getting shit fired back at you then don't throw it in the the first place. I'll be more than happy to have a civilized conversation with you... just cut the crap and stop acting like a fucking martyr. Well said. Great post.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Mar 30, 2014 8:20:10 GMT -4
The issue as I see it is this- Lets says Player A crosschecks Player B in the face: 1) If Player A does it to a Mooseheads player ( Player B) then Player B caused it or had it coming to him and shouldn't be suspended. 2) If the situtaion is reversed then by all means Player B should be suspended and Player B fan base is a bunch of whiners. Your opinion on here is not objective whatsoever- it is a) usually full of shit b) sometimes trolling which you get away with c) a tiny fraction of the time it is legit but some here don't give a fuck if it is because you come across as being a major dickhead most of the time. I've realized that is the way it is- you don't like getting shit fired back at you then don't throw it in the the first place. I'll be more than happy to have a civilized conversation with you... just cut the crap and stop acting like a fucking martyr. Well said. Great post. Other than when he dug his feet in on the flipflopping Ashley/Sorenson crosscreck incidents, I don't know where you guys see this from SteveUL so often. A different opinion, as long as it is debated well, is good conversation IMO. If you have major issues with what someone says, then argue against it - don't just scream obscenities at them, it makes it seem like you have no point ultimately, just that you don't like what he is saying. I know what some people's intentions are when they post what they do - but Steve usually just states an opinion and debates it if someone disagrees, and quite often he has the same opinion as the majority.
|
|
|
Post by Fryar on Mar 30, 2014 8:54:18 GMT -4
Other than when he dug his feet in on the flipflopping Ashley/Sorenson crosscreck incidents, I don't know where you guys see this from SteveUL so often. A different opinion, as long as it is debated well, is good conversation IMO. If you have major issues with what someone says, then argue against it - don't just scream obscenities at them, it makes it seem like you have no point ultimately, just that you don't like what he is saying. I know what some people's intentions are when they post what they do - but Steve usually just states an opinion and debates it if someone disagrees, and quite often he has the same opinion as the majority. Where were the screamed obscenities I posted? Debated in the past and stated, at those times, his obvious hypocrisy which is a shit disturbing move. It certainly didn't seem like I had no point when I clearly made my points at those times. To continue debating when the other poster clearly cares more about hearing themselves talk while clinging to a ridiculous point of view to continue to stir the pot isn’t productive. Just because someone has a differing opinion than you about someone else doesn't make them wrong. You’re picking the wrong crusade here. Find something useful to post.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Mar 30, 2014 9:01:33 GMT -4
Other than when he dug his feet in on the flipflopping Ashley/Sorenson crosscreck incidents, I don't know where you guys see this from SteveUL so often. A different opinion, as long as it is debated well, is good conversation IMO. If you have major issues with what someone says, then argue against it - don't just scream obscenities at them, it makes it seem like you have no point ultimately, just that you don't like what he is saying. I know what some people's intentions are when they post what they do - but Steve usually just states an opinion and debates it if someone disagrees, and quite often he has the same opinion as the majority. Where were the screamed obscenities I posted? Debated in the past and stated, at those times, his obvious hypocrisy which is a shit disturbing move. It certainly didn't seem like I had no point when I clearly made my points at those times. To continue debating when the other poster clearly cares more about hearing themselves talk while clinging to a ridiculous point of view to continue to stir the pot isn’t productive. Just because someone has a differing opinion than you about someone else doesn't make them wrong. You’re picking the wrong crusade here. Find something useful to post. I quoted you because you agreed with him... but basically it was because it was the last post in the thread. Its fine to have an opinion of someone, but its tiresome to see a thread turn into a big "fuck you, fuck everything, screw off, get off the board" over... what?
|
|
Picassocat
Draft Pick
Gatineau (Hull) Qc
Posts: 71
|
Post by Picassocat on Mar 30, 2014 16:26:55 GMT -4
Go-Go Blainville. I prefer a series Olympiques-Halifax, why?
-two teams that don’t see each other very often and Halifax is a nice team to see play -bonus to see Drouin in his last junior year -Halifax is probably an overestimated team having evolved in the weakest division of the circuit -Val-d’Or has the Olympiques number (4/6 wins for the Foreurs this year) -If I was Halifax, and even with a home ice advantage, I wouldn’t want to face the Gatineau Olympiques especially in a 2-3-2
|
|