Brian writes:
> Greg writes:
> >On a slightly different topic, much of the "crudity in the crowd"
> >comments have alluded to the effect of ill-mannered crowd behavior on
> >young cchildren. Sorry to be VERY POLITICALLY INCORRECT, but I always
> >laugh disrepectfully when I hear the magic battle cry "we must protect
> >the children!", because in real terms the argument is: "we must do
> >something to appease the paranoid parents (and boosters) who come here
> >and scream at us that the reason their children (insert horrible vice
> >here) is because we exposed them to (insert whatever you wish to censor
> >here)!". Ah, I guess I just lack the proper moral perspective, but I
> >think that parents who fret about their kids overhearing swear words at
> >a hockey game will undoubtedly screw their children up beyond belief no
> >matter how much we stifle everyone else's conduct, so we should just
> >recognize that they are as pathetic as the jerks they wish to censor. Ahem.
>
> Despite my unabashed liberalism, I'd have to concur with Greg. The crowd's
> enthusiasm is what gives any team a home-ice (court/field) advantage. If
> parents teach their kids well enough, such language won't enter a
> kid's mind. Perhaps, it is easier to blame someone else than it is to look
> in the mirror.
>
"Enthusiasm" in no way means nor requires dormitory/locker room
"language". Just want to get that straight. Fans can be incredibly
noisy and supportive of their teams--and even get on the opposition--
without ever resorting to the kinds of things that can get screamed
in someone's ears at a college hockey game. On the other hand, those
of us who enjoy the sport despite this aspect of things are no doubt
going to have to continue to realize that this is something which
apparently will have to be endured if we want to attend. Too bad.
By the way: it seems that virtually all the defense of this sort of
thing on this list, and the examples I've personally observed, is
generated by student fans. Just wondering--if/when your/their parents
attend games with you/them, does your/their approach to "enthusiam"
happen to change in any way? If so, why do you think this might be?
> From: Keith Instone <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: More TCHCR: 12/15
>
> I am not going to make a habit of sending out 2 in 2 days, but here
> is another TCHCR. The only difference from the 12/14 version is
> one game, NMU's 4-3 win at Minnesota on Sunday.
>
Thanks, Keith! I hope we Wildcat faithful, if we had something to do
with this extra effort, aren't in your doghouse! Much appreciated--
also, the bit of analysis of the impact on a number of teams which
were particularly affected by the latest data was very interesting.
> Subject: The Pierre debate
>
> It seems to me that much of the debate that has recently
> gone on about Pierre Belanger is based on an article that
> allegedly appeared in Sports Illustrated, in which Pierre
> allegedly made derogatory comments about Cornell University.
> I had never seen or heard of such an article until it was
> first mentioned on this mailing list. It would seem to me that,
> presented with such an article, the governing body for which the
> official who was foolish enough to make such comments is employed
> would have no choice but to bar that official, not just from games
> involving the school or schools about which the official made
> comments, but from all games controlled by that governing body.
> The fact that I've never seen the article, never heard anyone
> from Cornell comment about the article, never heard anyone else
> in the league comment about the article, doesn't mean the article
> doesn't exist, but it makes me extremely skeptical. For all you
> Pierre-hating Cornell fans out there, I make the following offer:
> Show me the article, either a reference to a specific issue date
> and page or a copy of the magazine itself, and I will take it up
> with Joe Bertagna himself.
>
Now THIS is a reasonable response to what seems to have become a real
tidal wave!
Steve Christopher - Go 'Cats!!!