subdoxastic - (Adam Terrance Mills)Member since February 13, 2008
Habs fan since: 1982
Favorite current player:
All-time favorite player: I'm waiting for him.
- Comment on About last night … (2011-11-24 09:56:28)
The team was losing while Gomez was playing The team won after Gomez left. Therefore the team won because Gomez left. This isn't a logical syllogism; it's a logical fallacy, namely, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Ridiculous.
- Comment on Canadiens’ Travis Moen back at practice (2011-10-04 12:33:17)
Hi MJ. You've been a busy boy lately with your calls for fighters/tough guys/ players who can take care of business. Your post asks for contrary opinions (albeit with some rather loaded language) so I'll attempt to reply with a brief sketch of my thoughts on this issue. First, the onus is not on the anti-fighting crowd to provide proof that having tough guys don't make a difference. This is not how logic and inquiry work. If you disbelieve me, please prove there is not an invisible elehphant in the room with you right now. So, it is not the requirement of people who argue that fighting doesn't make a difference to prove that it doesn't-- the onus is on those who hold the opposite (and positive premise) that fighting does in fact make a difference. My post of two days ago was specific in arguing that having tough guys don't reduce injuries or cheap shots to a team's players, examples such as the hit on marc savard and others were offered as evidence contra-to this claim made by you and others. Evidence put forward on your behalf includes the Robinson vs. Schultz fight (and we can perhaps agree to disagree on its importance at the time to the then Canadiens and its relevance to the game now). The latest evidence you provide above is intriguing-- do you think that team toughness played more of a role than Thomas' heroics in the playoffs? As fas as I can tell, the Flyers have not won a Stanley Cup since the 70s and surely their success against us comes down to more than simply being tough-- like having a team that can ice Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, and Briere on 3 different lines if need be? or the quality play of 2nd and 3d line players like Van Riemsdyk who matched up nicely against a Habs team without the same level of depth? But all of this isn't really irrelevant to my post of two days ago. I asked quite clearly if violence (fighting, 'policiing' -- in the form of dirty or even just questionable plays) was justified in hockey and if so what justified it? Wins in the regular season, a particular result in conference standings, a deep playoff run or even the Stanley Cup? My position is that knowing what we know about the impact of questionable or dirty plays or fighting on players' health and its general impact on the environment in which the game takes place, means that we can not absolve ourselves of responsibility if these are things we seek out. Believing that the ends (and in this case something as relatively unimportant as a Stanley Cup) do not justify the means (punching people in the face, and injuries that result from both fighting and borderline plays) is not some sort of faulty logic or universal pacifist approach, and it's certainly not naive. So instead of the ad hominem attacks, and the goal post moving we've seen from the crowd crowing for tough guys, let's just be honest shall we? I am not okay with focussing on grit and sandpaper guys who can drop the gloves and 'police'. I find it detracts from what the game is actually supposed to be about and it rewards behaviour that is only tangentially related to hockey. I don't want to see more tough guys on the team, because it means less spots for talented scoring wingers, speedy centres, passing dynamos and yes, even the over-hyped defensive defensman. You are okay with less talent on the team if it means a grittier line-up capable of imposing fear/intimidation in other teams-- do I have this right? And you're justification for this is success on the scoreboard-- stanley cup wins? Just own up and admit it then.. "I, MJ, am okay with fighting and other on-ice related violence if it results in wins and stanleycups that assuage my need as a fan to feel successful, regardless of its impact on the players and teams involved. But perhaps this formulation of your position is somehow incorrect? I don't want to straw man here and am genuinely interested in your rebuttal. I'll check in later. Regards, Subdoxastic
- Comment on Campoli on Canadiens’ flight (2011-10-02 22:07:23)
For the tough guy crowd. I've watched you move the goal posts all over teh fricken field on this one. Sound arguments based on logic or evidence are dismissed, anecdotes ignored with a the old 'no true scotsman' ploy. Why? If tough guys haven't been shown to actually provide a deterrant (although I liked the idea that we should have pre-emptively gone after Malone-- "We need to fight them at centre ice so we don't have to fight them in our d zone"?) and the list of players provided as being "the solution" is in fact a vanishingly small list of players culled from different decades is ridiculous as some sort of retort to Habs managment, I ask again why? Why the allusions to family and caring and protection and the need to stand up for one another and, "Oh, I'm so disappointed in you Plecky, failing to adhere to some Hammurabian code of an eye for an eye" ? Could it be because you want the players to fight, and punch and intimidate? You've said as much. Why do you want this to happen? And are the reasons for the wanting of violence and mayhem and retribution justifiable? Could they ever be? How many extra wins would make your desire to see some Habs player risk life and limb to beat the snot out of some putz on the other team acceptable? How many punches in the face is a blind-side hit worth? How many broken orbital bones? hands? psyches? How much violence exactly should other human beings (not you, you're safe at home) engage in for you to feel satisfied? By all means keep up with your baying for that tough guy that's going to take care of the team, keep other teams honest-- but don't think for a moment that some hockey fans won't grumble at the irony of you're choices being neither-- instead more people get hurt, and the honesty you seem to require of other teams is missing from your arguments.
- Comment on 50 shots (2011-01-02 13:44:56)
Re: Don Cherry et al.
Don Cherry went beyond the wire to autograph weapons.
I've had interesting conversations here about how we should not villify Mr. Cherry.
Autographing a soldier's rifle?
I'm sorry, but it's stuff like this that makes me less than receptive to his discussion of Subban, and talk of Christmas.
- Comment on Is there a record for 3-0 losses? (2010-12-28 21:59:07)
- Comment on The West is the test (2010-12-21 16:16:04)
Gomez was benched. They called it a lower body injury, but he was benched.
- Comment on AK46, Weber to sit (2010-12-21 15:17:22)
Gomez, was benched for a few games just a few weeks ago. Except in his case, they called it a "lower-body injury" ut of respect for his veteran status. Gomez wasn't injured so badly he couldn't play. He was asked to sit out. The timing of his "injury", in relation to the benching of subban, was very interesting to me.
Gomez, has been sat-- and he came back playing much better than he had been. Subban has been sat-- he hasn't exactly responded in the same manner.
A.K. has the potential to be a great player. He benefitted from time on the top line with Plecky and did well. He did less well when shifted to other lines and then complained about it. So now he sits. Maybe next time he's switched to lower tier line his response won't be the entitled "I want to play on a line consistently" and be instead, "Holy hell, I'm glad I'm not one of those sad-sack buggers up in the pressbox tonight. Maybe if I play like I know I can, I'll get back to hanging with Plecks and Cammi?"
- Comment on The Madness of Coach Don (2010-12-19 19:10:49)
The war on christmas!
Reckin, Freckin' secularists and lefty pinkos always tryin to persecute the christians. The sneaky, secularists-- they're like cockroaches I tells ya!
Hey, looks like I can respond to conservative and reactionary dogwhistles too!
Cherry is an idiot, yes. But you'll pardon this heathen for getting a little creeped out when he he makes comments like, "Remember kids, December 25th is the Lord Baby Jesus' birthday!"
Which kids is he thinking would forget? Is there anybody who's spent any small amount of time in this country who doesn't know that Dec. 25th is a religious holiday? Certainly no christian kids would be unaware of this fact.
Personally, I'm done with the b.s. employed by those who think that somehow their majority standing is in danger of being dethroned. If you think you're persecuted because you're a christian, you're out to lunch.
The rhetorical move from "Oh, yeah, but he didn't take the lord's name in vain" to christmas, to support our troops was interesting if a little messy. I don't expect too much coherence from Don, but i'm left wondering-- do we support our troops because they don't take the lord's name in vain? Do we support them because they're christian? Do we support out troops because we are Christians? Does the Lord baby Jesus support our troops?
- Comment on Hail, hail, the gang’s all here (2010-12-14 18:08:03)
So to be clear, when price struggled that responsibility was on Gainey, but now that Price is doing well, Gainey isnt responsible/gets no credit; instead it's just luck?
- Comment on No Habs hockey tonight (2010-12-09 11:40:11)
Cherry never referenced Subban's locker room behaviour for his criticisms of P.K. He limited himself to P.K.'s on-ice behaviour.
The reports from teh montreal media are conjectdure and supposition until they can be confirmed.
Using innuendo in your continued defense of Cherry and his antics on HNIC harms your argument. If you want your position vis a vis Cherry to be respected, provide respectable evidence, not suppositions that seem more at home on HI/O than in a newspaper.
But it's never been about respectable or logical with you and your defense of Cherry has it? In order to distance Cherry from what you feel are unfair claims about his encouraging of players to target P.K. you resorted to a literal (and rather lawyerly) interpretation of his remarks; an interpretation that pays no heed to connotation, only strict denotation.
Your argument against equivocating Cherry's comments with the actions of players was interesting. I think you're right to recognize scale when discussing what someone says and what someone does in the apportioning of culpability.
But, what such a distinction shouldn't do is to obfuscate the fact that Don Cherry's comments are not mere predictions or hypotheticals, they are normative claims.
Furthermore, despite my incredulity, Cherry is largely seen as an 'expert'/'spokesman'/'leading figure'/'opinion-maker'. I'm sure most folks (regardless of their personal feelings for Cherry) would accept one or more of the above descriptions of Cherry as true-- as would Cherry himself.
If Cherry does command some respect and or impression-making ability, and is aware of it, is it right to think he shares no responsibility for the comments he makes, particularly when those comments are a form of justification for violence or harm to an individual?
Let's be clear. Cherry wasn't acting as a weatherman, telling us the forecast. He was placing his predictions within a moral order, one he agrees with and has been at pains to promote throughout his broadcasting career.