ECAC Chat on CSTV.com

Join USCHO ECAC Correspondent Tim McDonald Tuesday (Feb. 7) at 2:00 for a live chat on CSTV.com's "Tuesday @ The Rink". Questions are now being accepted:

[www.cstv.com]

Bump. Starting now.

What planet is Tim McDonald on?

[q]For Goaltender of the Year, I'd choose Colgate's Mark Dekanich. He's second in goals against average and first in save percentage and he's put up those numbers with a less talented defense than the one that plays in front of David McKee. Player of the Year is probably the toughest of all; there are a lot of good candidates--Moulson, Trevelyan, Cashman, Ouellette, Wilson (plus Dekanich and McKee). But I'll go with Tyler Burton because he's put up great numbers, including four game-winning goals.[/q]

CowbellGuy
What planet is Tim McDonald on?

Pfft. I hate questions like this anyway. As if I'm interested in what Tim thinks.

They didn't even show my question this week. I note that I had the toughest question for Chris Abbott last week. At least he had the cojones to address it.

Kyle

CowbellGuy
What planet is Tim McDonald on?

Planet Hamilton

CowbellGuy
What planet is Tim McDonald on?

[q]For Goaltender of the Year, I'd choose Colgate's Mark Dekanich. He's second in goals against average and first in save percentage and he's put up those numbers with a less talented defense than the one that plays in front of David McKee. [/q]

Of course, this comes right after he questioned Cornell's post-season chances because of their uncharacteristically weaker defense.

I didn't like his answer to my question either, not that he was wrong, I just didn't like the answer.
Cheers,
Drew

I think Moulson should be a unanimous pick for player of the year.

Here are the league-only stats: [www.ecachockeyleague.com]

I wouldn't object to Trevelyan, McKee, Moulson, or Cashman as POTY. Burton should definitely be considered, by as a sophomore, he'll get plenty of other chances.

My bet is Trevelyan, and to be honest, so far this season he's the only guy I've seen who completely owns the ice when he's on.

I'm not saying he should get POTY, but I would've at least liked to have seen Nick Dodge mentioned on that list. Through Clarkson's slump, he's been a member of the only line accomplishing anything consistently, is tied for second in the league in overall points, tied for the national lead for SHG... that's at least worthy of mention. If Clarkson had won half of the games they lost in the last few weeks, I feel he probably would've been on that list as well. TMM has consistently disappointed me, though, so why change?

daredevilcu
TMM has consistently disappointed me, though, so why change?

if your "TMM" stands for what i presume, i'm not sure how any college hockey coverage qualifies....

TMM = Timothy Muir McDonald, the ECACHL columnist for USCHO -- the guy who was interviewed by CSTV, hence the existence of this thread at all. What did you think it stood for?

Jacob 03

daredevilcu
TMM has consistently disappointed me, though, so why change?

if your "TMM" stands for what i presume, i'm not sure how any college hockey coverage qualifies....

I think it stands for Tim M. McDonald.

daredevilcu
TMM = Timothy Muir McDonald, the ECACHL columnist for USCHO -- the guy who was interviewed by CSTV, hence the existence of this thread at all. What did you think it stood for?

yeah- i was thrown off by the middle initial inclusion. i retract everything.

Moulson really should not get consideration for Player of the Year.

calgARI '07
I think Moulson should be a unanimous pick for player of the year.

Moulson really should not get consideration for Player of the Year.

Um, okay.

Beeeej

He was being sarcastic with the first one. Does anyone in this forum honest think he even deserves to be in the running?

CowbellGuy
He was being sarcastic with the first one. Does anyone in this forum honest think he even deserves to be in the running?

I don't, but you know as well as anybody that some people around here get pretty bizarre ideas in their heads about individual players. And Ari's not immune to that.

Seriously, if you want to be sarcastic, what else is the icon for?

Beeeej

Moulson has one even strength goal in 23 games. He shouldn't even win player of the year for Cornell. Come to think of it, I'm not sure he'd even be in the top 3. He has a lot of powerplay points, but I think O'Byrne, McCutcheon, Chris Abbott, and McKee have all had definitively better seasons for Cornell. And for anyone who has watched a good amount of the games this year, it isn't as if Moulson has been getting a ton of chances. The opposition has pretty much totally shut him down on a regular basis at even strength. You barely notice him. Now part of this is the lack of talent on his line compared to usual, but I definitely expected more of a presence even strenght from him.

CowbellGuy
What planet is Tim McDonald on?

[q]For Goaltender of the Year, I'd choose Colgate's Mark Dekanich. He's second in goals against average and first in save percentage and he's put up those numbers with a less talented defense than the one that plays in front of David McKee.[/q]

I am not a McDonald fan, and at first I was ready to dump on him for this one, but when you look at the ECAC-only stats, he does have a point.

McKee: 11-3-2 (0.750 winning %, tied for 1st in the league), 1.99 GAA (1st), 0.909 sv% (8th)
Dekanich: 10-3-1 (0.750, T-1st), 2.18 GAA (2nd), 0.925 (1st)

(stats from [www.ecachockeyleague.com] )

Overall, McKee has a better record than Dekanich (16-4-3 vs. 13-6-5), kills him in GAA (2.03 vs. 2.54), and isn't far behind in sv% (0.908 to 0.914). But given his ECAC numbers, Dekanich does in fact warrant consideration for the Dryden award... at least for now.

calgARI '07
Moulson has one even strength goal in 23 games. He shouldn't even win player of the year for Cornell. Come to think of it, I'm not sure he'd even be in the top 3.

Ok, so you and Age are saying that the guy who leads the team in points by a huge margin, and who has 13 goals while the next leading scorer has 8, shouldn't be even considered as one of the top three players on the team, and that there is no way on the planet anyone could possibly consider him as the best player on the best team and thus a contender for league POTY? That makes sense.

The "knowledgable contrarian" contingent push it a little too far at times. If a guy is blowing away all of his teammates in scoring, he's at the very least a team MVP contender. Double-reverse subtle analysis is cute and all, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

What I said is I don't think Moulson (or anyone on this team for that matter) should be in the running for ECAC POTY. Moulson has 7 ECAC goals, less than half Burton's total and 9 ECAC assists, about half what Cashman and Trevelyan have. Moulson has zero GWG and simply hasn't been a difference maker at any point this year. I'd go with OB or maybe McKee, depending how he does down the stretch, for Cornell POTY at this point, but I don't see anyone that should be on the ECAC POTY radar. Just because they may end up being the best team doesn't mean they have the best player.

You may do well to consider there are talented players worthy of accoldes besides those on your favorite team.

Rich S
You may do well to consider there are talented players worthy of accoldes besides those on your favorite team.

Except that they suck by definition, because they could have come to Cornell and used that talent here.

Kyle

To whom are you responding, jackass? Since you apparently clearly misinterpreted my post, you might want to read the whole thread before making a reply like that.

CowbellGuy
To whom are you responding, jackass? Since you apparently clearly misinterpreted my post, you might want to read the whole thread before making a reply like that.

I love when Age gets mad.

Rich S
You may do well to consider there are talented players worthy of accoldes besides those on your favorite team.

Heaven forbid that on the CORNELL hockey form, we discuss whether any CORNELL player MIGHT be worthy for consideration as ECAC POTY. Go back to the round table if you want to read about people kissing Dodge's yellow butt.

CowbellGuy
What I said is I don't think Moulson (or anyone on this team for that matter) should be in the running for ECAC POTY.

Well, OK then, that does make sense. Dammit.

I do think that if a team dominates the league it's kinda silly to give the award to a player on a different team, unless that player is head and shoulders above the rest (c.f., Nieuwendyk, Joe, 1987). But Cornell is not dominating the league.

More like...Heaven forbid people on this forum should think beyond their noses that there might be other quality players that merit consideration...such as the Colgate guys the writer mentioned.

Oh, and Dodge got the same mention as Moulson...whatever color his butt is..smart guy.

Misinterpreted? How so? Please do tell.

You obviously didn't agree with McDonald's opinion, hence your "what planet?" comment.

Is the league writer allowed to live somewhere besides "Planet cornell?"

And you call ME a "jackass". Nice.

Rich S
You may do well to consider there are talented players worthy of accoldes besides those on your favorite team.

What the hell could you possibly mean, Rich? The majority of this thread consists of regular posters agreeing that a Cornellian as ECAC POY is nuts. As far as I can tell, nobody even responded harshly to daredevilcu's modest comments that, had the Knights not collectively spit the bit, Dodge would be a viable candidate (because, well, he is right).

Even a little ECAC-only analysis by Fenwick was done to defend TMM's choice of Dex as GOY (an award that anyone except Dov is eligible for).

Tilt at windmills somewhere else.

Rich S
You obviously didn't agree with McDonald's opinion, hence your "what planet?" comment.

And through your infallible clairvoyance, you divined - overwhelming evidence to the contrary, right in front of you here in this thread - that the only part of McDonald's opinion with which Age disagreed was the part where names other than those of Cornellian players were mentioned.

What color is the sky in your world, Rich?

Beeeej

Sorry but I did not read ALL the comments on this this thread, specifically those to which you referred here.

But I thought it was clear that I responded specifically to Cowbell's "what planet" post.

Thanks...no windmills for me.

Glad you appreciate my brilliance mr. know it all.

Perhaps you can save your consistantly snarky rejoinders and let him reply himself?

And yes, how can anyone who follws the league realistically object to other than cornell players being mentioned?

I await your "clairvoyant" reply.

Later.

He doesn't have to be clairvoyant. Just read the rest of the thread. And if you're too lazy, here:

[elf.elynah.com]

Jackass.

Yeah yeah, I read it. Ok so you guys disagree on Moulson as a POTY candidate. I'm impressed.

And while I read it, I see you have expanded your vocabulary. Says a lot about you. Another wise guy know-it-all.

Priceless.

<munch munch> <slurrrrrrrrrrrp>

Anyone else want popcorn?

Kyle

In case anyone else doesn't know:

[q]clair·voy·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klâr-voins)
n.
The supposed power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses.
Acute intuitive insight or perceptiveness. [/q]

Rich S
And yes, how can anyone who follws the league realistically object to other than cornell players being mentioned?

I don't know. Luckily, nobody did.

Beeeej

I think if I went on another team's forum, I'd expect to see some skewing in that team's direction.

Further, if I hung around on another team's forum for long enough (say, 2 years and 137 posts), I'd begin to see that there wasn't a monolithic group opinion, and that the regular posters varied all the way from Pan-ECACers to Carnelian-Colored-Glasswearers.

But then again, why would I repeatedly post on a forum of a team I didn't like and whose fans I didn't care for, unless it was to pull tails and raise a fuss?

In an effort to return this to a ECAC POTY discussion...Although it is realistic to think that a Cornell player may win; the fact of the matter is that no one on our team is deserving of the league award. Moulson has been absent for long streches of games this year. McKee, although playing strong lately, still has too low of a save percentage.
I personally would vote for Burton or Trevelyan. I was also impressed with Goecckner-Zoeller (sorry I can't spell his name) on Princeton.
I think McCutcheon deserves some talk for our team MVP this year, but so do about a half dozen of our players (including O'Byrne, whom I maligned in the early part of the year), but will agree has been playing some of the best hockey on the team for the better part of 3 months now.

I agree that of the opponents I've seen us play this season, Princeton's GZ (spelling punt) displayed the most sheer tenacity and effort. He actually reminded me a little of Paolini, in the sense that his skills aren't are refined or as obvious, but he puts more effort into every shift than any two other players on his team.

Beeeej

Trotsky
long enough (say, 2 years and 137 posts)

A lot longer than that. I remember Rich from the days of the original Roundtable, c.a. 1996.

Kyle

Rich S
More like...Heaven forbid people on this forum should think beyond their noses that there might be other quality players that merit consideration...such as the Colgate guys the writer mentioned.

You mean the Colgate guys CowbellGuy mentioned, but you refuse to give him credit for mentioning?

krose
<munch munch> <slurrrrrrrrrrrp>

Anyone else want popcorn?

No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "<slurrrrrrrrrrrp>" ever again.

So I guess we're not going to have a Hobey winner this year, eh?

jmh30
No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "<slurrrrrrrrrrrp>" ever again.

Ge'joe mind outta the gutta'. That was not the image I intended to invoke.

Cheers,
Kyle

Trotsky
So I guess we're not going to have a Hobey winner this year, eh?

Nonsense! Salmela for Hobey!

jmh30

krose
<munch munch> <slurrrrrrrrrrrp>

Anyone else want popcorn?

No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "<slurrrrrrrrrrrp>" ever again.

THIRTY-SEVEN???

jtwcornell91

jmh30

krose
<munch munch> <slurrrrrrrrrrrp>

Anyone else want popcorn?

No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "<slurrrrrrrrrrrp>" ever again.

THIRTY-SEVEN???

In a row?

no... deffinatly Fontas... he saved the day with the jerseys...

Trotsky
I think if I went on another team's forum, I'd expect to see some skewing in that team's direction.

Further, if I hung around on another team's forum for long enough (say, 2 years and 137 posts), I'd begin to see that there wasn't a monolithic group opinion, and that the regular posters varied all the way from Pan-ECACers to Carnelian-Colored-Glasswearers.

But then again, why would I repeatedly post on a forum of a team I didn't like and whose fans I didn't care for, unless it was to pull tails and raise a fuss?

Of course I expect to see skewing and yes I can see the variety among posters.

But it's also abundantly clear that when someone offers a dissenting opinion or, perish the thought, stands up for an opponent's players that you guys seem compelled to trash (I could name half a dozen guys or more), some of you again, feel compellled to respond with vitriol. Has to be something more to it than those glasses.

As to your last question, the posting is because I enjoy talking hockey with other followers of the college game, not the other speculated motives. But some folks here just can't take it that way. Seems you don't take kindly to opinions contrary to those you offer on cornell, clarkson or a variety of other topics, say....the Olympics?

Noooo...instead I get "jackass" and other lovely names tossed at me.

Oh right...contrary opinions ain't allowed...it's "your" forum.

Rich, I like you and all, and you raise some good points, but from a Clarkson fan to a Clarkson fan, it's very very clear you're just trying to stir up the pot a bit. When I posted a dissenting opinion they didn't argue, in fact the one person who responded to it agreed with me. Dissenting opinions are clearly allowed when you aren't being antagonistic.

daredevilcu
Rich, I like you and all, and you raise some good points, but from a Clarkson fan to a Clarkson fan, it's very very clear you're just trying to stir up the pot a bit. When I posted a dissenting opinion they didn't argue, in fact the one person who responded to it agreed with me. Dissenting opinions are clearly allowed when you aren't being antagonistic.

daredevil has it right, Rich. We don't mind (most of us, anyway) dissenting opinions, but when you come on and act like a jerk, start saying stuff just to stir the pot, and then make a million oh so clever , well...you're going to get a response.

daredevilcu
Rich, I like you and all, and you raise some good points, but from a Clarkson fan to a Clarkson fan, it's very very clear you're just trying to stir up the pot a bit. When I posted a dissenting opinion they didn't argue, in fact the one person who responded to it agreed with me. Dissenting opinions are clearly allowed when you aren't being antagonistic.

Amen. I can't think of a single time that I've been annoyed by daredevilcu or drew - I think it's great that they post here.

Conversely, I can only think of a couple times when I HAVEN'T been annoyed by RichS. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

daredevilcu
Rich, I like you and all, and you raise some good points, but from a Clarkson fan to a Clarkson fan, it's very very clear you're just trying to stir up the pot a bit. When I posted a dissenting opinion they didn't argue, in fact the one person who responded to it agreed with me. Dissenting opinions are clearly allowed when you aren't being antagonistic.

Plus, in this case, it wasn't even a dissenting opinion RichS posted - he chided the poster for an opinion the poster hadn't expressed, and which was wildly different from the poster's actual opinion. It's clear to me that as much as many of us have carnelian-colored glasses, Rich reads this forum with glasses that permit him to see only what he believes he will see.

Even now that this has been explained to him, he still appears to see this incident as an example of how we don't tolerate dissent around here. That's remarkable.

Beeeej

Rich S

Trotsky
I think if I went on another team's forum, I'd expect to see some skewing in that team's direction.

Further, if I hung around on another team's forum for long enough (say, 2 years and 137 posts), I'd begin to see that there wasn't a monolithic group opinion, and that the regular posters varied all the way from Pan-ECACers to Carnelian-Colored-Glasswearers.

But then again, why would I repeatedly post on a forum of a team I didn't like and whose fans I didn't care for, unless it was to pull tails and raise a fuss?

Of course I expect to see skewing and yes I can see the variety among posters.

But it's also abundantly clear that when someone offers a dissenting opinion or, perish the thought, stands up for an opponent's players that you guys seem compelled to trash (I could name half a dozen guys or more), some of you again, feel compellled to respond with vitriol. Has to be something more to it than those glasses.

As to your last question, the posting is because I enjoy talking hockey with other followers of the college game, not the other speculated motives. But some folks here just can't take it that way. Seems you don't take kindly to opinions contrary to those you offer on cornell, clarkson or a variety of other topics, say....the Olympics?

Noooo...instead I get "jackass" and other lovely names tossed at me.

Oh right...contrary opinions ain't allowed...it's "your" forum.

It has nothing to do with a contrary opinion or allegiance to/interest in a different team. It has everything to do with the belligerent and patronizing tone you -- YOU IN PARTICULAR -- take in post after post. Your manner elicits more of the same in response. Either (1) you're not aware that you come across that way, or (2) you are aware but think it's the hypersensitivity of the audience, or (3) you are aware and know it's warranted but you just don't give a damn.

Well, consider yourself informed, so (1) is out. Whether it's (2) or (3), only you know.

Beeeej

daredevilcu

Plus, in this case, it wasn't even a dissenting opinion RichS posted - he chided the poster for an opinion the poster hadn't expressed, and which was wildly different from the poster's actual opinion. It's clear to me that as much as many of us have carnelian-colored glasses, Rich reads this forum with glasses that permit him to see only what he believes he will see.

Even now that this has been explained to him, he still appears to see this incident as an example of how we don't tolerate dissent around here. That's remarkable.

Beeeej

That's not the case and I suspect you know it...or at leeast you should.

I acknowledged yesterday, in response to an antagonistic reply, that I had NOT read all the postings on this thread so was not aware that his intention, which was NOT clear in the original post, that he felt Moulson was not a viable POTY candidate.

You have often demonstrated that you see only what you want to see. When a whole bunch of you had incomplete and inaccurate "facts" on the Morris situation a few years back, you, as a group were unable to acknowledge the possibilty that someone much closer to the situation could have better info than you.

What did I get in response to my factual, NON-antagonistic statements? Antagonism.

Go figure.

Robb

daredevilcu

Conversely, I can only think of a couple times when I HAVEN'T been annoyed by RichS. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Robb, you are not the one to talk about annoying or anatagonistic posts. I can't think of a single response you've directed at me that wasn't antagonistic or sarcastically critical.

It was asked...what do I expect to get in return if I make an antagonistic post? Well what do you guys expect from Clarkson fans when you take tasteless, anatagonistic pot shots at so many Clarkson people?

Examples in recent years: Morris, Parker, Scuderi, O' Flaherty, Poapst, Mitchell, Nickerson, and in the past two years...Weller, Dodge, and Roll. And the list goes on.

Behind your thinly veiled objection to "antagonistic" responses which aren't is apparently your failure to accept dissenting opinions. Sounds like resentment to me.

As for the smilies? Yeah my one or two pale in comparison to the use some folks make of them here.

Big sin, eh? Yeah, I guess so...it's "your" board so its okay for you guys to be antagonistic and act like a jerk. God forbid someone else should even approach that.

That's real mature.

Since I wasn't involved in the discussion about Morris a few years ago (at least not as far as I can recall), I don't mind taking your word for it as an example of how people here don't respond well to opposing viewpoints. I've never denied that such a phenomenon exists.

Yesterday was different. You read a post to have a meaning that it didn't, continued to defend your response as reasonable when it wasn't, eventually realized your error and acknowledged it - then tried to frame it as an example of how people here don't respond well to opposing viewpoints. Your original response doesn't qualify as an opposing viewpoint, because it responded to a viewpoint that only existed in your mind. Looking for sympathy in the ensuing pile-on by claiming it was an opposing viewpoint will get you nowhere.

Some of us prefer to see the best in Cornell hockey whether it's there or not. I think you prefer to see the worst in everything we say on this board whether it's there or not.

Beeeej

rich S, please... just shut up... you are not adding anything positive to the forum...

-Devin

"positive" ?

And your definition of that would be all things praiseworthy of, and in agreement with, everything this forum's home posters has to say?

Nope, that' snot the reality of it.

What did your last post add in a positive way?

"positive" ?

And your definition of that would be all things praiseworthy of, and in agreement with, everything this forum's home posters has to say?

Nope, that's not the reality of it.

What did your last post add in a positive way?

Can we get another forum, where threads that degrade into bickering with RichS can go to die?

DisplacedCornellian
Can we get another forum, where threads that degrade into bickering with RichS can go to die?

Isn't the "that degrade into bickering" redundant?

You know, I don't think we will ever make any progress here. Unfortunately I think all of us take this much too seriously. I completely agree that Rich tends to come across very negatively and antagonistic, however we have not been able to change this by our attacks and I don't think it will ever change.

So we can keep it as it is, hope that the antagonism (by us and him) stops , or ignore the whole thing (both now and in the future).

I guess you can guess which I suggest we follow. How about we just don't join the fray? You see there are some people's ideas I just can't agree with (Kyle's libertarian views come to mind), but with whom I think I would love to get together and just argue the points, other's however are not worth it because they degenerate. I still think I might be able to talk with Rich up close and personal, but it seems clear on the forum that is not possible.

RichS
And your definition of that would be all things praiseworthy of, and in agreement with, everything this forum's home posters has to say?

Do they teach reading comprehension to your high school students the same way you learned it? Nobody has a problem with your dissent. The problem, almost universally, turns on you.

And I apologize to Jim, who clearly gets it right, for posting this even though his post popped up in between the time I opened Rich's latest nonsense and when I hit "reply."

Trotsky
It has nothing to do with a contrary opinion or allegiance to/interest in a different team. It has everything to do with the belligerent and patronizing tone you -- YOU IN PARTICULAR -- take in post after post. Your manner elicits more of the same in response.

I think at this point, there's also a memory effect. RichS has been involved in so many bicker-fests in the past that even when he posts something innocuous or only slightly provocative, one of a few posters will call him on it in a more openly hostile way, to which he hits back harder, and we have another fight on our hands.

We'd have a much easier time getting along, and keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher, if everyone just took a deep breath and thought twice before attacking each other. Even if you feel RichS is being unfair or insulting, address the content of his post without attacking the tone. We'll all be a lot happier.

jtwcornell91

Trotsky
It has nothing to do with a contrary opinion or allegiance to/interest in a different team. It has everything to do with the belligerent and patronizing tone you -- YOU IN PARTICULAR -- take in post after post. Your manner elicits more of the same in response.

I think at this point, there's also a memory effect. RichS has been involved in so many bicker-fests in the past that even when he posts something innocuous or only slightly provocative, one of a few posters will call him on it in a more openly hostile way, to which he hits back harder, and we have another fight on our hands.

We'd have a much easier time getting along, and keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher, if everyone just took a deep breath and thought twice before attacking each other. Even if you feel RichS is being unfair or insulting, address the content of his post without attacking the tone. We'll all be a lot happier.

Jerk.

ugarte

jtwcornell91

Trotsky
It has nothing to do with a contrary opinion or allegiance to/interest in a different team. It has everything to do with the belligerent and patronizing tone you -- YOU IN PARTICULAR -- take in post after post. Your manner elicits more of the same in response.

I think at this point, there's also a memory effect. RichS has been involved in so many bicker-fests in the past that even when he posts something innocuous or only slightly provocative, one of a few posters will call him on it in a more openly hostile way, to which he hits back harder, and we have another fight on our hands.

We'd have a much easier time getting along, and keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher, if everyone just took a deep breath and thought twice before attacking each other. Even if you feel RichS is being unfair or insulting, address the content of his post without attacking the tone. We'll all be a lot happier.

Jerk.

Typical.

You've over-simplified the situation and boiled it down to just me. What a laugh.

Yes I do know. Many of you are hypersensitive to the slightest disagreement or criticism of anything related to cornell hockey. Perhaps it's that success breeds arrogance in some. And yes, I am aware and I do care, but I can't force you to change your behavior. That said, it's not reasonable for you to expect me to stop expressing my opinion just because it's not in agreement with yours and ruffles your feathers as a result.

If you can't see the belligerent manner in which so many of your brethren reply to any mildly controversial post, regardless of the style of my post, then you're missing the bigger picture.

You say my posts elicit more of the same. Isn't that a two way street? Consider the consistently nasty and belligerent tone of most of Al's posts directed at me. Doesn't HIS belligerence elicit the same in return?

Lately others have taken the same approach as him and have resorted to name-calling.

Wonderful...that helps everyone.

RichS

ugarte
Jerk.

Typical.

You could not understand less of what goes on here if it were all written in heiroglyphics.

DisplacedCornellian
Can we get another forum, where threads that degrade into bickering with RichS can go to die?

[www.clarksonhockeyfans.com]

was that post so important that it had to be posted twice?

RichS
Consider the consistently nasty and belligerent tone of most of Al's posts directed at me. Doesn't HIS belligerence elicit the same in return?

Rich, you are in our house and one of the reasons we like Al a lot is because he is a significant contributor to our house. So no, it's not a two way street. Is it so hard to leave the shoes at the door? You just prove how sweet this place is by continually returning. Otherwise, you would be satisfied with just your board and USCHO.

Good luck to your team tomorrow, Rich. Enjoy the game.

RichS
You've over-simplified the situation and boiled it down to just me. What a laugh.

Yes I do know. Many of you are hypersensitive to the slightest disagreement or criticism of anything related to cornell hockey. Perhaps it's that success breeds arrogance in some. And yes, I am aware and I do care, but I can't force you to change your behavior. That said, it's not reasonable for you to expect me to stop expressing my opinion just because it's not in agreement with yours and ruffles your feathers as a result.

If you can't see the belligerent manner in which so many of your brethren reply to any mildly controversial post, regardless of the style of my post, then you're missing the bigger picture.

You say my posts elicit more of the same. Isn't that a two way street? Consider the consistently nasty and belligerent tone of most of Al's posts directed at me. Doesn't HIS belligerence elicit the same in return?

Lately others have taken the same approach as him and have resorted to name-calling.

Wonderful...that helps everyone.

What can I say Rich. You're right. You taught us all a lesson. None of us can stand a dissenting opinion. As witnessed by all our fights with Drew, DareDevilCU, Chief Bear, and all the other non Cornell fans that regularly get tossed out of here for daring to speak their mind.

Yup, you're right. Nothing to say but that. Good thing we have you to teach us all a lesson.

RichS

ugarte
Jerk.

Typical.

*giggle*

Seriously, I can't imagine having found a better way for you to make my point for me. You can't make this shit up.

Beeeej

Beeeej

RichS

ugarte
Jerk.

Typical.

*giggle*

Seriously, I can't imagine having found a better way for you to make my point for me. You can't make this shit up.

Beeeej

I have to admit, I've lost track of who's being sarcastic in this exchange.

DeltaOne81
None of us can stand a decenting opinion.

[spelling cop]dissenting[/spelling cop]

As a longtime lurker, and rare poster...

Listen, what I think everybody here is TRYING to say is: "Rich, shut up and go away. Nobody likes you."

This was a public service announcement.