Where are our Alumni Playing Now

[Scersk '97]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

And it's squeakball, so who gives a crap.

[scoop85]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

[Jim Hyla]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

[Trotsky]

It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's a feature, not a bug.

[pfibiger]

My take in these situations is the kid better not have had the grades.  Otherwise there's just no excuse not to have landed him.

According to this thread on uscho:

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?120378-Colgate-2017-18&p=6670600&viewfull=1#post6670600

He had good grades.

[ugarte]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Jim, I've said this before and I have to insist on it: emojis are a crutch. Context clues, like "good faith on the part of the reader" are more useful than emojis in detecting sarcasm and jokes. People wrote books for thousands of years without even a "j/k" and other people figured out how to read them.

[Swampy]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Jim, I've said this before and I have to insist on it: emojis are a crutch. Context clues, like "good faith on the part of the reader" are more useful than emojis in detecting sarcasm and jokes. People wrote books for thousands of years without even a "j/k" and other people figured out how to read them.

Why should we have to suffer today just because people did things an old-fashioned way for thousands of years?

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Jim, I've said this before and I have to insist on it: emojis are a crutch. Context clues, like "good faith on the part of the reader" are more useful than emojis in detecting sarcasm and jokes. People wrote books for thousands of years without even a "j/k" and other people figured out how to read them.

Why should we have to suffer today just because people did things an old-fashioned way for thousands of years?

Sarcasm?  

::innocent::

[Jim Hyla]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Jim, I've said this before and I have to insist on it: emojis are a crutch. Context clues, like "good faith on the part of the reader" are more useful than emojis in detecting sarcasm and jokes. People wrote books for thousands of years without even a "j/k" and other people figured out how to read them.

All of that is true. However with the speed that people are writing now, I'm not sure that we'll ever get back to that. Hell, we can't even get people to use punctuation and capitals, say nothing of proofreading before hitting post or send. If emojis allow a quick and easy way to interpret, I say use them.

Hopefully the writing of books will never require them, but for emails and online posts, use them if they will help in understanding.

[Beeeej]

We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Uh, he's a nice player for the Ivies, but not a high-major talent

Do you think we don't understand that?  Or that Bill doesn't?  I suspect Bill was even implying that in making his post.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was not working.

I didn't pick up on that either. It's the problem with the written word versus observed speech. In person you'd see the facial expressions.

That's why we have emojis, or italics: We did steal Jimmy Boeheim from Syracuse.

Jim, I've said this before and I have to insist on it: emojis are a crutch. Context clues, like "good faith on the part of the reader" are more useful than emojis in detecting sarcasm and jokes. People wrote books for thousands of years without even a "j/k" and other people figured out how to read them.

All of that is true. However with the speed that people are writing now, I'm not sure that we'll ever get back to that. Hell, we can't even get people to use punctuation and capitals, say nothing of proofreading before hitting post or send. If emojis allow a quick and easy way to interpret, I say use them.

Hopefully the writing of books will never require them, but for emails and online posts, use them if they will help in understanding.

Alas, the use of emojis in one's own writing to aid the reader in understanding - particularly when it comes to things like sarcasm and other humor - requires a certain amount of self-awareness that one's readers are going to need the help.

[Trotsky]

Alas, the use of emojis in one's own writing to aid the reader in understanding - particularly when it comes to things like sarcasm and other humor - requires a certain amount of self-awareness that one's readers are going to need the help.

Writing has always been at multiple levels.  A sentence which expresses anything new or interesting will by definition leave half the readership behind.  The choice is dumb it down for that half (call this the Facebook Method) or... well... fuck em.

[abmarks]

My take in these situations is the kid better not have had the grades.  Otherwise there's just no excuse not to have landed him.

According to this thread on uscho:

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?120378-Colgate-2017-18&p=6670600&viewfull=1#post6670600

He had good grades.

If you read that thread closely, pretty sure that "He had good grades" was intended as a joke - it was in reply to "wonder how Schafer missed him?"

[BearLover]

Academic standards for playing hockey, even at an Ivy, aren't very high. If this kid had ambitions of playing for Cornell, he could have gotten the B average or whatever he needed to do so. And the son of a guy who played 650 NHL games going with the cheaper option? Possible, but again it seems unlikely. The most likely reality is that for some reason he preferred Colgate to Cornell. Maybe he didn't want to skate in his father's shadow? It's a bad loss however it happened. It does seem Cornell was getting more NHL talent 10, 15 years ago.

[Trotsky]

There are also, cough, accommodations for famous alums' kids.  I have to think it was his choice.

So.  Bad parenting.

[pfibiger]

If his parents are doing well financially it might be the difference between $0 for his education and $250,000. That's hard to fault them for if so.