Hockey

[Tranny Sore-Ass Rex]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't begrudge any Hawaiian who wants to play hockey.

I reiterate; that was a rhetorical question. Is it that difficult for you to have a laugh? Obviously you have strong feelings about "keeping it real", I can't deny you that, but there is no reason to abstain from a chuckle or two.

Originally Posted by smc

I agree with the common ground about hockey. I don't agree to disagree. It's nothing personal; I just find that formulation to be unsupportable. Disagreements are part of the dialectic of argument and reasoning, and agreeing to disagree means stopping potential progress in its path. Again, it's nothing personal; it's just the way I see things. So, I agree to halt the discussion. Let's put it that way.

You have your reasons for you stance I have mine, better? I stated I can understand where you're coming from, and nothing personal, but in my opinion the only thing supporting your view is the fact that some "warm weather" hockey teams don't make money because of their location. That does not make the game impure or wrong for other temperate states to want a team they can call their own. You're lucky to live in an area that has a team, not all hockey fans are so lucky. Seeing a game played outdoors is a unique experience, yet it doesn't indicate sanctitude. All around the world, soccer/futbol is played by children using whatever they can find for a ball, on any surface available. This does not take away from the spirit of the sport.

Originally Posted by smc

One thing about hockey in Hawaii that I wonder, though, is whether fans would throw pineapples on the ice rather than fish when they were angry at the players.

Or coconuts!

Originally Posted by ila

Here's hoping that Chicago wins. Unbelievably they've been without a cup for longer than Toronto.

I have no preference as I don't like either of the teams. I'm hoping for a seven game series, perhaps even an overtime or three. When it comes to suspense, sudden death in the finals takes the cake!

[smc]

Originally Posted by Tranny Sore-Ass Rex

I reiterate; that was a rhetorical question. Is it that difficult for you to have a laugh? Obviously you have strong feelings about "keeping it real", I can't deny you that, but there is no reason to abstain from a chuckle or two.

I am fully capable of laughing, although the thought of Hawaiians on skates playing hockey is more frightening than humorous. But you wrote: "That was a rhetorical question, not the first line of a joke." Now you imply that you meant it as a joke. I can't keep up. Anyhow, I took it as a rhetorical question, because that's what you indicated, but one that required a response since it was predicated on a misunderstanding of what I had previously written.

Originally Posted by Tranny Sore-Ass Rex

I stated I can understand where you're coming from, and nothing personal, but in my opinion the only thing supporting your view is the fact that some "warm weather" hockey teams don't make money because of their location.

Just to be clear, I never supported my position with a single word about making money. That was someone else's post. If you go back and read all of my contributions to this exchange, you will not find any reference by me to the money issue.

Originally Posted by Tranny Sore-Ass Rex

All around the world, soccer/futbol is played by children using whatever they can find for a ball, on any surface available. This does not take away from the spirit of the sport.

I really want to be done with this exchange, but your point above only confirms my point. Those children can play soccer/futbol as you describe because the nature of the game ("nature" being the root of "natural" -- an important word in one of my earlier posts in this exchange) is such that those sorts of conditions and equipment allow it. Ice is a natural part of hockey. By the way, I would like to see artificial turf eliminated from all baseball.

Oh, what have I wrought by writing that?

And see, I can laugh:

[Tranny Sore-Ass Rex]

Originally Posted by smc

I am fully capable of laughing, although the thought of Hawaiians on skates playing hockey is more frightening than humorous. But you wrote: "That was a rhetorical question, not the first line of a joke." Now you imply that you meant it as a joke. I can't keep up. Anyhow, I took it as a rhetorical question, because that's what you indicated, but one that required a response since it was predicated on a misunderstanding of what I had previously written.

My fault for using the overtly subliminal . Next time I won't be so ambiguous with my response.

Originally Posted by smc

Just to be clear, I never supported my position with a single word about making money. That was someone else's post. If you go back and read all of my contributions to this exchange, you will not find any reference by me to the money issue.

Then I will drop that issue from this debate.

Originally Posted by smc

I really want to be done with this exchange, but your point above only confirms my point. Those children can play soccer/futbol as you describe because the nature of the game ("nature" being the root of "natural" -- an important word in one of my earlier posts in this exchange) is such that those sorts of conditions and equipment allow it. Ice is a natural part of hockey.

No snow, no hockey. Makes complete sense. The NHL should rid themselves of all teams that are unable to play the whole season outdoors. Then just for kicks, once a year have an indoor game.

Originally Posted by smc

By the way, I would like to see artificial turf eliminated from all baseball.

Oh, what have I wrought by writing that?

And see, I can laugh:

Here's a novel idea, Bud Selig should abolish inter-league games. After all, that's an unnatural thorn in the side of baseball's purists.

Let's not forget to require all dome teams, baseball and football, to vacate their respective cities. Games played indoors?!? Utterly ridiculous.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Tranny Sore-Ass Rex

My fault for using the overtly subliminal . Next time I won't be so ambiguous with my response.




Then I will drop that issue from this debate.



No snow, no hockey. Makes complete sense. The NHL should rid themselves of all teams that are unable to play the whole season outdoors. Then just for kicks, once a year have an indoor game.



Here's a novel idea, Bud Selig should abolish inter-league games. After all, that's an unnatural thorn in the side of baseball's purists.

Let's not forget to require all dome teams, baseball and football, to vacate their respective cities. Games played indoors?!? Utterly ridiculous.

It's not a good idea to put words in my mouth, either explicitly or implicitly.

[Tranny Sore-Ass Rex]

Originally Posted by smc

It's not a good idea to put words in my mouth, either explicitly or implicitly.

I never put words in your mouth, either explicitly or implicitly. I've simply expressed my opinion about such views on the subject.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Tranny Sore-Ass Rex

I never put words in your mouth, either explicitly or implicitly. I've simply expressed my opinion about such views on the subject.

I suggest you review what "implicitly" means and then check your postings.

But really, let's put an end to this. I agree that you can have the last word. Okay?

[shadows]

Any guesses as to who will win the Stanley Cup and in how many games?

I predict that the Blackhawks will win in 6 games(sorry Jennifer).

[Tranny Sore-Ass Rex]

Originally Posted by smc

I agree that you can have the last word.

*lowers head, puts hands in pockets, kicks the dirt* Awww, shucks.