Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And knee-capping Malkin and Crosby would have helped Savard how exactly? Would it have magically cured his concussion? I would've liked someone to have dropped gloves with Cooke the moment it happened, like McQuaid did last night, but retaliation beyond that sure as heck wasn't going to benefit anything other than maybe your sense of revenge.

     

    You say that going after another team's stars would stop any other player from going after our stars. I think the exact opposite would happen - not only would we lose players to suspensions, but other teams would possibly pull more crap on the Bruins because they'd know the team would not be disciplined and half the lineup would end up in the box. If a cheap shot means you can get Chara and Lucic ejected all the time, wouldn't that just lead to more cheap shots? I think it would create the problem you're trying to solve.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Yes - I think that If somebody beat the ever living sh1t out of Crosby in response to what Cooke did - it makes a difference. That would have been on Cooke - not the Bruins. Just like last night would have been on Scott  - not the Bruins. And when one of yours gets taken out with a vicious career ending head shot with no other intent then to injure - you respond without all the hand ringing and trying to figure out what the possible repercussions are. You do whatever you have to do in order to protect your own - regardless. Lose the game, take suspensions - whatever. Character is what you do in spite of what might happen.


    And Red - if you were on my team and somebody did that they're goin down. Too bad I couldn't count on you to do the same, because you were trying to stay out of the box or not get disciplined.

    Like I said you wouldn't understand.

    BTW...Save all the patronizing and condescending crap. I'm talking to you straight up. If you took the chip off your shoulder you would get that it's actually the opposite.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    I'm fine with responding in the game, and I hated that no one did with Savard, but how does that apply here? McQuaid went after Scott. I'm talking about not taking revenge later on non-involved players, which is what you're suggesting. The heat of the moment? Tee the basteard up. Planned revenge on a team's stars? That's bush league.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    Worried that with the home-and-home series, that by the 2nd period on Saturday night, this one might go the way of '81 against Minnesota.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And knee-capping Malkin and Crosby would have helped Savard how exactly? Would it have magically cured his concussion? I would've liked someone to have dropped gloves with Cooke the moment it happened, like McQuaid did last night, but retaliation beyond that sure as heck wasn't going to benefit anything other than maybe your sense of revenge.

     

    You say that going after another team's stars would stop any other player from going after our stars. I think the exact opposite would happen - not only would we lose players to suspensions, but other teams would possibly pull more crap on the Bruins because they'd know the team would not be disciplined and half the lineup would end up in the box. If a cheap shot means you can get Chara and Lucic ejected all the time, wouldn't that just lead to more cheap shots? I think it would create the problem you're trying to solve.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Yes - I think that If somebody beat the ever living sh1t out of Crosby in response to what Cooke did - it makes a difference. That would have been on Cooke - not the Bruins. Just like last night would have been on Scott  - not the Bruins. And when one of yours gets taken out with a vicious career ending head shot with no other intent then to injure - you respond without all the hand ringing and trying to figure out what the possible repercussions are. You do whatever you have to do in order to protect your own - regardless. Lose the game, take suspensions - whatever. Character is what you do in spite of what might happen.


    And Red - if you were on my team and somebody did that they're goin down. Too bad I couldn't count on you to do the same, because you were trying to stay out of the box or not get disciplined.

    Like I said you wouldn't understand.

    BTW...Save all the patronizing and condescending crap. I'm talking to you straight up. If you took the chip off your shoulder you would get that it's actually the opposite.

    [/QUOTE]
    If all teams operated like this it would just be a never ending cycle of cheap shots.

    You can say it wouldnt be on the Bruins, but it would be. No matter what, the bruins would be the ones punished for cheap shotting guys, just like Scott is going to get punished for the cheap shot.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Second - you wouldn't understand

    [/QUOTE]

    That should be a blanket statement for anyone reading your chest-thumping, fantasy nonsense though.  For people who don't always pretend that hockey and BDC is some dramatic battle of the gladiators, your insistence on a blood bath is childish.

    McQuaid jumped Scott on the spot.  I loved it.  I hope the Bruins take every opportunity to pick on Vanek, Miller, and the rest of the Sabres within the context of hockey.  I'm happy with squareing up and fighting them too -- even the non-fighters if they can be coaxed into it.  But, I don't want a John Scott clone in a Bruins jersey ending someone's career with a filthy cheap shot.

    I want the Bruins to win.  I don't want them to throw away their gameplan, strategy, roster, and dignity of the franchise to one-up a low life bum like John Scott.  We're not competing with Scott to see who can cause the most horrific injury.  Keep your eye on the prize.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm fine with responding in the game, and I hated that no one did with Savard, but how does that apply here? McQuaid went after Scott. I'm talking about not taking revenge later on non-involved players, which is what you're suggesting. The heat of the moment? Tee the basteard up. Planned revenge on a team's stars? That's bush league.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you can't read. I said the time for taking out the garbage has passed. You deal with it at the time it happens or you shut it down. Which - like I said was in response to the original post it might happen in upcoming games.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Second - you wouldn't understand

    [/QUOTE]

    That should be a blanket statement for anyone reading your chest-thumping, fantasy nonsense though.  For people who don't always pretend that hockey and BDC is some dramatic battle of the gladiators, your insistence on a blood bath is childish.

    McQuaid jumped Scott on the spot.  I loved it.  I hope the Bruins take every opportunity to pick on Vanek, Miller, and the rest of the Sabres within the context of hockey.  I'm happy with squareing up and fighting them too -- even the non-fighters if they can be coaxed into it.  But, I don't want a John Scott clone in a Bruins jersey ending someone's career with a filthy cheap shot.

    I want the Bruins to win.  I don't want them to throw away their gameplan, strategy, roster, and dignity of the franchise to one-up a low life bum like John Scott.  We're not competing with Scott to see who can cause the most horrific injury.  Keep your eye on the prize.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes.

    This.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    So JW, in a nutshell you're suggesting that the next time Torres cheap shots a Bruin, on top of taking it out on Torres, we should try to destroy Hertl and Couture as well (for example).

    Thanks but no thanks - I like watching hockey. When I want to watch Slap Shot I'll get it on NetFlix.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm fine with responding in the game, and I hated that no one did with Savard, but how does that apply here? McQuaid went after Scott. I'm talking about not taking revenge later on non-involved players, which is what you're suggesting. The heat of the moment? Tee the basteard up. Planned revenge on a team's stars? That's bush league.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you can't read. I said the time for taking out the garbage has passed. You deal with it at the time it happens or you shut it down. Which - like I said was in response to the original post it might happen in upcoming games.

    [/QUOTE]

    You said:

    Maybe skumbags like Scott and Cooke would stop if it meant their actions resulted in some of their own getting their face busted up real nice as a result of their actions.

    So, you're suggesting busting up the faces of their non-involved teammates.  What did red get wrong again?

    Go ahead, call me a 'liar' for posting your direct quote contradiction again.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    Ugh.  He said, he said, she said, you said...

    Wensink is off the mark here.  Vanek, for example, is a human being who works hard each day.  He doesn't deserve to bleed because the GM employs a dope.

    That's all there is to it.

    You want to beat one of their cheap guys, the pickin' is easy.  Ott?  Yep. Kaleta?  Yep.  Try to take on Scott?  Sure.  Erhoff doesn't deserve a caved in face.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm fine with responding in the game, and I hated that no one did with Savard, but how does that apply here? McQuaid went after Scott. I'm talking about not taking revenge later on non-involved players, which is what you're suggesting. The heat of the moment? Tee the basteard up. Planned revenge on a team's stars? That's bush league.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you can't read. I said the time for taking out the garbage has passed. You deal with it at the time it happens or you shut it down. Which - like I said was in response to the original post it might happen in upcoming games.

    [/QUOTE]

    You said:

    Maybe skumbags like Scott and Cooke would stop if it meant their actions resulted in some of their own getting their face busted up real nice as a result of their actions.

    So, you're suggesting busting up the faces of their non-involved teammates.  What did red get wrong again?

    Go ahead, call me a 'liar' for posting your direct quote contradiction again.

     

    I was talking about in the next game which was implied in the op, and which I already stated twice on this thread I'm against

    You lying piece of garbage

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I was talking about in the next game which was implied in the op, and which I already stated twice on this thread I'm against

    You lying piece of garbage

    [/QUOTE]

    What's the difference in attacking Vanek half an hour later in the same game, or next week?

    If you're intent on matching Scott's cowardly attack on a non-involved skill player, what is the logic in setting a timeline?

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ugh.  He said, he said, she said, you said...

    Wensink is off the mark here.  Vanek, for example, is a human being who works hard each day.  He doesn't deserve to bleed because the GM employs a dope.

    That's all there is to it.

    You want to beat one of their cheap guys, the pickin' is easy.  Ott?  Yep. Kaleta?  Yep.  Try to take on Scott?  Sure.  Erhoff doesn't deserve a caved in face.

    [/QUOTE]


    Savard and Louie are human beings also - The non career ending non cheap shot suffering endured by Crosby or Vanek would be on Scott and Cooke - not the Bruins.

    And, the punch to the face of Krejci ? What? stay out of the box? F that -

    The high road is leading right to the hospital and long term disability.

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:[QUOTE]

    Millers wife Noureen DeWulfs chirping backfires LoL [/QUOTE]

    Hilarious.  Reminds me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qye101BNhWE

    Never cheer someone getting hit by a puck.[/QUOTE]


    I forgot about that priceless!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    Agree with NAS and Fletch here. Beat them. Be physical with them but dont stoop down to their level. And if by chance you are up 5 to 0 late in the game, don't do anything other than send out the 1st power play unit if you have the chance.

    I wonder how many threads would be dedicated (and righfully so) if old Lindy was still the coach. I can hear the press conference after the game now....

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Taking out a Sabres player for no reason other than revenge would make the B's no better than them.

    And for God sakes, please don't have Campbell fight Ott again.  That sucked.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed on the fighting comment -- As much as I admire Campbell's courage -- I don't even want to see him fighting Ott's mother. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to TomOBrien's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks for the condescending patronizing crap - I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it or what place it has in hockey. 50 made the same point in the post before mine, as did NAS, Fletch, San, and OatesCam previously. I totally understand the impetus behind the thought - I also understand it would be a bloody stupid thing to do.

    [/QUOTE]


    I am with you Red. The way to win this is beat them...over and over again...let the demoralization begin...let the league handle the stupidity on display by their leadership and players...I love a real good hockey fight, but to be real or good, it has to be spontaneous, in the heat of battle. Not full contact ballet. Play physical-clean hockey. Then, what happens, happens.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ditto.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

     

    Like I said you wouldn't understand.

    BTW...Save all the patronizing and condescending crap. I'm talking to you straight up. If you took the chip off your shoulder you would get that it's actually the opposite.




     

     

    Then what was your point about I "wouldn't understand"? Why wouldn't I understand, if the things I mentioned weren't the reason for the interpretation? You know absolutely nothing about me except for possibly two things - I'm a lesbian and I'm a Bruins/Jets fan.

    Explain it to me - what other facts about me do you know about me that make you come to the conclusion I wouldn't understand your argument? Why wouldn't I understand it? (Which I damn well do, even though I disagree on the basis that it's stupid .)

     

    Think before you type.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to red75's comment:

     

    Like I said you wouldn't understand.

    BTW...Save all the patronizing and condescending crap. I'm talking to you straight up. If you took the chip off your shoulder you would get that it's actually the opposite.




     

     

    Then what was your point about I "wouldn't understand"? Why wouldn't I understand, if the things I mentioned weren't the reason for the interpretation? You know absolutely nothing about me except for possibly two things - I'm a lesbian and I'm a Bruins/Jets fan.

    Explain it to me - what other facts about me do you know about me that make you come to the conclusion I wouldn't understand your argument? Why wouldn't I understand it? (Which I damn well do, even though I disagree on the basis that it's stupid .)

     

    Think before you type.




    I'll give you 6689 reasons why I said you wouldn't understand. It's your posts that make me believe I know how you'll react. It would be near impossible for you to make critical statements about the Bruins. Your hockey opinions are usually valid, except when it comes to the Bruins- then it's mostly kool aid time.  Almost 7000 posts, and you say "I know nothing about you" ? I would told some others on this board "they wouldn't understand" as well, but you are the only one who would take it that way.

    I'm not going to put my thoughts through some type of lesbian filter before I share them. I'm going to say what I want, how I want, to who I want.  Isn't that being treated fairly? I don't consider anyone's sexuality on this forum before I comment on hockey. You are the one who has created that dynamic... not me. I'm going to talk to you just like I would anybody else on this board. Isn't that the opposite of patronizing?

    I could care less if you're "a lesbian" , but I do find it a little f'd up that you decided it was worth mentioning multiple times on a hockey forum. It's not your lifestyle that I object to at all - it's how you feel it necessary to discuss it that I find distasteful. It's inappropriate in this forum. Anybody else talking about their sexual identity but you? See, you want to be treated equally - then conduct yourself accordingly. You are the only one on this board who would have taken it the way you did. You need to put your antenna down. Live your life anyway you want, and that's the way it should be. Just shut up about it because nobody cares but you. Stop being so damn defensive and wearing your choices like some badge of honor that you have to carry. Just act like everyone else regardless of how you choose to live your personal life. It's nobody's business but yours - keep it that way. Why is it only you who discusses their sexuality on a hockey forum ???  And for the record I'm a big time lesbian supporter...I've seen many of their movies !

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    Truthfully, JWensink just summed up my feelings on a lot of the stuff that goes on in the world today. 

    Nice post, Amigo.  I wish a lot of your others were as well thought out.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3VphK9AMk

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Truthfully, JWensink just summed up my feelings on a lot of the stuff that goes on in the world today. 

    Nice post, Amigo.  I wish a lot of your others were as well thought out.

    [/QUOTE]


     "well thought out" is most likely code for agreeing with you

    Thanks though Don Sweeney

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

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    A good post for Wensink, but it still has the usual logic ptifalls and victim mentality.

    I have never seen red ask anyone to have a "lesbien filter", whatever that is.  Just because she's shared some details about her personal life doesn't make her any different then anyone else here.  I know I've mentioned my wife, kids, job, where I live and all kinds of things about my past within some different posts.  No big deal.  If we can laugh at NAS's stories about getting a tug in a movie theatre or going to the Lilith Fair (and we can), then why get mad at red for mentioning that she has a wife.  Why do you feel imposed upon or sensitive about that?  That's a 'you' problem and it isn't treating everyone the same to complain about it.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't write two parargraphs about it and blame red for 'bringing it up'.

    This seems to be a point of paranoia for some posters, so again: Nobody is trying to filter you, or censor you, or pick on you.  If red mentions her personal lifee she isn't pushing some political agenda on you.  We can't she just post like everyone else?

    I don't get the sensitivity.  Wensink calls me a string of expletives in practically every post and I have never been offended or reported him.  I don't feel censored or victimized by it.  It's fine.

    As far as being a homer, or to use the most tired cliche in sports 'drinking the koolaide', these are good times for the Bruins.  I'm sure Wensink says the same about me (or worse), but you should have seen me under the Dave Lewis regime.  I was bitter and miserable with this team.  Two Cup finals in three years and currently in first place -- sorry, I'm not tearing them down right now.  I like this team.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Regardless of Scott's Suspension Length........

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A good post for Wensink, but it still has the usual logic ptifalls and victim mentality.

    I have never seen red ask anyone to have a "lesbien filter", whatever that is.  Just because she's shared some details about her personal life doesn't make her any different then anyone else here.  I know I've mentioned my wife, kids, job, where I live and all kinds of things about my past within some different posts.  No big deal.  If we can laugh at NAS's stories about getting a tug in a movie theatre or going to the Lilith Fair (and we can), then why get mad at red for mentioning that she has a wife.  Why do you feel imposed upon or sensitive about that?  That's a 'you' problem and it isn't treating everyone the same to complain about it.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't write two parargraphs about it and blame red for 'bringing it up'.

    This seems to be a point of paranoia for some posters, so again: Nobody is trying to filter you, or censor you, or pick on you.  If red mentions her personal lifee she isn't pushing some political agenda on you.  We can't she just post like everyone else?

    I don't get the sensitivity.  Wensink calls me a string of expletives in practically every post and I have never been offended or reported him.  I don't feel censored or victimized by it.  It's fine.

    As far as being a homer, or to use the most tired cliche in sports 'drinking the koolaide', these are good times for the Bruins.  I'm sure Wensink says the same about me (or worse), but you should have seen me under the Dave Lewis regime.  I was bitter and miserable with this team.  Two Cup finals in three years and currently in first place -- sorry, I'm not tearing them down right now.  I like this team.

    [/QUOTE]


    BUT NOT A LIAR

     

    The difference is she asserted I was patronizing her because of her personal life. In fact I was doing the opposite. When I tell someone they wouldn't understand - just how the f does that equate to something to do with someones personal life ? You can also stick your PC police garbage- You ain't pulling that sh1t on me. You seriously couldn't be any weaker.


    For the record- I'm thrilled with this current roster- thrilled that Seguin and Horton are gone- Thrilled with Krug and Hamilton - Love Lucic and Marchand - Big C.Kelly fan  - Couldn't be happier that Iginla and Louie are here -  Now am a tuukka believer - Love what the 4th line brings - believe that the PP is headed in the right direction -

    I'll never like this coach

    And I'm critical where I feel it's warranted


    If you took your brain and put it in a parakeets head - the bird would fly backwards

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share