Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to 49-North's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

    Matt Cooke went OUT OF HIS WAY TO END THE CAREER OF MARC SAVARD...after he also did the same to a few other players on other teams. I applaud Edwards. Cooke is an alltime jerk, and has no business playing in the NHL while others can't even sleep or function due to concussions that this idiot forced on others. Jack, if you are reading this, you need a lot of work on your play-by-play, especially the over hyping of opposing players during broadcasts, and you often say stupid, really stupid things...But on this one, I agree. He is no better than Sirhan Sirhan...Cooke should never ever be considered for any trophy that is supposed to be about what the Masterson should be about. The NHL went soft on this guy and that's why he never got suspended or suspended properly. He is a joke, and he will soon let his ugly head rear again to murder some other player's career. Marc Savard was one of the most fun players to watch, and this idiot ends his career. Disgusting.

     




    Who else had his career ended by Cooke?

     

    Sirhan Sirhan murdered Bobby Kennedy, who was most likely going to be the next president.  He shot him and killed him.  Cooke elbowed Savard in the head.  If Savard had retired at that point, he'd be living a normal life.  He came back and got rung up again.  And again.  And that was that.

    Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed.  Marc Savard was knocked out.  Savard came back and played more.  Kennedy never took another breath.

    No, Danny, they aren't the same.

     




     

    Comparing hockey players to murderers is, in my opinion, just plain wrong.  In this matter, I must agree with NAS.




    The problem is Jack never compared a  hockey player to a murderer, he compare a Hockey player being nominated for an award to a prisoner in Jail being nominated for an award. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    The player was Matt Cooke.  The prisoner was Sirhan Sirhan.  Hard to say the comparison wasnt there.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     I was just reading some coverage from the Ottawa Sun and found some of the comments quite interesting. Many of the Sens fans laugh at the idea of Neil avenging anything. One mentioned how funny it was to see Neil totally cower away from a fight with Macintyre and how he also looked afraid when Murray slammed him later in the game.

     



    They obviously don't know Macintyre then. The guy is a monster in the mold of Scott, and just as "skilled" with the puck too by the way. I don't blame Neil one bit. I wouldn't want any Bruin fighting that guy either.

    Fighting Mac should be Kassian's job but he was unavailable.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    The player was Matt Cooke.  The prisoner was Sirhan Sirhan.  Hard to say the comparison wasnt there.




    Not if one understand the english language.  If I say Cooke is to the NHL as Hitler is to humanity there is no comparison of Cooke to Hitler.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    I think you meant to say 'not if one understandS the english language'

    A comparison was made.  While he didnt say, "matt cooke, that guy reminds me of murderer sirhan sirhan" he did make a comment that brought the two together in a similar light. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     

    The player was Matt Cooke.  The prisoner was Sirhan Sirhan.  Hard to say the comparison wasnt there.

     




    Not if one understand the english language.  If I say Cooke is to the NHL as Hitler is to humanity there is no comparison of Cooke to Hitler.

     



    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

     I was just reading some coverage from the Ottawa Sun and found some of the comments quite interesting. Many of the Sens fans laugh at the idea of Neil avenging anything. One mentioned how funny it was to see Neil totally cower away from a fight with Macintyre and how he also looked afraid when Murray slammed him later in the game.

     

     



    They obviously don't know Macintyre then. The guy is a monster in the mold of Scott, and just as "skilled" with the puck too by the way. I don't blame Neil one bit. I wouldn't want any Bruin fighting that guy either.

     

    Fighting Mac should be Kassian's job but he was unavailable.

     



    Agreed jm.  Big Mac is a beast.  I ran into him in the food line a couple years ago at an Avs game vs. Edmonton. It was odd, but he and Ladi Smid were hanging out in the concourse in full suits (Smid injured, Mac scratched) between periods.  Not immediately recognizing MacIntyre, I wondered to my buddy 'who is about 6'4 and 230 lbs. on the Oilers'?  Then you see him fight and realize that the size is just the beginning.  I think he ended Ivanans career a year or two ago with a severe beating.  He'd mop the floor with Neil.  

     

    Ottawa needed the old days of Carkner and McGratton in the lineup.  Pittsburgh dressed Engelland, Glass, and MacIntyre for that game -- Zach Smith chose Bortozzo, Neil chose nobody, and they both chose wisely.  I hope Cooke gets it some time, but you can't really blame Neil there.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     

    The player was Matt Cooke.  The prisoner was Sirhan Sirhan.  Hard to say the comparison wasnt there.

     




    Not if one understand the english language.  If I say Cooke is to the NHL as Hitler is to humanity there is no comparison of Cooke to Hitler.

     

     



    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.




    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.



    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     



    Ha.  That's cute Orr.  

    Check your spelling and grammar (again) though.  Then rethink using the words "logical" and "fallacy", or at least use them correctly.

    If it wasn't a comparison, in any way, then why was Sirhan mentioned at all?  It would seem to be wildly irrelvant to bring him up, while talking about Cooke, if no comparison was being made.  Right?

    Like, if I toss out the term "funtionally illiterate" while trying read to your post -- purely coincidence?  A Comparison? A comment?  What is it...?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

     

    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.



    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     

     



    Ha.  That's cute Orr.  

     

    Check your spelling and grammar (again) though.  Then rethink using the words "logical" and "fallacy", or at least use them correctly.

    If it wasn't a comparison, in any way, then why was Sirhan mentioned at all?  It would seem to be wildly irrelvant to bring him up, while talking about Cooke, if no comparison was being made.  Right?

    Like, if I toss out the term "funtionally illiterate" while trying read to your post -- purely coincidence?  A Comparison? A comment?  What is it...?




    I used the term correctly.  I got an A+ in my Advanced Logics course, just wondering how you did in yours?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

     

    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.



    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     

     



    Ha.  That's cute Orr.  

     

    Check your spelling and grammar (again) though.  Then rethink using the words "logical" and "fallacy", or at least use them correctly.

    If it wasn't a comparison, in any way, then why was Sirhan mentioned at all?  It would seem to be wildly irrelvant to bring him up, while talking about Cooke, if no comparison was being made.  Right?

    Like, if I toss out the term "funtionally illiterate" while trying read to your post -- purely coincidence?  A Comparison? A comment?  What is it...?



    It's exactly what you said it was Fletch! Orr you're way off base & out of line. The comment wasn't a good one. In wasn't a horrible one, but it was in poor taste. Just admit that & let it go! 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

     

    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.



    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     

     



    Ha.  That's cute Orr.  

     

    Check your spelling and grammar (again) though.  Then rethink using the words "logical" and "fallacy", or at least use them correctly.

    If it wasn't a comparison, in any way, then why was Sirhan mentioned at all?  It would seem to be wildly irrelvant to bring him up, while talking about Cooke, if no comparison was being made.  Right?

    Like, if I toss out the term "funtionally illiterate" while trying read to your post -- purely coincidence?  A Comparison? A comment?  What is it...?

     




    I used the term correctly.  I got an A+ in my Advanced Logics course, just wondering how you did in yours?

     



    YAYYYAYYYY for you!!! It still doesn't increase your moral's or values between what's right & wrong genius! Jack was wrong. He admits it..So should you.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

     



    What they didn't teach you in your course (congrats on the A+ by the way -- that's awesome, put it on the fridge), is that a comparison may or may not be logical, but one was still made.  You're arguing that comparing Cooke to Sirhan isn't logical.  I agree.  But the comparison was still made.  Edwards comparison was illogical, and in poor taste.

    That's why he was criticized for trying to relate a murderer to a hockey player.  The two don't match up.  And it is more than a little dramatic and insensitive to draw the comparison given the violent and tragic death of an innocent person. 

    This has been explained for you a number of times in this thread, by a number of different posters.  The guy you're trying to defend has agreed it was a poorly chosen comparison.  In short, you're wrong on this one.  Refusing to admit it, is a failure of logic.  Dust off your textbook.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

     

     

    Except that there is.  If you said that, you would immediately be accused of comparing Cooke to Hitler.  And rightly...it is what you're doing in those two consecutive sentences.

     

    You're really squirming for Jack here pretending that the literal connection isn't being made between Cooke and Sirhan.  But that's what an analogy is -- not a direct parallel, but a comparison.  On whatever level, Edwards was comparing Cooke's situation to Sirhan's situation, and it isn't really appropriate.  It is drawing a line of comparison between murder and a dirty hockey player.  That's silly.

    That said, I can't say I was offended by the comment because Edwards' style is to make silly analogies and be a little bombastic, and I just don't take him that seriously.  But it's still not right, and he did the right thing by apolgizing.



    What your talking about is refered to as a Logical Fallacy.  In other word it does not stand up to the test of logic.  But if you want to continue use your crystal ball or mind reading skills please continue.

     

     



    Ha.  That's cute Orr.  

     

    Check your spelling and grammar (again) though.  Then rethink using the words "logical" and "fallacy", or at least use them correctly.

    If it wasn't a comparison, in any way, then why was Sirhan mentioned at all?  It would seem to be wildly irrelvant to bring him up, while talking about Cooke, if no comparison was being made.  Right?

    Like, if I toss out the term "funtionally illiterate" while trying read to your post -- purely coincidence?  A Comparison? A comment?  What is it...?

     




    I used the term correctly.  I got an A+ in my Advanced Logics course, just wondering how you did in yours?

     

     



    YAYYYAYYYY for you!!! It still doesn't increase your moral's or values between what's right & wrong genius! Jack was wrong. He admits it..So should you.

     




    You have no idea of who I am and what my Morals are, plus you are not God and have no right or reason to think your morals are better than mine.  I would never assume my morals are better than yours.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

     


    YAYYYAYYYY for you!!! It still doesn't increase your moral's or values between what's right & wrong genius! Jack was wrong. He admits it..So should you.

     

     




    You have no idea of who I am and what my Morals are, plus you are not God and have no right or reason to think your morals are better than mine.  I would never assume my morals are better than yours.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    And you have no right to think a hockey player who plays dirty is comparible to a murderer bud! 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mattbs. Show mattbs's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    I don't think Jack actually meant that the dirtiest player is as bad as a murderer so everyone should chill.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

     I was just reading some coverage from the Ottawa Sun and found some of the comments quite interesting. Many of the Sens fans laugh at the idea of Neil avenging anything. One mentioned how funny it was to see Neil totally cower away from a fight with Macintyre and how he also looked afraid when Murray slammed him later in the game.

     

     



    They obviously don't know Macintyre then. The guy is a monster in the mold of Scott, and just as "skilled" with the puck too by the way. I don't blame Neil one bit. I wouldn't want any Bruin fighting that guy either.

     

    Fighting Mac should be Kassian's job but he was unavailable.

     



    Agreed jm.  Big Mac is a beast.  I ran into him in the food line a couple years ago at an Avs game vs. Edmonton. It was odd, but he and Ladi Smid were hanging out in the concourse in full suits (Smid injured, Mac scratched) between periods.  Not immediately recognizing MacIntyre, I wondered to my buddy 'who is about 6'4 and 230 lbs. on the Oilers'?  Then you see him fight and realize that the size is just the beginning.  I think he ended Ivanans career a year or two ago with a severe beating.  He'd mop the floor with Neil.  

     

    Ottawa needed the old days of Carkner and McGratton in the lineup.  Pittsburgh dressed Engelland, Glass, and MacIntyre for that game -- Zach Smith chose Bortozzo, Neil chose nobody, and they both chose wisely.  I hope Cooke gets it some time, but you can't really blame Neil there.

     



    He did, Fletch.  It was the fight that former Calgary Sun now Globe And Mail sportswriter Eric Duhatchek mentioned on HNIC a couple of years ago.  As Calgary was his beat at the time one of the topics was the state of the Flames, how they came out short in the Phaneuf deal and Iginla's upcoming free agency. 

     

    He said the Flames were so low even their tough guy took a hammering from MacIntyre but he specifically noted it was as if someone could feel the entire team sag when they watched Ivanans's beat down.  I wondered the same thing after Thornton vs Scott. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    Splitting grammatical hairs is irrelevant in this situation.  How his comments are perceived is what counts.  The perception is that he made a direct comparison between Cooke & Sirhan.  

    As a public broadcaster, he must be aware of how his comments will be perceived, and not how they will be interpreted through strict application of grammatical rules.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Jack Edwards apologizes for Cooke remarks

    In response to 49-North's comment:

    Splitting grammatical hairs is irrelevant in this situation.  How his comments are perceived is what counts.  The perception is that he made a direct comparison between Cooke & Sirhan.  

    As a public broadcaster, he must be aware of how his comments will be perceived, and not how they will be interpreted through strict application of grammatical rules.

     




    Good point 49. Debating whether or not it's sensible for people to be bothered by his comments is fine and dandy but one thing is clear. His comments did in fact, bother some people. I'm not one of them but I understand the ones who are.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     

Share