goalie13 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Lazy comment. Do you know of his pedigree? Yes I do, but thanks for asking. To me, his columns typically seemed more like a witchhunt than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 So, should we start a petition to rename Pat Quinn Way to Tony Gallagher Boulevard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuckleheadFan Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I respect him for such a long career, he challenged which was good. Thou I did find him too much over to the negativity, second guessed the Canucks, and seemed to try to portray the Canucks as if they did not know what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 I don't understand posters who complain that he was negative. It was his job to give his opinion on the canucks, not do public relations or sell for them. Mostly positive columns would be boring. This message board is extremely negative. It's built around criticizing and nit-picking every decision that the canucks organization makes. If everyone here incessantly cheered for the team it would die a quick death. We all enjoy criticizing the canucks and their trades, draft picks, lines, contracts, concession food, ticket prices, uniforms, logos, even the goal songs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Tony has forgotten more about hockey that the total membership of CDC has learned about it. What his detractors want is a cheerleader, not a journalist or critic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Tony has forgotten more about hockey that the total membership of CDC has learned about it. What his detractors want is a cheerleader, not a journalist or critic. Not, what his detractors want -- this one, at least -- is a columnist who can write fluid English sentences, who can construct an argument that doesn't always hinge on petulance and joyless sarcasm, and who doesn't show his personal biases so transparently. Tall order, I suppose. Still, a reader would hope he'd learn on the job at just a little during his decades-long futility of scribbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodzilla131 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 At least he's not Glenn Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Not, what his detractors want -- this one, at least -- is a columnist who can write fluid English sentences, who can construct an argument that doesn't always hinge on petulance and joyless sarcasm, and who doesn't show his personal biases so transparently. Tall order, I suppose. Still, a reader would hope he'd learn on the job at just a little during his decades-long futility of scribbling. I'll give you that his specialty was "joyless sarcasm" - a pretty good description you chose - but I felt it provided color and fleshed out the coverage of sports in Vancouver as a whole. I generally didn't find his ability to construct sentences in proper English to be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Tony has forgotten more about hockey that the total membership of CDC has learned about it. What his detractors want is a cheerleader, not a journalist or critic. So because we don't like Tony's articles we suddenly want a cheerleader? No. That's not what I want at least. I want to see someone who doesn't just whine about the sport. I want to see someone who doesn't spread needless negative propaganda. Tony doesn't criticize. Tony whines about the team. There's a difference. Tony will literally look for any way to twist a player's sentence around to make it sound negative, or a stat, or anything. That's not being constructive at all. That's just making stuff up to be negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.