The "argument" you refer to was about a half-year ago, so I couldn't remember it at all. But I reviewed the thread.
Last June, I think I was in a bit of a piqued state about weak Hall of Fame inductees, and perhaps my use of the word "pathetic" to describe Zubov's Norris record vs. his peers was a bit harsh.
To be clear: I have nothing against Zubov. I think Zubov was a really great player. I like him very much, in fact. I would love it if my team had a Zubov.
Nevertheless, my position remains that Zubov's being a Hall of Famer lowers the standard further (as Housley and Andreychuk have already done), and most definitely my position remains that I would prefer the Hall to have much more exclusive standards.
Please understand that a handful of my own favorite players are in the Hall... and I don't think they should be.
It's nothing personal against Zubov (to repeat: I thought he was a great player and I like him), but if he is a Hall of Famer, we have to once again ask ourselves where the ever-lowering line is drawn. Randy Carlyle won a Norris, which Zubov never did. And if Zubov is a Hall of Famer, why isn't Doug Wilson, who probably has a better Norris record? Then ask yourself, does Doug Wilson strike you as a Hall of Famer. When we watched Doug Wilson, did we collectively think, "We are watching a Hall of Famer?" If we didn't (I personally didn't), then the standard is now too low, in my opinion.
For the third time, I have nothing against Zubov, and I think he was great.