poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Oh STFU already, you douche monkey. You spend all this time knit-picking on this guy's use of the term "hockey" instead of "hockey play". You are translating his statement literally without any context, and if that is truly what you understood him to mean, you've got some serious literacy issues. And seriously, you can't say you were misunderstood based on his misused terminology, because just look at your original response and all that sarcasm. You're just being a fckin troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaeneir Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Unless I'm the only non-psychic on the forum I'm pretty sure we can only know what you actually said, not what you meant by what you said. And what you actually said was that that incident had "nothing to do with hockey." If you meant something else perhaps you should have been more clear. And if you felt I misunderstood your comments you should have explained instead of resorting to a childish (and sexist) insult when your words were taken at their face value. And I still have no idea what you mean because you never bothered to explain it. You said it had nothing to do with hockey, which means what exactly? That he should have gotten more punishment because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That the NHL shouldn't have dealt with it at all because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That he got the right punishment because there's no existing guideline for something like that to compare it with? No one here is your psychic friend and we're not charging you by the minute, so feel free to complete a thought. You are being unnecessarily rude. And wrong. The message I quoted and responded to was, "The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey." If you read it carefully this time you will notice that no where in that quote is the term "hockey play" used nor is there any reference to the play at all. And even assuming the term "hockey play" does not make the original statement I was responding to any more clear. But way to have your boy's back I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Wow. Where to start? First of all, I'm not a guy. Secondly, if I didn't understand what you posted, clearly "everyone" did not. Thirdly, saying "it's not a hockey play" (which wasn't even your wording, but rather someone else who replied in your defense) still explains nothing. Again, does that mean it should have been punished more severely, less severely or not at all? This is a discussion forum where we actually say what we think, not state general phrases and assume everyone just thinks exactly like us and will know what we mean. If that were the case, there'd be no point in posting to begin with. Fourthly, if you feel that my responding to what you actually said instead of what you assume we all just "know" you meant makes me any of the names you resorted to calling me, that might explain the problems you seem to have with people online. If you actually have something to say it should be deeper than a single unclear statement and you should be able to back it up with something more concrete than blanket insults and bullying tactics. Resorting to name calling only makes you appear that you don't have an actual argument to make and must resort to lashing out as your only means of defending your own words. As for your last paragraph, well, if there was anything adult in it I would have bothered to reply to any points you made. But, I'm long past the playground so you'll have sling the mud by the swingset all by yourself. Oh wait, actually, I see a few others in this thread I'm sure can keep you company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's pretty clear what the intended message was in the original post. Grabbing the back of a player's head and smashing his face into the glass is not a normal hockey related event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Didn't bother reading all of your post. Why would I? Waste of time/space in this thread. Looks like you're the odd one out though, seeing how everyone is agreeing with me. I suggest going to a different site to waste all the time you have on your hands. .. But before you go, you should really take your time dissecting every post I make into little columns and post useless comments on them periodically. Haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 They need more playing refs on the ice. That way they could manage the game better. Unless its Boston! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Loves You Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 "Douche monkey"?! Really? You have to actually make up ridiculous insults and you want to question my literacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Actually, yes. I called you a douche monkey. What is the problem with that? Are you now suddenly the expert opinion on what is an appropriate insult and what is a "ridiculous" insult? I must have missed that job posting. Now how about I nitpick you a little bit. Just because I may use, what in your personal opinion is, a "ridiculous" insult, how does that question my literacy. I challenged your literacy based on what I perceived as an inability to follow context. What is the basis for your challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey. Aren't they trying to get rid of head injuries? Weber specifically grabbed his HEAD and smashed it into the glass. Apparently that's fine though, no big deal... I have no idea what is going to happen in the future now. I mean, the NHL is a joke right now, but in like 5 years time? it's going to be hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahma Bull Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In regards to the Weber incident the NHL's lack of discipline will lead to a very ugly series with the potential for a very ugly incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22 and 33 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I just made some quick calculations to figure out roughly what Weber makes per minute in a hockey game. So please correct me if i am wrong but i guessed weber to have a cap hit of 7.5 million. Divide that by 82 games and its a little more than 91,000 dollars per game. Divide that number by 60 minutes in the hockey game and he gets paid around 1500 dollars per minute in the hockey game. As you can see these fines are a little ridiculous for players like weber but not so much for the guys making the minimum contract amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.