Whither Mike Schafer?

[RichS]

Jackie-boy?

[cth95]

     Do you mean 4th best of all time or that year?  Dryden, McKee, LeNeveau, Cropper, Underhill, Duffis, Elliot.  Did I hit his name yet?  I am not totally trying to be funny, I am just curious of whom we are referring.

[Trotsky]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
In any case the point I was making was that UNH didn't skate circles around us in those games, while the Gophers did for most of the 1st two periods, hence ice size does make a difference.[/q]

That isn't really a "hence," since it doesn't logically follow that if we were more evenly matched against UNH than Minny that the ice must have been difference.  Cornell 2005 may be < Cornell 2003, and/or Minny 2005 > UNH 2003.

[Steve M]

Fair enough.  I should have said "most likely" instead of hence.  In any case as far as speed goes I do think Minn 2005 > UNH 2003, but I also think Cornell 2005 > Cornell 2003, even though the 2003 team was better overall.

[Trotsky]

I'd agree with that.

[Steve M]

He meant in the fall 2002, when nyiballs was a walk-on backup for the Red.

[CowbellGuy]

What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.

[pfibiger]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/q]

all you crazy threaded kids. with the flat view, everything makes sense he's replying to the post right above his...

[Steve M]

Given that it came in one minute later, I'm pretty sure he is agreeing with my assessment of comparative team speed in my last post titled: "Rink size, speed, and passing."

[Trotsky]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/q]

The one directly above.  Thread view is suck.

[Trotsky]

Which is of course not to say (see, replying to the one above again), that the eLynah thread view in particular is suck.  Scrolling all the messages is more convenient than having to click each message within each thread.  I'll try to quote more often to avoid angering the forum gods.

[KeithK]

I agree that it's really annoying to have to click on each and every message in threaded view.  OTOH, I am very glad that there are topic threads.  An overall flat view like the old Clarkson Round Table would be equally annoying, especially when folks get sidetracked into discussions of Phil Collins. :-P

I do try to hit reply to help our threaded brethren.

[ugarte]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

 [Q2]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/Q]
The one directly above.  Thread view is suck.[/q]You've stumbled onto the solution Greg (and I'd appreciate it if you kept using it). You are often replying to posts that have been separated by a comment or five, so your answers are inscrutable without backtracking. Using "quote this post" keeps the answer nested with its thread AND allows flat view readers to figure out what you are talking about. (I'm a flat view guy myself.)

[Trotsky]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Using "quote this post" keeps the answer nested with its thread AND allows flat view readers to figure out what you are talking about. (I'm a flat view guy myself.)[/q]
I know.  The problem is the default reply box at the bottom.  It is (I suppose) a reply to the most recent post.  But in flat world, that has zero meaning, and you need to continualy remember not to use it if replying to any post except the most recent, while at the same time, being in flat world, you're never thinking in terms of threads.

The solution is clearly to disable the default reply box.  I can't be trusted with it. ;-)

[Will]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

The solution is clearly to disable the default reply box.  I can't be trusted with it.  [/q]

Or maybe just disable it for Greg, since the rest of are quite capable of controlling our replying impulses. :-P