I have watched the partisan comment debate now for
the last few days-  a couple of comments:
 
         First of all, I agree with Mike M., the overtly nasty messages
are unnecessary, and really don't add anything to the discussion list.
 
        In response to Mark Grassl's comments:
 
>        Answer: NO!  This is known as being a poor sport.  I appreciate
>        a certain amount of humorous teasing (a subtle skill that requires
>        some intelligence) but to despise the opponent seems a bit
>        overboard.
 
        Whole-hearted agreement.  A little bit of subtlety would go miles
at some of the games I've seen.
 
>        Time for my rhetorical question aimed at a few but by no means
>        all ECAC posters.  Why do people find badmouthing their school's
>        atheletic rivals such a precious college memory?  Why do they
>        feel compelled to share these memories with uninterested
>        strangers?  Is this an Eastern college thing?
 
        I think I can add a little to this, based on my four and a half
years at Michigan Tech (CCHA and WCHA), followed now by five and a half
years at Cornell (ECAC).  I noticed a distinct difference in the type of
"abuse" piled on the opposing teams here in the East, primarily in that
it's meaner, and in general, more crude.  Again, I think that Mark's comment
on subtlety and intelligence applies-  any idiot can shout out a four letter
word at the opposing team, or comment blatantly on the referee's sexual
preferences- with a little inventiveness and intelligence, the slam
can be just as hard without offending half (or more) of the listening audience.
My final complaint is that I generally find an inverse correlation between
the loudness/crudeness of the abuse and hockey knowledge of the abuser.
 
        All of course, IMHO...
 
 
Joel Graber
 
Michigan Tech '87   Let's Go Tech!    Only 17 days until GLI!!!
Cornell       '93   Go Big Red!