sun article 03/05/02

[CUlater \'89]

In the words of my two-year old, "Are you kiddin'?!!"

Even jokingly you shouldn't be equating Grady with Dryden.

[CUlater \'89]

Not a pessimist, Ben '03, but someone who thinks certain things in the older days have either been forgotten or underappreciated (and someone who is willing to question the apparent blind rabidness for any and all things associated with the Cornell hockey program that is so prevalent on this board).

[jy3]

so here i am learning about how hep B is ruling the world and hepatocellular carcinoma is following in its footsteps, but then I come here and realize that being cynical seems to be taking over the minds of so many people. can't anyone take what they have and enjoy it without being critical of every damn thing? of course i get that way too and i dont think anything is sacred, but maybe people should start thinking about what things would be like without someone like Arthur (with someone worse) instead of hoping he gets replaced by someone before my time. i wonder what would happen if the daily sun just didnt exist anymore, too. guess there would be no more complaining about the quality of the writing and use of language and such. that might be nice.
tried coming up with a statement to summarize what i was talking about but that didnt happen! oh well. let us try to keep things in perspective when we are critical and when we praise.
anyway, LGR!

[ugarte]

[rant] I am goddamn sick of people telling me (even when it isn't just directed at me) to calm down. This is a discussion board.  We sometimes talk about things that are more controversial than "Woohoo we won again" (though that is always nice).  When we do, because we are opinionated people, there is usually disagreement.  When we disagree, we say so.  Ad nauseum, sometimes (most of the time.)  I happen to believe it is mostly for the better.

But very rarely does it turn personal, and very rarely is the discussion inappropriate.  I hate being told, essentially, to care less about things I care about.  I care about "privacy" becoming a stalking horse for concealing information.  I care about gratuitous takedowns of good people associated with Cornell hockey that, aside from being regular readers of the forum, are damn good at their jobs.  And I care about being able to express my opinions without some well-meaning mediator asking me to tone it down.  Because I care about these things, I write about them.  Too much, perhaps - but its cheaper than anger management therapy.

Forgive me if I think a forum with nothing but back-slapping "rah rah go team" would be boring.  What makes this forum worth reading is the differing opinions of people who care.  (And the volumes of knowledge to be mined for road trip assistance.) Skip the posts when you see my name if all you want is rainbows and puppy dogs.  I promise not to care.[/rant]

[tml5]

For heaven's sake Apple, calm down!  :-P :-))

Sorry, that was way too easy, so of course I just had to do it.  ::nut::

[ursusminor]

Marty,

I'm an RPI alum, and I agree with you that awarding three stars after each game only to RPI players is dumb, but I enjoy hearing the announcers trying to come up with three players that performed well in the clunkers that RPI manages to have each year. ::rolleyes:: However. I don't think that Cornell fans should complain when other schools keep traditions that have long outlived their relevance.

As to the short postgame show, I am happy that Jayson/Kurt et al. were able to keep RPI hockey on the air at all this year considering that over the summer the station management was intending to pull the plug on the boardcasts because no students stepped forward to do them. Students are apparently interested in broadcasting all sorts of obscure music genres, but not hockey games.

[marty\'74]

Thanks for the background, ursa.  I never would have guessed that the students could be so apathetic.  Many people at most schools would jump at the chance to do play by play or color.

[nshapiro]

Ahhh, the passion of youth.

(inserting teeth now) I remember the good old days when I used to get me self all fierd up about them high-faloootin' "causes" that seemed so danged important once-upon-a-time...

I guess I just have learned to live and let live...realizing that the world will probably not go  to hell before I do.

PS: Age, how do i change my cock-eyed optimist vote to negative in the "Cant we all just get along" poll?

[CUlater \'89]

As I often do, I agree with BRA, except in one respect.  If you were referring to my comments when you wrote about "gratuitous takedowns", then I think you read too much into them (unless I'm misremembering what I wrote).  I've never written, nor believed, that Art doesn't do a fine job, on both hockey and football.  What I questioned was whether he is considered a "legend".  Whether someone is a legend typically has little to do with the quality of their work (although good work is often a prerequisite to becoming a legend); it has more to do with reputation and publicity outside of the tight-knit world in which the person operates.  My experience has been that very few people know who Art Mintz is and that other than some fans who get a nostalgic feeling from hearing him announce, few people have said to me "boy, that Lynah PA (whoever he might be) is really good"  (I have, BTW, had players and coaches and fans from other schools who have visited Lynah tell me "Boy, that Cornell pep band is really good" and "Boy, that Lynah crowd is really tough to play in front of".  So, I might agree that the pep band and the Faithful are legendary among college hockey fans.

For the record, I note Tom Lento's posts about some "outside source" referring to Art as a legend, but without seeing the article or knowing who wrote it, I can't comment, other than to say that the mere fact that someone works some place for a long time does not make him or her legendary, IMO.

[Greg Berge]

> cock-eyed optimist

Sounds like a UVM reference.

Sorry.

Some see optimism as the vacant drivel of the great unwashed (of which we have some).  Some see cynicism as the detritus of the sadly sophomoric pseudo-intellectual (of which we have MANY).  And *everybody* constructs the world so that, purely accidentally of course, the perfect balance of criticism and romanticism just happens to be... our own.

This just in: we're all full of shit.  The forum is big enough for everybody's ego (which is pretty impressive), and we can all agree that it's worth the keystrokes to yap our mindless yap about Cornell hockey, in whatever style we like.  That should be the only litmus test for posting to the board.

[melissa]

AWWW GOD! did you have to write "litmus test"? ;-)

bad memories of freshman chemistry flooding back. thanks Greg!:-P

[Greg Berge]

I was thinking Supreme Court, actually.  ;-)

[Ben Doyle 03]

CUlater '89 - I am by no means trying to discount anything that may have been "been forgotten or under appreciated," I can only say I have access to what is in the here now. If I don't know about it. . .there's good reason for that (I'm younger than you and I wasn't around). I believe one of the main functions of this forum is to share information (I would like to hear some of your stories sometime). . .but please, don't bash what we've got now in favor of what you had. I think that's only fair. ;-)

[Keith K]

...but please, don't bash what we've got now in favor of what you had. I think that's only fair.

Oh come on!  That's part of the fun of being older.  If things change in ways that I don't like I'm going to complain about it.  You should feel free to disagree what someone else describes as being the "right way" and to say so.  As long as we don't get really nasty about it there isn't really a problem.

Age: I can edit this message using the edit link under the next message (posetd by CULater). The edit link shouldn't be there to begin with. Something's not quite right... (At least I can't edit *his* post).

[CUlater \'89]

I don't recall bashing anyone who is there now (in fact I think I said that I didn't feel strongly about Grady's work one way or the other), but I noted that Roy Ives was, IMO, superior to Grady.  Is that any different than saying that Dan Lodboa was superior to Doug Murray? Or Dick Schaap was better than John Saunders as the host of ESPN's Sports Reporters?