Lemiuex Hypocrisy

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

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    In Response to Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy:
    [QUOTE]'dezaruchi'...'fletcher1'....i can help....which part?
    Posted by Awry[/QUOTE]

    Okay, here's a couple instances:

    1. "it's not about the poster, it's about the players" -- your post is riddled with references to Sandog, and I can't see what you are referring too.  What's more, the discussion itself is literally not about the players -- it is about an owner, Lemieux.

    2. The sarcastic "poor NHL" stuff.  As dez already pointed out nobody feels bad for the NHL.  The comment makes no sense.

    3. The claims that people here are being sensitive and whining -- totally backwards.  People here are objecting to Lemieux's whining.  Most posts are saying the Islanders game wasn't such a big deal compared to the dirty play that has been going on.  We/they are calling Mario out for whining and being sensitive.

    That's three quick examples of things I couldn't understand from your posts.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    In Response to Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy:
    [QUOTE]Fletch Let's agree to not to debate AF. I still have a headache.  :-)  In regards to Lemieux I think he has earned his say.  I just really think he should look at what his own players are doing.  If they wanted to make a statement they should have thrown a 10 gamer on him for hitting Fedor from behind since he is a repeat-repeat offender.  Anyway, we agree...lets run with it for a post or two.
    Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    Totally agree shupe.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Awry. Show Awry's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    Ok 'fletcher1', thanks I appreciate the chance to explain;

    1 'It's not about the posters its about the players" This is a general statement or a 'rule of thumb' that I try to adhere to.

    I don't insult posters (unless they insult me) I don't call someone with a divergent opinion; a 'hater', a p*ssy, a wuss, a pom-pom waver, or kool-aid drinker - i don't propose Faustian deals in absence of an argument like 'if you don't like it why don't you just stay away', or 'you have obviously never played a contact sport', i don't call people ridiculous or idiots or ... I know the difference between attacking someone - even anonymously - and attacking their opinion.
    I don't care about who you are or might be, or why you think the way you do. I don't make guesses at your intelligence, i don't cast aspersions on your character, I don't want to be part of a little poster's cabal who give out awards and nicknames to people's screen names! i only try to concentrate on what's said and what i might add to the discussion - be it perspective or a left turn or whatever - to make the discussion stronger, so that we - and summoning up all the delusion i can muster for the dream we all dream - to make the Bruins better!
      So, you see, 'fletcher1', it is not about 'us' the posters, it is about the players, the game, the issues.

    2. You had it right. it was..sarcasm, in other words 'The poor NHL can't handle a little criticism?' But it was also a rhetorical question; the answer being; it can't (...handle criticism). Especially on these questions. The League is reluctant to remove all headshots (and instead toys with 'versions' or 'types' of bad vs allowable headshots) because it sees the paradox in getting rid of all headshots and still allowing fighting. 
    The League is afraid of criticsm - especially of this their achilles heel (that they are the only sport on the planet that allows fighting without instant ejection/suspension/fine) and moves quickly to squelch any dissent, armed with thousands of attack dogs (like some you find here) who do their bidding with comments like; 'It's always been a part of the game' (it isn't); 'It keeps players honest (it doesn't);

    3. I never called anyone here, 'sensitive' or 'whining'. Didn't. I asked about the level of anger and vitriol over Mario's statement,the touched nerve, which i still think is valid. Many here can't get past 'who' was saying it or whether he had the credentials or right to say it.

    Another question; If not Mario, who does have the right to say anything? To say enough is enough? To openly criticize the NHL and its lack of courage? Gretzky? Crosby? Savard? Fehr? Steve Moore?
    Is there anyone who can say what needs to be said?

    Or will it be a blunt-force instrument like a death on the ice that does the talking?

    hope that helps, 'fletcher1'
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    Only slightly clearer(but I'm a simple man).Anyway,to  answer your question- "Or will it be a blunt-force instrument like a death on the ice that does the talking? hope that helps, 'fletcher1'"-I guess we'll have to see how far Matt Cooke and the rest of the Penguins will be allowed to push ther envelope before someone is critically injured or killed.This whole debate is about whether or not you/we support Mario and his choice to speak out.You think it's important for a person of Mario's stature in the game to speak out.Those who disagree with you think it more important that he lets his actions speak for themselves(perhaps suspending Cooke on his own when the league chose not to).You can't hire the most dangerous player on the planet and then get upset when someone gets hurt.And to say you don't attack any posters is foolish.While referring to S-dog sharing the venacular of a 13 year old girl,you are being greasy.An eloquently written grease-out is a grease-out nonetheless.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from futbal. Show futbal's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    Crosby, Savard, Lindros...of course there is something systemically wrong with the current NHL; many of its best centers have gone down like flies.  I grew up with the Bobby Orr era Bruins, had season tickets in the 80's, and still love a good fight, but the game has changed. Idiots like Cooke are headhunters first and foremost; just like Ulf Samuelson was a knee hunter - truly sick. Yes, Lemieux is hyprocital; but these head shots are killing the game...All that's mising are submission holds: I went to a mixed martial arts fight and a hockey game broke out.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    In a way, Mario is just being an owner.  Owners have always cried for someone to save them from themselves, and that's exactly what this is - the NHL needs to make it impractical for Mario to sign Cookie's cheque.  That's what he's asking for - take away the reasoning that leads my GM - again, some guy named SHERO so you know he wouldn't like borderline criminal hockey - to sign Cooke, Talbot, Orpik, Godard, Engellund etc.  (Also remember that this is the team that once traded away Markus Naslund to acquire pugilist Alex Stojanov - but I digress).  Look at the impending NHL lockout for a comparable situation: Everyone: "You owners are making money hand over fist!  Why would you risk a season?!" Owner: "We're not making enough money".

    The NHL has already had one lockout because they owners couldn't stop throwing away money.  Now that there's a cap to save them from themselves, they've found another failure to nail themselves to.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    IOh go watch some baseball.  n Response to Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy:
    [QUOTE]Cooke is irrelevant. Cooke is a symptom, not the problem. Lemieux is bang on. He's merely asking if the League cannot or will not protect its players. Today was the first real shot by a big voice across the bows of the Owners. And it's about time too. Lemieux is merely acknowledging what everyone knows; the League is failing the players. And everyone knows it's gonna be the players - past and present - guys like him and Gretzky and Crosby and Yzerman and Savard and Ference - The Players,  The Stars - who will ultimately change and improve the game and that will happen simply - by better protecting the players. Everyone knows safe hockey is the best hockey, Safe hockey sells.
    Posted by Awry[/QUOTE]
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from misterpaulo. Show misterpaulo's posts

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    I admire Marios skills and place as one of the games all time greats and my attitude toward Mario has softened over the years but his latest comments bring me right back to pre 2002 Olympics.

    Mario is a hypocrite.  He whined about obstruction, hooking, the size of goalie equipment and anything else if it meant he could produce more offense.  Now this?  Coming from a guy who had no issues in the past with a cheap shot artist like Ulfy?  Or the guy he currently pays to play on the "edge" in Cooke (perhaps the dirtiest player in the game today).  Give me a break Mario.  Sorry your not on a 15 game winning streak or haven't recently crapped draft lottery horseshoes, giftwrapping you another superstar.

     

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

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    In Response to Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy:
    [QUOTE]In a way, Mario is just being an owner.  Owners have always cried for someone to save them from themselves, and that's exactly what this is - the NHL needs to make it impractical for Mario to sign Cookie's cheque.  That's what he's asking for - take away the reasoning that leads my GM - again, some guy named SHERO so you know he wouldn't like borderline criminal hockey - to sign Cooke, Talbot, Orpik, Godard, Engellund etc.  (Also remember that this is the team that once traded away Markus Naslund to acquire pugilist Alex Stojanov - but I digress).  Look at the impending NHL lockout for a comparable situation: Everyone: "You owners are making money hand over fist!  Why would you risk a season?!" Owner: "We're not making enough money". The NHL has already had one lockout because they owners couldn't stop throwing away money.  Now that there's a cap to save them from themselves, they've found another failure to nail themselves to.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    He as an owner does have the right to speak out on illegal hits, and unwarranted pugilistic play.  The contradiction as BB states is he has on his own team a number of players who are of the same ilk and kind.  He feels (not thinks for sure) these players are somehow justifiable despite their history of the same accusations he makes of the NHL.  Now that is a contradiction.  As a fan, I really take umbrage that I have to somehow buy that gump.  Actions speak louder than words in my book. 

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

    Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy

    In Response to Re: Lemiuex Hypocrisy:
    [QUOTE]Ok 'fletcher1', thanks I appreciate the chance to explain... Posted by Awry[/QUOTE]

    Thanks Awry, it does help, although I would continue to question some of the things you are saying.  I agree with your whole point about not trying to judge posters, it just seemed to me that you were slipping from that yourself in regards to Sandog, who is typically a pretty fair and honest poster.

    I think the other thing I would take issue with is the notion that Mario has a right to voice his criticism, and we shouldn't complain about it.  First off, of course he has the right, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.  And, in this case I have trouble even respecting his message.  It just seems like somebody raising hell over the speed limits right after they get a speeding ticket -- it seems more like personal bitterness than a principled stance on something.

    The Penguins have been among the league leaders in dishing out dirty play, fighting, and misconducts.  While some other teams and people around the league have complained about the league not doing more or punishing players more, Lemieux has been silent.  Now all of the sudden Pittsburgh is feeling some of the pain and he seemingly comes totally unraveled and threatens to leave the NHL??  It is not so much what Lemieux is saying, it is the timing of it all and his sudden indignance about an issue that did not begin last week.  It seems very reactionary, self-serving and insincere to me.  That is the reason for the complaining.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share