Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

You seemed to be calling out Minnesota's goalie Leveille for a soft goal and that was crazy. What is she 24-1-1?? . Also the fact OSU didn't win the game and usually tries to beat up the gophers? I've seen all four games this year and they are an aggressive team that plays hard. Gophers actually had more penalties the first time they played OSU. Minnesota has a few girls that are over aggressive as ALL teams do. Minnesota can't go 50-0 every year. This weekend reminded me of the UND weekend. Maybe Frosty shouldn't tinker with lines on day two? Oops now you'll post that he's a terrible coach as I did hear this from many Gopher parents after the game. CRAZY!!

And of course Minnesota is the better team and probably so tonight. I did love how hard OSU played and felt they should get credit for beating a better Minnesota team. The number one team in the country! And I know the Gophers will be better for what happened this weekend. Unlike you, I do know when to give another team credit.
I Just hate whining nit pickers who don't know how lucky they have it.

To be fair to Eeyore, you must have conviently ignored his "A tale of two teams" section at the top of his post because he does credit Ohio State. He mentions this himself in a later response.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

To be fair to Eeyore, you must have conviently ignored his "A tale of two teams" section at the top of his post because he does credit Ohio State. He mentions this himself in a later response.

Eeyore does look at both sides of the ledger, and indicates that the Buckeyes did a better job in some respects. But as far as I'm concerned, he's d@mning OSU with faint praise, and WCHFan understood this quite clearly. Notice that the "praise" is weak and equivocal, while the critique of Minnesota is scathing. Reading the post as a whole, the smallish compliments are rendered more or less irrelevant.

All I'd ask of you is to take a careful second look at the posts with an open mind, then decide. Would you want any of the teams you root for to receive the type of "credit" Eeyore is offering?

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Eeyore does look at both sides of the ledger, and indicates that the Buckeyes did a better job in some respects. But as far as I'm concerned, he's d@mning OSU with faint praise, and WCHFan understood this quite clearly. Notice that the "praise" is weak and equivocal, while the critique of Minnesota is scathing. Reading the post as a whole, the smallish compliments are rendered more or less irrelevant.

All I'd ask of you is to take a careful second look at the posts with an open mind, then decide. Would you want any of the teams you root for to receive the type of "credit" Eeyore is offering?

<shrug>

Think what you want to think. I thought OSU played extremely well on Saturday. To the extent that the compliments are backhanded it's the inherent criticism of the other games that I've seen them play, both this year and in the past. I stand by that implicit criticism entirely. In the previous three games I saw them play this year, the Buckeyes lacked focus and got run all over the ice. They got frustrated, stupid and dangerous. If you get upset by someone saying that, you need to watch your team with a more skeptical eye.*

They didn't do that at all on Saturday. They had a game plan and they executed it close to perfection. When I say that they clogged things up, that's a compliment. And note that I said that they beat the Gophers in a way that I didn't think was possible. Think about what that statement actually means.

Did I focus more on Minnesota's shortcomings in my post? Yes, of course. That's because I'm a Minnesota fan. I don't spend time criticizing your Three Stars posts for having a definite tilt towards an OSU perspective. Anyone who reads them expecting anything else is missing the point because that's what you get when you have admittedly biased writers producing posts on a message board. So, yeah, I cop to the offense that I'm more scathing of Minnesota than I am praising of OSU but until someone wants to pay me to be an objective journalist they really shouldn't expect any different.

In sports in general and hockey especially that can lead to some real questions. Everything in hockey is zero sum and sorting out whether something happened because one team was good or the other team was bad is very difficult without the ability to really break down tape of a play and of a game. Which was a bigger cause of Saturday's outcome, that the Buckeyes played really well or that the Gophers played really poorly? I couldn't tell you. I'm convinced that both played a role but with nothing to go on but my memories from watching it live from a single angle with no replays don't support either conclusion. So make of that what you will.


*Note that this is something that a lot of fans need to do; I would say that the majority of posters to this board take a very rah-rah approach to their teams and seem to think that the key to being a fan is to put no limit on the positivism in what they write. To my mind, that makes for very boring writing but to each their own. And, really, do people think that I got handed the nickname "Eeyore" at random? I worked hard for it over the first two decades of my life and have worked equally hard to defend it for the two decades since a co-worker dropped it on me. Read the posts of a melancholy, grumpy, pessimistic, sarcastic *** at your own peril.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Eeyore does look at both sides of the ledger, and indicates that the Buckeyes did a better job in some respects. But as far as I'm concerned, he's d@mning OSU with faint praise, and WCHFan understood this quite clearly. Notice that the "praise" is weak and equivocal, while the critique of Minnesota is scathing. Reading the post as a whole, the smallish compliments are rendered more or less irrelevant.

All I'd ask of you is to take a careful second look at the posts with an open mind, then decide. Would you want any of the teams you root for to receive the type of "credit" Eeyore is offering?

I get why you would have an issue with Eeyore for his comments on Ohio States style of play earlier. WCHAfan thinks Eeyore is an idiot and wrote that very thought in the post. It is a free country and folks are entiltled to their opinions but I decided that was uncalled for so there really isn't much else to say at this point.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Think what you want to think. I thought OSU played extremely well on Saturday. To the extent that the compliments are backhanded it's the inherent criticism of the other games that I've seen them play, both this year and in the past. I stand by that implicit criticism entirely. In the previous three games I saw them play this year, the Buckeyes lacked focus and got run all over the ice. They got frustrated, stupid and dangerous. If you get upset by someone saying that, you need to watch your team with a more skeptical eye.*

I strongly disagree with your bottom line characterization of the OSU program as "dirty and chippy." So there's a factual disagreement. The mere fact of a disagreement isn't upsetting. But seeking resolution is only natural. My pool of eyewitness data is much larger than yours. I've seen the Buckeyes play every other team in the Women's WCHA in each season of the league's existence; you've only seen head-to-head match-ups. Further, you disavow anything that happened during the Lam games or earlier. And yet you're the one who's qualified to make the sweeping generalization? I don't think so.

Next: My quick little comparison of penalty minute totals was of course imperfect. To take a serious quantitative look, you would indeed need to remove from consideration both "good" and "lazy" penalties that are inherently non-dangerous. You'd also want to look at all eight teams, over multiple years. That's a big project, far beyond the scope of this thread. In the meantime, I did my quick two team, five year overview. Did I conclusively prove that both teams are "clean," or perhaps similarly dirty? No, of course not. But a fair-minded reader would say that it cast a bit of doubt on the sweeping accusation. And it certainly was sufficient to justify toning down the rhetoric, and to justify enjoying last weekend's games with a more open mind. That's really all I was looking for.

The issue isn't optimism vs. skepticism. It's a question of whether competing viewpoints and evidence are treated with respect, or are rudely rejected out-of-hand. Saturday's game, itself, was competing evidence. Yet that only added fuel to the fire.

They didn't do that at all on Saturday. They had a game plan and they executed it close to perfection. When I say that they clogged things up, that's a compliment. And note that I said that they beat the Gophers in a way that I didn't think was possible. Think about what that statement actually means.

I grew up with the game and know what these comments mean. Had they appeared alone, they would have been compliments. The problem is you're quoting yourself out of context. Even the comments that do appear above have been modified to the point that the meaning has been significantly changed.

Did I focus more on Minnesota's shortcomings in my post? Yes, of course. That's because I'm a Minnesota fan. I don't spend time criticizing your Three Stars posts for having a definite tilt towards an OSU perspective. Anyone who reads them expecting anything else is missing the point because that's what you get when you have admittedly biased writers producing posts on a message board. So, yeah, I cop to the offense that I'm more scathing of Minnesota than I am praising of OSU but until someone wants to pay me to be an objective journalist they really shouldn't expect any different.

It's a national board, not your adopted team's locker room. Posters should take into account that there's a diverse crowd listening. OK, no one expects total objectivity. And yes, you have the "right" to post whatever you want. But my view is that, as a community, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we can pull it off, people might find it worthwhile to stick around for a while -- and a real chance to trade information and test opinions will result.

As for the 3 Stars, sure: It's written from an OSU perspective. I've not claimed otherwise, nor do I read you as challenging that. For better or worse, we all have our vantage points. But the reason I brought up the 3 Stars is being lost in the shuffle here. My point was that I've done those posts for a period of years; and that if I was making a habit of honoring dirty players surely someone would have objected by now. There haven't been any such objections.

At the same time, I truly believe I send out more positive props to players from other programs than anyone else on the board. At least that's my goal. If anyone feels I'm falling short in that regard, I'd gladly welcome the critique. No one has the right to hijack a national board and turn it into a one team pep rally.

In sports in general and hockey especially that can lead to some real questions. Everything in hockey is zero sum and sorting out whether something happened because one team was good or the other team was bad is very difficult without the ability to really break down tape of a play and of a game. Which was a bigger cause of Saturday's outcome, that the Buckeyes played really well or that the Gophers played really poorly? I couldn't tell you. I'm convinced that both played a role but with nothing to go on but my memories from watching it live from a single angle with no replays don't support either conclusion. So make of that what you will.

Well, better late than never. Had you posted this earlier, this last exchange of posts never occurs. I'll remain puzzled as to why it's so very hard to be humble, but c'est la vie.

*Note that this is something that a lot of fans need to do; I would say that the majority of posters to this board take a very rah-rah approach to their teams and seem to think that the key to being a fan is to put no limit on the positivism in what they write. To my mind, that makes for very boring writing but to each their own. And, really, do people think that I got handed the nickname "Eeyore" at random? I worked hard for it over the first two decades of my life and have worked equally hard to defend it for the two decades since a co-worker dropped it on me. Read the posts of a melancholy, grumpy, pessimistic, sarcastic *** at your own peril.

No real quarrel on this last section; it's simply self-honest on your part. I would note that I've tried to exchange views and information with you in the past, and have generally been rebuffed. I suspect that the biggest obstacle has been my screen name, but ultimately the reason doesn't really matter. Mea culpa: I have a tendency to believe that I can win anyone over, if given a fair chance. The truth is that no one's that good, and furthermore there's no guarantee of a fair chance. Accepting those things is my problem, no one else's.

 

[ARM]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Regarding the Saturday game, I'm mostly in agreement with Eeyore. Ohio State played much better than it had on Friday, particularly regarding its defense of its own net. I wouldn't say that they generated a ton more chances -- they had some Grade A chances Friday -- but the Buckeyes got some pucks to go in. IMO, Minnesota struggled. How much of those struggles can be attributed to OSU improvements and how much was due to the Gophers' own failings is subjective. One of my problems in analyzing a team like the Buckeyes is that I often only see them for two to four games a season. I don't get the same familiarity with the players as I do with certain teams that I may see twice as often. When it comes to Minnesota, Gopher fans watch those players much more often, so we'll be more in tune with what they are doing right or wrong. So that will be the focus of most of our comments. The fact that Eeyore was the person to say it doesn't make it wrong or an attempt to hijack a national board.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

I strongly disagree with your bottom line characterization of the OSU program as "dirty and chippy." So there's a factual disagreement. The mere fact of a disagreement isn't upsetting. But seeking resolution is only natural. My pool of eyewitness data is much larger than yours. I've seen the Buckeyes play every other team in the Women's WCHA in each season of the league's existence; you've only seen head-to-head match-ups. Further, you disavow anything that happened during the Lam games or earlier. And yet you're the one who's qualified to make the sweeping generalization? I don't think so.

I didn't disavow anything that happened while the Lamoureuxs were Gophers. I said I don't really know anything about it because I wasn't watching then. Those are not the same things. The extent to which I would do anything to disavow them is to wonder how relevant things that happened six seasons ago are to this discussion.

And, to be honest, I question your objectivity when it comes to evaluations of the OSU playing styles. As I said, these observations are not just mine and they are not even limited to Gopher fans. There is a widespread perception that the Buckeyes are a chippy team. If you wish to deny that, go ahead but it is not just the product of the imagination of one guy who grew up in Ann Arbor.

It's a national board, not your adopted team's locker room. Posters should take into account that there's a diverse crowd listening. OK, no one expects total objectivity. And yes, you have the "right" to post whatever you want. But my view is that, as a community, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we can pull it off, people might find it worthwhile to stick around for a while -- and a real chance to trade information and test opinions will result.

Please define "higher standard". I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I'd like to think that you aren't saying that we should give equal coverage to all teams because you don't do that, either. (Nor, frankly, should you.) Every poster's posts are going to focus primarily on their own team. That's the way things go.

As for the 3 Stars, sure: It's written from an OSU perspective. I've not claimed otherwise, nor do I read you as challenging that.

I would hope you don't read it as challenging that since I explicitly said that that's how you should post.

For better or worse, we all have our vantage points. But the reason I brought up the 3 Stars is being lost in the shuffle here. My point was that I've done those posts for a period of years; and that if I was making a habit of honoring dirty players surely someone would have objected by now. There haven't been any such objections.

For better or for worse I don't think that you would have necessarily been challenged on that. I think that a lot of posters on this particular board pull their punches a lot and the ones that do aren't likely to be commenting on your Three Stars posts. For instance, I haven't done so on those posts. In fact, I hadn't really mentioned my opinion on this until what I thought was mostly a minor note early in this thread. So I would not assume that just because no one has complained to you that means that no one thinks bad thoughts about your program.

At the same time, I truly believe I send out more positive props to players from other programs than anyone else on the board. At least that's my goal. If anyone feels I'm falling short in that regard, I'd gladly welcome the critique. No one has the right to hijack a national board and turn it into a one team pep rally.

Actually, my complaint about your posts is exactly the opposite. I tend to find that you try so hard to accentuate the positive that the results are anodyne and leave me feeling that I'm getting an incomplete story and so I usually just skim through them rather than giving them a deep read. For what it's worth, I suspect that your approach is more in keeping with a lot of the people on this board and that I'm the outlier.

And I'll say what you did without any of the qualifiers. Write whatever you ****ed well want to in whatever style you want to. Feel free to try to turn the board into a one team pep rally if that's what floats your boat. A message board doesn't get its balance because each and every poster tries hard to be fair and representative of everyone. It gets its balance, if it has any, because it has a multiplicity of posters each of whom bring their own biases to their posts.

And lecturing people because their posts focus mostly on their own teams looks pretty silly when you do the same thing.

Well, better late than never. Had you posted this earlier, this last exchange of posts never occurs. I'll remain puzzled as to why it's so very hard to be humble, but c'est la vie.

I did post essentially this same thing earlier. Several times. I didn't do it in this thread, and I'm not sure how recently the last time was, but I'm not going to post it as a caveat every time I write a post about a game. Maybe you shouldn't assume that what is said in a specific post is the totality of someone's thoughts on the subject.

No real quarrel on this last section; it's simply self-honest on your part. I would note that I've tried to exchange views and information with you in the past, and have generally been rebuffed. I suspect that the biggest obstacle has been my screen name, but ultimately the reason doesn't really matter. Mea culpa: I have a tendency to believe that I can win anyone over, if given a fair chance. The truth is that no one's that good, and furthermore there's no guarantee of a fair chance. Accepting those things is my problem, no one else's.

The funny thing is that we've exchanged information cordially on several occasions, included in person. Dave introduced us during last season's trip to Columbus and I thought the conversation went fine. And if there is any friction it really has nothing whatsoever to do with your screen name or the fact that you're an Ohio State fan. I joke about leftover rivalries from when I was growing up but that's really all it is. I don't dislike OSU in any sort of personal way and, if I did have anything serious from that era it would be about Michigan State, who I also felt more of a rivalry with since football isn't really my thing.* The only school where my animosity truly runs deep is North Dakota which is for reasons that extend far beyond anything OSU has done.

A far more likely explanation is that I can tend to be a brusque person and that what seems like being rebuffed to you is not really what I intended. Some of that should be chalked up to my being autistic; there are a lot of times when my mannerisms, body language, tone of voice, etc. convey meanings to people quite different from what I thought I was conveying. This happens in print sometimes, too, so is probably an issue. (All I can say is that if you really want to hear some nasty conversation, listen to a couple of kids with Asperger's interacting just with each other; then watch the way that they don't take offense at things that a neurotypical kid would go ballistic over.) I'm not actually going to apologize for that because I don't really feel sorry for acting the way that my brain leads me to but it is an explanation. It's one of the reasons I try to be open about my autism so that people can keep it in mind when they try to evaluate my behavior. And if I say something that really does offend you please let me know. Either I didn't mean it and I'll want a chance to correct it, or I did mean it and I'll be happy to have a chance to reiterate it. Fortunately, it's usually the former.

*The exception, I think, was a discussion about Jim Tressel and that we're just going to have to disagree on.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Sigh. And in reading that last post I can see several places where my words are likely harsher than I really meant. Rather than edit them out I'll just emphasize that I don't mean anything insulting by them and just let them stand as a monument to how I can let things get away from me.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Regarding the Saturday game, I'm mostly in agreement with Eeyore. Ohio State played much better than it had on Friday, particularly regarding its defense of its own net. I wouldn't say that they generated a ton more chances -- they had some Grade A chances Friday -- but the Buckeyes got some pucks to go in. IMO, Minnesota struggled. How much of those struggles can be attributed to OSU improvements and how much was due to the Gophers' own failings is subjective. One of my problems in analyzing a team like the Buckeyes is that I often only see them for two to four games a season. I don't get the same familiarity with the players as I do with certain teams that I may see twice as often. When it comes to Minnesota, Gopher fans watch those players much more often, so we'll be more in tune with what they are doing right or wrong. So that will be the focus of most of our comments. The fact that Eeyore was the person to say it doesn't make it wrong or an attempt to hijack a national board.

All of us need to move on to next weekend, so it's necessary for me just to cut to the chase. I worry that this will lead to further misunderstanding. But ignoring you, of all posters, would be even worse.

As simply and as bluntly as I can put it, I found Post #44 to be absolutely dripping with disrespect and bitterness. Even with all that, I was prepared to let it go without comment. Then Five Hole Frenzy trotted it out as an example of giving an opposing team "credit." I'm sorry, but it absolutely stuns me that anyone could read that post in that way. Now I have no doubt that FHF posted in good faith. And FHF does have a point: WCHFan should have left the word "idiot" in the locker room. But the same thing applies to the entirety of Post #44: It should have been left in the locker room.

I completely understand how disappointing it is to lose to a heavy underdog. Trashing the underdogs' efforts can ease the pain. That's fine "in the room," both figuratively and literally. Figuratively meaning among your own fanbase -- whether in person, on your school's message board or team thread. But I sincerely believe that's not an appropriate way to post on a national thread. Of course it happens all the time on the Men's Hockey Board and other websites. But that doesn't make it right. The relative absence of that kind of posting is something I think of as a selling point of the Women's Hockey Board.

Finally, the "hijack" prose is apparently poor drafting on my part. The "hijacking suspect" is me -- I was referencing the 3 Stars on this. The principle I'm trying to sell is that everyone should keep in mind who else is on the thread when posting. Someone could plausibly argue that I'm changing the subject from "WCHA" to "OSU" with the 3 Stars. In other words, hijacking. I try hard to be sensitive to that, but may not always succeed. Anyhow, the gist of parallel I was trying to draw is that I hold myself to the general standard, as opposed to simply expecting it of others.

But what about this thread? To clarify, Eeyore was not hijacking. The subject of Post #44 was relevant to the thread. I stand by my objection to the post, but changing the subject is not the issue here.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

I'm sorry, but in light of what must follow, I simply don't have the time and energy to go point-by-point again. I do appreciate the energy you put into the latest post. And I sincerely hope my reply to ARM answers some of you inquiries. I know it doesn't answer all of them.

There is, however, an urgent need for me to clear up a couple of misunderstandings; one small, one large.

I did post essentially this same thing earlier. Several times. I didn't do it in this thread, and I'm not sure how recently the last time was, but I'm not going to post it as a caveat every time I write a post about a game. Maybe you shouldn't assume that what is said in a specific post is the totality of someone's thoughts on the subject.

The small misunderstanding: My "better late than never" prose was directed strictly at the Saturday Game and Post #44. That is why I used the phrase "this last exchange of posts." Don't blame you for the confusion. We've both been going back and forth between the general evaluation of OSU's program and the particulars of Saturday's game.

The funny thing is that we've exchanged information cordially on several occasions, included in person. Dave introduced us during last season's trip to Columbus and I thought the conversation went fine. And if there is any friction it really has nothing whatsoever to do with your screen name or the fact that you're an Ohio State fan. I joke about leftover rivalries from when I was growing up but that's really all it is. I don't dislike OSU in any sort of personal way and, if I did have anything serious from that era it would be about Michigan State, who I also felt more of a rivalry with since football isn't really my thing.* The only school where my animosity truly runs deep is North Dakota which is for reasons that extend far beyond anything OSU has done.

A far more likely explanation is that I can tend to be a brusque person and that what seems like being rebuffed to you is not really what I intended. Some of that should be chalked up to my being autistic; there are a lot of times when my mannerisms, body language, tone of voice, etc. convey meanings to people quite different from what I thought I was conveying. This happens in print sometimes, too, so is probably an issue. (All I can say is that if you really want to hear some nasty conversation, listen to a couple of kids with Asperger's interacting just with each other; then watch the way that they don't take offense at things that a neurotypical kid would go ballistic over.) I'm not actually going to apologize for that because I don't really feel sorry for acting the way that my brain leads me to but it is an explanation. It's one of the reasons I try to be open about my autism so that people can keep it in mind when they try to evaluate my behavior. And if I say something that really does offend you please let me know. Either I didn't mean it and I'll want a chance to correct it, or I did mean it and I'll be happy to have a chance to reiterate it. Fortunately, it's usually the former.

*The exception, I think, was a discussion about Jim Tressel and that we're just going to have to disagree on.

Well, this is embarrassing, but I don't know precisely what to be embarrassed about just yet. But here goes: I honestly don't think we've ever met in person. Or, if we have, I've completely forgotten. But unless I'm coming down with a case of amnesia, I've never had a Jim Tressel conversation with a visiting hockey fan. And if you've met with an OSU fan on "several occasions," it simply has to be someone else -- perhaps osualum'86.

The thing I'm truly distressed about is the idea that I might dismiss someone because of their disability. I would never, ever, do that willingly. I sincerely wish you nothing but the best in your ongoing battle with autism.

As for the rebuffs, we're talking strictly online, and nothing all that major. I've felt that on a few occasions I've been ignored or trivialized. While that goes with the territory on a message board, it's not my usual experience. Not that my posts are any more worthy than anyone else's; they are not. But I do try to pick my spots more carefully than most.

Anyhow, when I was wrapping up the previous reply, my general intent was to say something along the lines of: "OK, you're not buying what I'm selling, period. The unwilling customer doesn't need a reason. I'll do a better job of staying out of the way." Now, I'm not sure what to think.

Our posting styles really are oil and water. In my version of getting old and cranky, I've become much more concerned about the issues of respect and civility. My views are such that I'm probably the outlier on that front, especially on the subject of sports posting. I'll give you a quick glimpse of my personal life to illustrate. Right I'm going through a tough stretch with a lifelong friend on this very issue. He's delighted with his new found trash talking skills; I'm quite offended by them. We're both taking the necessary steps to make sure the friendship isn't threatened. But it has been stressful. Could be that the offline stuff caused me to overreact in this little dust-up with you.

Can't really say if future conversations between us will be regular or rare. I do promise no hard feelings.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Well, this is embarrassing, but I don't know precisely what to be embarrassed about just yet. But here goes: I honestly don't think we've ever met in person. Or, if we have, I've completely forgotten. But unless I'm coming down with a case of amnesia, I've never had a Jim Tressel conversation with a visiting hockey fan. And if you've met with an OSU fan on "several occasions," it simply has to be someone else -- perhaps osualum'86.

That's certainly possible. It might explain the Tressel thing, too.

The thing I'm truly distressed about is the idea that I might dismiss someone because of their disability. I would never, ever, do that willingly. I sincerely wish you nothing but the best in your ongoing battle with autism.

Don't worry about it. There are far more people out there who are just *******s without having a disability so it's reasonable to assume that that's what you're dealing with a lot of the time. I mention it as an attempt to explain to keep in mind when I'm off the rails in the future.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

All of us need to move on to next weekend, so it's necessary for me just to cut to the chase. I worry that this will lead to further misunderstanding. But ignoring you, of all posters, would be even worse.

As simply and as bluntly as I can put it, I found Post #44 to be absolutely dripping with disrespect and bitterness. Even with all that, I was prepared to let it go without comment. Then Five Hole Frenzy trotted it out as an example of giving an opposing team "credit." I'm sorry, but it absolutely stuns me that anyone could read that post in that way. Now I have no doubt that FHF posted in good faith. And FHF does have a point: WCHFan should have left the word "idiot" in the locker room. But the same thing applies to the entirety of Post #44: It should have been left in the locker room.

I completely understand how disappointing it is to lose to a heavy underdog. Trashing the underdogs' efforts can ease the pain. That's fine "in the room," both figuratively and literally. Figuratively meaning among your own fanbase -- whether in person, on your school's message board or team thread. But I sincerely believe that's not an appropriate way to post on a national thread. Of course it happens all the time on the Men's Hockey Board and other websites. But that doesn't make it right. The relative absence of that kind of posting is something I think of as a selling point of the Women's Hockey Board.

Finally, the "hijack" prose is apparently poor drafting on my part. The "hijacking suspect" is me -- I was referencing the 3 Stars on this. The principle I'm trying to sell is that everyone should keep in mind who else is on the thread when posting. Someone could plausibly argue that I'm changing the subject from "WCHA" to "OSU" with the 3 Stars. In other words, hijacking. I try hard to be sensitive to that, but may not always succeed. Anyhow, the gist of parallel I was trying to draw is that I hold myself to the general standard, as opposed to simply expecting it of others.

But what about this thread? To clarify, Eeyore was not hijacking. The subject of Post #44 was relevant to the thread. I stand by my objection to the post, but changing the subject is not the issue here.

Cool...I trotted out a post. Now I can cross that off my bucket list. Now on to converting Pokeman into a kinder, gentler poster...

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Cool...I trotted out a post. Now I can cross that off my bucket list. Now on to converting Pokeman into a kinder, gentler poster...

I choose you.

 

[Hckynut12]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

I am not sure what is mean't by the comment by PGB-ohio made regarding being upset when "losing to a heavy underdog" when I looked at the standings, it lists the game as a tie........

 

[ARM]

I am not sure what is mean't by the comment by PGB-ohio made regarding being upset when "losing to a heavy underdog" when I looked at the standings, it lists the game as a tie........

But to the players, it feels like a win or a loss, depending on which side of the shootout they were on. The Gophers saw one team celebrating at the end, and it wasn't them. For their big picture nationally, yes, it is a tie. But for the Buckeyes, the WCHA shootout win counts a lot more than an NCAA tie, because they aren't concerned with being an at-large team.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Sigh. And in reading that last post I can see several places where my words are likely harsher than I really meant. Rather than edit them out I'll just emphasize that I don't mean anything insulting by them and just let them stand as a monument to how I can let things get away from me.

All is forgiven Eeyore. I'm just passionate about all of these girls who play hockey. Watch many games and appreciate the effort needed to play at this level by ALL. No one can be perfect all of the time and some make mistakes. Funny how it's hard to remember all the excellent plays after one mistake. This forum is for all to voice their opinions and I shouldn't have used the word idiot as you're entitled to your opinions.

Let's all enjoy the season and root for the WCHA to win it all again

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

For what it's worth, my comment in the i8nfamous post #44 about it being a tie rather than a loss really had nothing to do with bitterness. Rather, it has two components that reinforce each other:

1) I'm a pedant, and
2) I hate shootouts with the heat of a thousand suns.

I don't have a problem with games ending in a tie. I do have a problem with determining a winner by playing Home Run Derby.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Hey nut. Want to add teams have lost out on a national title bid because of a tie. And once again OSU received 2 pts to Minny's 1. That's a win in my book.



Please tell me you're not one of those 55 year old guys who says right before 1 minute left in the period. How much time left and then thank you. Or who follow along with the band with the penalty and sieve chants. Hate those guys!!

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Certainly a game to cherish.

c'mon, there's a whole half of the season left, you don't need to celebrate ties

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Ohio State @ Minnesota 1/10 - 1/11

Please tell me you're not one of those 55 year old guys who says right before 1 minute left in the period. How much time left and then thank you. Or who follow along with the band with the penalty and sieve chants. Hate those guys!!

LOL, I think there's at least one of them in almost every arena