Burnside: Why the strong-arm tactics?

[BLONG7]

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

Spoken like a true PA buff...anyone who doesn't agree with you is un-informed...

 

[ryz]

Spoken like a true PA buff...anyone who doesn't agree with you is un-informed...

I guess thats the point I was trying to get across but I think you said it more clearly.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I consider myself to be objective, the author of the article clearly is not. The article is an editorial piece designed to inflame those who consider themselves pro-player, and at the same time it has all the elements necessary for the pro-owner crowd to rally around. Propaganda.

Objective? Not a chance. I think you're more likely to be seen running with the lemmings than standing on the sideline laughing as they go over the cliff. I would also say that this article is not inflamatory, or meant to be inflamatory. Inflamatory articles are written to piss off as many people as possible, so he missed the mark there. Since a small minority of people out there support the players, this piece would miss its mark if it was to be inflamatory in nature. You want to talk about inflamatory, look no further than Brooks, Strachan and Dowbiggen. They have made careers out being inflamatory.

 

[Jarqui]

You want to talk about inflamatory, look no further than Brooks, Strachan and Dowbiggen. They have made careers out being inflamatory.

I agree. If you look at the body of Burnside's work during this lockout, it comes nowhere close to those you've mentioned above. He has actually has struck me as closer to one of the more balanced or fair writers during this dispute. He has had criticism of the owners during the lockout. I'm sure Burnside has the name of the agent that he quoted but for obvious reasons, he could not publish it. Largely, the article is based upon well known facts and he's left the NHLPA an out.

 

[Hoss]

Objective? Not a chance. I think you're more likely to be seen running with the lemmings than standing on the sideline laughing as they go over the cliff. I would also say that this article is not inflamatory, or meant to be inflamatory. Inflamatory articles are written to piss off as many people as possible, so he missed the mark there. Since a small minority of people out there support the players, this piece would miss its mark if it was to be inflamatory in nature. You want to talk about inflamatory, look no further than Brooks, Strachan and Dowbiggen. They have made careers out being inflamatory.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear your trying to hurt my feelings.

 

[codswallop]

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

That is such a true statment. The problem is you're using it in the wrong context.

Anyone who is actually picking a side in this will only see the trees. No matter what they say, it does little or nothing to change the fact that they see this through some sort of tunnel vision. And that is real problem.

Too many people blame one side or the other for the problems, with some people almost exclusively. Fingers are pointed, the few facts we actually have are often taken out of their context and put into a one-sided argument. Truth is, both sides share the blame. To what degree is an obvious point of contention, it shouldn't be but it is. It's irrelevant.

The REAL problem is how to fix this mess. Pure and simple. I'm not saying that any of us could do that, we just don't have all the info we would really need. But that's never really been an issue here. An overwhelming majority of the debates here tend to focus on who is or isn't to blame. The overall picture almost always gets lost; the trees win, the forest is invisible.

Of the dozens (probably hundreds) of threads I've seen on this board in the past 10 or so months, I can only recall one or two having a real objective tone throughout. Many insights were presented and explored, and it was quite informative for anyone who appreciates the financial/business side of the sport. Aside from that, the debates have been spinning in a circle. And we get nowhere, slowly.

 

[Hoss]

That is such a true statment. The problem is you're using it in the wrong context.

Anyone who is actually picking a side in this will only see the trees. No matter what they say, it does little or nothing to change the fact that they see this through some sort of tunnel vision. And that is real problem.

Too many people blame one side or the other for the problems, with some people almost exclusively. Fingers are pointed, the few facts we actually have are often taken out of their context and put into a one-sided argument. Truth is, both sides share the blame. To what degree is an obvious point of contention, it shouldn't be but it is. It's irrelevant.

The REAL problem is how to fix this mess. Pure and simple. I'm not saying that any of us could do that, we just don't have all the info we would really need. But that's never really been an issue here. An overwhelming majority of the debates here tend to focus on who is or isn't to blame. The overall picture almost always gets lost; the trees win, the forest is invisible.

Of the dozens (probably hundreds) of threads I've seen on this board in the past 10 or so months, I can only recall one or two having a real objective tone throughout. Many insights were presented and explored, and it was quite informative for anyone who appreciates the financial/business side of the sport. Aside from that, the debates have been spinning in a circle. And we get nowhere, slowly.

The context was right, applicable to myself as well as the other posters in this ridiculous thread.

 

[PecaFan]

But I really feel badly for the players who are being lead over the cliff by a raving egomanic because they do not have a clue how badly this is going to affect them down the road. I would love to see Goodenow, Linden, Guerin, Alfredsson, etc. nailed to crosses and suffer, but for the foot soldier in the association I actually have a great level of pity for them.

The old expression "You get the leadership you deserve" applies here.

I have no sympathy for the rank and file, who simply sit back with their mouths shut. They have complete control of the situation, and can let their voices be heard any time they wish to grow a pair.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear your trying to hurt my feelings.

No, to make the effort to hurt someone's feelings you must believe that there is some form of interconnect to the brain and a functioning amygdala present for the comment to have effect. You have long ago proven that you don't have the required physiological equipment for said afrontment, so that was not the intent of my post. I was merely pointing out the innacuracies in your post and pointing to writers more representative of the style you were attempting to cast the author in.

 

[codswallop]

The context was right, applicable to myself as well as the other posters in this ridiculous thread.

In terms of this thread, I don't disagree.

But overall, too many people still bicker over small details and twist them to suit their own feelings. Which means we keep ending up with quite a few "ridiculous" threads. If nothing else, your assessment of that was correct.