ECAC Chat on CSTV.com

Trotsky · February 08, 2006, 05:06:55 PM

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

Rosey · February 08, 2006, 05:09:07 PM

[quote jmh30]No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "" ever again. :-D[/quote]
Ge'joe mind outta the gutta'.

That was not the image I intended to invoke.

Cheers,
Kyle

KeithK · February 08, 2006, 05:46:55 PM

[quote Trotsky]So I guess we're not going to have a Hobey winner this year, eh? ;-)[/quote]Nonsense! Salmela for Hobey!

jtwcornell91 · February 08, 2006, 05:51:03 PM

[quote jmh30][quote krose]

Anyone else want popcorn?[/quote]No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "" ever again. :-D[/quote]

THIRTY-SEVEN??? ::twitch::

Will · February 08, 2006, 06:15:49 PM

[quote jtwcornell91][quote jmh30][quote krose]

Anyone else want popcorn?[/quote]No, but I do want you and everyone else on this forum to never use the word "" ever again. :-D[/quote]

THIRTY-SEVEN??? ::twitch::[/quote]

In a row? ::nut::

Dpperk29 · February 08, 2006, 08:23:36 PM

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

Rich S · February 09, 2006, 12:11:51 AM

[quote 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?[/quote]

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? ::rolleyes::

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

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

daredevilcu · February 09, 2006, 12:24:07 AM

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.

DisplacedCornellian · February 09, 2006, 08:43:16 AM

[quote 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.[/quote]

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 ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: ::rolleyes:: , well...you're going to get a response.

Robb · February 09, 2006, 08:50:26 AM

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

Beeeej · February 09, 2006, 08:50:51 AM

[quote 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.[/quote]

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

Trotsky · February 09, 2006, 09:24:54 AM

[quote Rich S][quote 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?[/quote]

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? ::rolleyes::

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

Oh right...contrary opinions ain't allowed...it's "your" forum.[/quote]

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.

RichS · February 09, 2006, 12:59:47 PM

[quote Beeeej][quote 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[/quote]

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.

RichS · February 09, 2006, 01:10:17 PM

[quote Robb][quote 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.[/quote]

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. ::rolleyes::

Beeeej · February 09, 2006, 01:19:45 PM

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