Well, the Morris post is certainly interesting. Let me comment.
>Could people please lighten up. I thought name-calling was the absolute
>sin of all INTERNET discussion groups.
Try the Bruins list sometimes. HOCKEY-L is like watching Barney videos
compared to the profanity and ongoing vicious flame wars on the B's list,
and probably most of the pro sports lists, I venture to say. But it still
interesting, nonetheless.
>Greg's original post, while
>confrontational, certainly doesn't justify the kind of "circle the wagons"
>response that has been engendered. This type of thing keeps going on
>unabated despite the admonitions of the people who have put the whole
>Hockey-l list together. I am beginning to share their disgust, and if
>people out there don't begin to curb their inflammatory rhetoric, this
>list is going down the tubes.
>
>I am appalled by the quality of discussion and the content. Does anyone
>out there want to talk about the hockey played on the ice, not the
>sideshows in the halls of the administrations, or newsrooms across the
>country? Why does a topic such as this generate more comment than the
>games--I actually got the score on the BC/Brown game out of the T-U. It
>has yet to appear on Hockey-l. Not picking out anyone for dropping the
>ball, I offer this as emblematic of what the list seems to have become.
>The quantity of my own postings has declined this year due to my congested
>schedules. If others share the problem, than maybe the list should just
>die. It doesn't seem worth it to maintain a list catering to invectives
>and diatribes. There's plenty of that out on the INTERNET already.
Now, based on the above, let me get this straight...your conclusions are:
(1) The ORIGINAL post (by "Greg" - Hmmm, a bit too familiar for my tastes,
how well do the two parties know each other) was OK, but NOT the many
responses.
(2) You want discussion on the list limited solely to matters which happen
on the ice.
Bad logic on the matter in question.
Mr. Morris, would you please read the article in question from the Globe
(being forwarded to you off-list from the Maine list), and then the Ambrose
original post in response thereto, and tell us all where you can find any
"talk about the hockey played on the ice" ? The problem is not, sir, with
the many responses, it is with the initial post on this subject, by the
Ambroses. Admonishment is best directed to them for re-starting this in
the first place.
It was PURELY "invective and diatribe" and "inflammatory rhetoric" when, in
their initial post, the editorial comments were offered by your buddy Greg
-- read it again --
>for this observer anyway, it is
>comforting to know that at least some people, including prospective
>students and their parents, have included the former UMaine
>administration's handling of the Shawn Walsh debacle as a factor when
>making a decision on the worthiness of the school.
>
>I would have to say that the school is paying the price with its
>transgressions, even if Walsh is not.
Mr. Morris, if you couldn't see that Ambrose's first post was flame bait,
and you question why there have been so many responses thereto (if you
would kindly give serious consideration to the facts as have been presented
in a reasoned fashion in nearly all the responses), then, on this subject,
you are...
I was going to call you [something I have deleted myself, but not
profanity], but you might consider that to be "name-calling". So, let me
say, instead, you, on this subject, are -- a good case study of episodes of
faulty logic.
Want to complain about HOCKEY-L bandwidth being chewed up by endless
discussions about off-ice topics, join me in saying -- stop posts which
comment about polls.
To use your own words -- "Why does a topic such as this generate more
comment than the games" ? Good question.
Dan Doucette
UMaine 78 MPA 80
*** Beers may now be in the booth, but Jean-Yves Roy ***
*** should be kept with the big club in Boston ***
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
