Post-Game Talk: Panthers 2 @ Canucks 3 (Yes, in OT) || You scream, I scream, we all scream for Etem.

[DL44]

Some other good news coming outta the game...

I think 'lowlife' and 'peanut butter licking' themed avatars on the horizon...

 

[GoalDeny]

Jesus **** no one aggravates me more than that smug bald tennis side journalist Damian mother****ing Cox.

 

[kurt]

Jesus **** no one aggravates me more than that smug bald tennis side journalist Damian mother****ing Cox.

Pretty fair point though.

 

[kurt]

So - no fines or anything? Water under the bridge?

 

[GoalDeny]

Pretty fair point though.

Its a moronic point because he's saying it to stifle discussion. Otherwise, he could have said "Team that employs Jordan Tootoo outraged... or team that employs Sean Avery, or Shawn Thornton.

Every team has a **** disturber but when you point out only one team its pretty dumb. I don't mind if fans at a bar do it because who gives a **** there. But his literal job is to go on television and discuss what he sees (or tries to).

It's the same as this:

or this:

So what if we have Burrows on our team. Maybe Hank and leadership talked to him afterwards to tell him to cut it out. But that wouldn't negate another player saying something towards our player.

Horrible analogy: If a man's son murders a girl and is sentenced to life, it would be pretty ******** if someone were to murder that man's daughter and have the judge say, "tough ****, how can you complain if you had someone in your family do the same thing."

I know the analogy is terrible, but my point is that these incidents should be taken independent from each other. If Shawn Thornton, or whoever, actually did say something about Rick Rypien then Hank has a valid right to complain.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Pretty fair point though.

When it comes to Damien Cox as a Hockey analyst, this pretty much sums him up.



Don't bother listening to him.

 

[The Stig]

Since when does playing tougher = mouthing off to the other teams bench after the game is over?

You really hate them huh?

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Pretty fair point though.

It's a fair point if Burrows was the one who initiated the pushing etc at the end.
But it's moronic to blame the Sedins for Burrows prior behaviour or for Bertuzzi or anyone else.
It's like saying Mike Bossy was responsible for some of Potvin's behaviour. Or Potvin should never complain because Billy Smith was on the team. Or Gretzky because of Ken Linesman.

 

[The Stig]

So which streak was more fun ending, the Montreal streak or the Florida streak?

 

[kurt]

Its a moronic point because he's saying it to stifle discussion. Otherwise, he could have said "Team that employs Jordan Tootoo outraged... or team that employs Sean Avery, or Shawn Thornton.

Every team has a **** disturber but when you point out only one team its pretty dumb. I don't mind if fans at a bar do it because who gives a **** there. But his literal job is to go on television and discuss what he sees (or tries to).

It's the same as this:

or this:

So what if we have Burrows on our team. Maybe Hank and leadership talked to him afterwards to tell him to cut it out. But that wouldn't negate another player saying something towards our player.

Horrible analogy: If a man's son murders a girl and is sentenced to life, it would be pretty ******** if someone were to murder that man's daughter and have the judge say, "tough ****, how can you complain if you had someone in your family do the same thing."

I know the analogy is terrible, but my point is that these incidents should be taken independent from each other. If Shawn Thornton, or whoever, actually did say something about Rick Rypien then Hank has a valid right to complain.

lmao

Who suggested he said something about Rick Rypien?

 

[GoalDeny]

lmao

Who suggested he said something about Rick Rypien?

Sorry, I thought this was mentioned earlier.

Again, this is a DamoSpin tweet so it may be complete ********.

 

[kurt]

Sorry, I thought this was mentioned earlier.

Yeah I might have missed it - I didn't read the whole thread. If something was said about Rypien, it's pretty low for sure. Hard to imagine guys like Luongo or Mitchell standing alongside someone making comments like that (or any coach or teammate with any sense, for that matter).

I still think it's a fair point to draw attention to the fact that the Canucks' employment of Burrows is an indication that certain things are tolerable (read: not acceptable, but tolerable). If they weren't tolerable he wouldn't be a part of their organization.

 

[yoss]

Hutton is crafty with the puck, only a matter of time before he scores imo. Great setup for a chance last night. Etem drew penalty on game winning goal and had prime chance, looked pretty good overall. Nice first game for him.

 

[GoalDeny]

I still think it's a fair point to draw attention to the fact that the Canucks' employment of Burrows is an indication that certain things are tolerable (read: not acceptable, but tolerable). If they weren't tolerable he wouldn't be a part of their organization.

Agreed that it's fair, but the level of discussion should be carried equally whether its Burrows saying something to Tootoo or Thornton(?) saying something to Sedin.

Anyways, just felt a need to vent after accidentally exposing myself to a Damien Cox tweet, thanks for staying civil with me.

 

[thecupismine]

Its a moronic point because he's saying it to stifle discussion. Otherwise, he could have said "Team that employs Jordan Tootoo outraged... or team that employs Sean Avery, or Shawn Thornton.

Every team has a **** disturber but when you point out only one team its pretty dumb. I don't mind if fans at a bar do it because who gives a **** there. But his literal job is to go on television and discuss what he sees (or tries to).

It's the same as this:

or this:

So what if we have Burrows on our team. Maybe Hank and leadership talked to him afterwards to tell him to cut it out. But that wouldn't negate another player saying something towards our player.

Horrible analogy: If a man's son murders a girl and is sentenced to life, it would be pretty ******** if someone were to murder that man's daughter and have the judge say, "tough ****, how can you complain if you had someone in your family do the same thing."

I know the analogy is terrible, but my point is that these incidents should be taken independent from each other. If Shawn Thornton, or whoever, actually did say something about Rick Rypien then Hank has a valid right to complain.

Completely agree with your analogy. The logic some of these "reporters" employ is insane and defies any sort of common sense.

 

[VanillaCoke]

When it comes to Damien Cox as a Hockey analyst, this pretty much sums him up.



Don't bother listening to him.

Capital lol

 

[VC]

So which streak was more fun ending, the Montreal streak or the Florida streak?

Hard to say. It was fun shutting down the media hype train that was following the Canadiens and it was fun being on the other end of a Luongo collapse. coin flip really.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Spector is a hack, I respect Eklund more than him

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Yep, I am all for gender equality, but if someone called you a man when you're a woman, it's still considered an insult, and vice versa. It's not about being inferior, it's about being called something you're not. In general, is ignorant and offensive.

I mean, that's pretty much how I've always taken it. If you consider yourself athletic or strong, you probably wouldn't want to be called a girl. If you consider yourself feminine, you probably wouldn't like to be insinuated having masculine attributes.

I still think chirping is pointless though.

 

[ferroid]

Because clearly girls can't be athletic or strong

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Because clearly girls can't be athletic or strong

Compared to most men, no. And that's a fact.

Though I hear their lower body strength is far less of a gap between the two sexes.

Since I'm most likely going to be trainwrecked with how I worded that: Yes, women can be strong and athletic. Just that it's a fact that men have more potential in their physical realm than women do on average of course.

 

[The Drop]

Pretty fair point though.

Not really.

Is Tony Romo fair game for cheap shots because his team employs Greg Hardy?

Should we say Elliote Friedman is a hack because he works with Damien Cox?

What does Burrows have to do with the Sedins?

 

[ferroid]

Compared to most men, no. And that's a fact.

Though I hear their lower body strength is far less of a gap between the two sexes.

Since I'm most likely going to be trainwrecked with how I worded that: Yes, women can be strong and athletic. Just that it's a fact that men have more potential in their physical realm than women do on average of course.

It's still gender-normative ********, and your answer is a cop-out. It's not about the "upper limits" of strength, it's about how femininity is associated with negative values like weakness, dependence, etc.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

It's still gender-normative ********, and your answer is a cop-out. It's not about the "upper limits" of strength, it's about how femininity is associated with negative values like weakness, dependence, etc.

That's how stupid men see women. Weak, dependent, etc. Not their willingness to reason, being less prone to physical violence, and emotional intelligence.

Sure, femininity can be associated with negative values but masculinity can as well. And both can be portrayed in a positive light as well.

If you wanna debate this into the ground, let's take it to the political boards and shoot me a PM when you do. This thread is for hockey and our white knight grand-standing has gone its limits.

I also have no idea how my answer is gender normative. Other than you being really upset with me for giving an opinion on how to take a chirp.

 

[TheWolf*]

Not really.

Is Tony Romo fair game for cheap shots because his team employs Greg Hardy?

Should we say Elliote Friedman is a hack because he works with Damien Cox?

What does Burrows have to do with the Sedins?

You're right. It would only be a relevant argument if Burrows complained about something that was said on the bench. Otherwise it's just disguised Canuck hate....Cox and Spector are two of the biggest anti-Canuck writers out there.