Jump to content

GDT: Blackhawks vs Habs, Apr. 5


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well judging from the last 2 must win games it is very obvious that JM has lost the room and needs to be fired immediately if not sooner. :wacko:

JM has lost the room, and Price is a complete bust who was a waste of a high draft pick.

There's a reason for the old adage that if you listen to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting up there with them. The 'room' issue is especially irritating because it was started by that impeccable Habs insider with no conceivable axe to grind at all: Georges Laraque. The media and blogosphere then ran with it like turkeys with their feathers on fire. If you need greater evidence of the inanity of discourse in a hyper-wired world, it's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JM has lost the room, and Price is a complete bust who was a waste of a high draft pick.

There's a reason for the old adage that if you listen to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting up there with them. The 'room' issue is especially irritating because it was started by that impeccable Habs insider with no conceivable axe to grind at all: Georges Laraque. The media and blogosphere then ran with it like turkeys with their feathers on fire. If you need greater evidence of the inanity of discourse in a hyper-wired world, it's that.

If you go opposite of what the media says, you will find yourself in the position of being right more often than wrong.

Laraque's agenda is obviously anti-Canadiens. His bias does not allow him to be impartial, so everything he says cannot be taken at face value. The problem is trust and when fans "trust" the mainstream national media to be unbiased they are setting themselves up to be suckers. Their agenda is not the truth, their agenda is built around attracting numbers for their product.

McGuire yells at the top of his lungs for his brand, he doesn't care if he is right or wrong. When he is he will brush it under the rug or ignore it. The MSM are in constant search of controversy and debate, so when Price loses his starting job they don't want to analyze the factors behind it, they would rather grab a barrel of gasoline and dump it on the cinders. So they push the Halak agenda and sit back and enjoy the flames, why? Because the flames lead to bigger ratings and bigger web numbers.

Add in that the majority of the National media are Leaf fans, and of course they want Price to bust. That also skews the view of their reality.

In the end it all comes down to money and how to make it. Even Boone stokes the fears nightly and for two months brought up the fear of the Habs having to play the Leafs to make the playoffs. This constant reminder had the fanbase panicking with a 9 point lead and 6-7 games to go. It was absolutely absurd.

Step back, remove emotion and look at the whole picture. It allows the picture to be placed in context and brings clarity.

I don't understand how a rationale individual can look at CNN and call it out for it's propaganda like properties and then not see it in sports. We romanticize it like it is beyond corruption. Flag worship leads to placing ones head in the sand. I love to watch the Canadiens, but I also understand what their bottom line is and it involves my wallet and their fingers.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how a rationale individual can look at CNN and call it out for it's propaganda like properties and then not see it in sports. We romanticize it like it is beyond corruption. Flag worship leads to placing ones head in the sand. I love to watch the Canadiens, but I also understand what their bottom line is and it involves my wallet and their fingers.

It's the nature of sport. Tens of thousands of fans all with different favourite teams. The fact that anyone agrees on anything in Hockey is amazing to me.

I don't understand who is romanticizing sports media though. It's white noise, a way to spend 10 minutes reading an article while you drink your coffee in the morning.

These writers / announcers / analysis have jobs. Coming up with things to say is what gets them paid. They have to run with stories because they have to make money.

So if Laraque says the Habs hate Martin, pundits say "great", they're going to go with it as a means to an end.

I respect their need to work but it doesn't mean I have to care about what they are writing / saying, or even give it a second thought.

CBC Hotstove and shows like that have producers. It's television. I am 99.9% sure not one of the analysts is just sitting there and coming up with their opinion on the spot.

These are planned discussions where everyone sitting at the round table knows what the other is going to say or at the very least which way they are leaning.

Really no different than watching Entertainment Tonight....except there is way less talk about Bieber.

For me, the only sports writing that is worth any merit are articles that act as recaps of the events and make mention of stats. Everything else is pontificating about nothing.

Entertaining...maybe but ultimately meaningless since on any given night anything can happen in sport.

And that is the biggest reason I choose to spend time on this site. Congrats to the guys running this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the nature of sport. Tens of thousands of fans all with different favourite teams. The fact that anyone agrees on anything in Hockey is amazing to me.

I don't understand who is romanticizing sports media though. It's white noise, a way to spend 10 minutes reading an article while you drink your coffee in the morning.

These writers / announcers / analysis have jobs. Coming up with things to say is what gets them paid. They have to run with stories because they have to make money.

So if Laraque says the Habs hate Martin, pundits say "great", they're going to go with it as a means to an end.

I respect their need to work but it doesn't mean I have to care about what they are writing / saying, or even give it a second thought.

CBC Hotstove and shows like that have producers. It's television. I am 99.9% sure not one of the analysts is just sitting there and coming up with their opinion on the spot.

These are planned discussions where everyone sitting at the round table knows what the other is going to say or at the very least which way they are leaning.

Really no different than watching Entertainment Tonight....except there is way less talk about Bieber.

For me, the only sports writing that is worth any merit are articles that act as recaps of the events and make mention of stats. Everything else is pontificating about nothing.

Entertaining...maybe but ultimately meaningless since on any given night anything can happen in sport.

And that is the biggest reason I choose to spend time on this site. Congrats to the guys running this thing.

Sports are romanticized through stories of character, adversity, redemption etc. Most of it is BS and reactive.

How a three game sample turns into multiple theories about why the Habs can't score and how they are exhausted and don't like their coach is absurd. All were off base panic driven narratives. The Habs are 4 games removed from that stretch and now I am reading about how they are peaking heading into the playoffs. It was TWO WEEKS ago. Nothing has changed. Same team, same coach, same players, same management.

Fans regurgitate, that is why it is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sports are romanticized through stories of character, adversity, redemption etc. Most of it is BS and reactive.

How a three game sample turns into multiple theories about why the Habs can't score and how they are exhausted and don't like their coach is absurd. All were off base panic driven narratives. The Habs are 4 games removed from that stretch and now I am reading about how they are peaking heading into the playoffs. It was TWO WEEKS ago. Nothing has changed. Same team, same coach, same players, same management.

Fans regurgitate, that is why it is a problem.

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the media regurgitates what other media reports.

That really is where meaningless stories and theories get blown out of proportion.

Like I said, white noise that only begins to matter if you take the time to actually care.

Analysts run their mouths to get paid.

Players run their mouths ( I'm lookin' at you Marchand ) because they have nothing better to do.

Fans run their mouths because they can't form intelligent thoughts / analysis on their own.

In the end it only matters who wins and loses, no one is interested in a highlight reel of bad sports reporting.

Edited by BrenDittero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the above media statements from Wamsley and BrenD the media in all aspects of this world are 99% pathetic and not worth ever listening to it is all knee jerk statements to get the numbers with 0 credibility behind anything they.

Aarrrgggg! I don't even wanna get started onthis topic because I will be ranting for pages.

Once again I realty appreciate the intelligent people on this forum 99% it is a treat to read, because there is no nonsencible arguments just intelligent debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the media regurgitates what other media reports.

That really is where meaningless stories and theories get blown out of proportion.

Like I said, white noise that only begins to matter if you take the time to actually care.

Analysts run their mouths to get paid.

Players run their mouths ( I'm lookin' at you Marchand ) because they have nothing better to do.

Fans run their mouths because they can't form intelligent thoughts / analysis on their own.

In the end it only matters who wins and loses, no one is interested in a highlight reel of bad sports reporting.

Most people do care and do trust the media though. Even if you take the newspaper with a grain of salt, there are still certain fundamental pieces of information that you take as fact. When you read Pat Hickey's game summaries, you don't suspect of him of lying, you trust that he is at least trying to give an objective account of the game. But people are always stuck in ideology, all communication is biased. After weeks of reading biased media, Pat Hickey's bias can seriously influence the way you perceive reality. Even if you take the blatant expression of his opinion as white noise, there are still many more subtle ways in which meanings can be encoded into writing.

Suppose this is the title of an article:

Soldiers attacked a village in Libya.

Soldiers seized a village in Libya.

Soldiers liberated a village in Libya.

What if the word "soldier" is changed to terrorists or volunteers? Depending on your choice of words (and syntax and other elements) the story is different. The journalist does not even have to be malicious for this to happen. It is unavoidable. The Gazette had a huge influence on the Canadiens fanbase being so pro-Halak and anti-Price.

Even if you think the writer's opinion is stupid, chances are you are going to unknowingly adopt his way of phrasing the story because you assume that he must have at least got his facts right - without considering that the way he tells those facts can greatly change their meaning. With language you construct reality. Some linguistic techniques are so routine that they become nature to us and usually go unnoticed. I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound to just tune out their message. Remember - 90% of the information you know about hockey was learned from the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right out of the gate, I'm talking about hockey. Not war or politics. I'm talking about white noise in sports.

Your comparison, while interesting, is just switching words around in a sentence. Period.

This is sports entertainment news not world events.

It's absolutely easy to tune out the message, it all depends on what information you choose to accept as fact and what you can reasonably determine is BS or personal opinion.

The Laraque story for instance: an ex Hab starts a rumour that some of the Habs don't like playing for Martin. The ever starved for attention media will run with it cause it makes good fodder.

No one ever asks or demands that he site sources and everyone who chooses to believe it makes themselves a victim of media sensationalism. There are too many holes to poke in that great little piece of journalism.

I work on documentaries all day, so I'm very aware of the power of the linguistic twist as a tool to glaze over not having real information. A little bit of journalistic sleight of hand.

The problem is that most analysts are not expressing news or facts but rather their own opinions, and you know what opinions are like.....

That's why I find it infinitely easy to tune it out or shrug it off.

And finally, 90% of what I know about hockey comes from watching games, watching morning highlights and reading the stats, not the pundits.

I'm not saying it's wrong to listen to the experts, it's a great way to kill time and that is all.

Edited by BrenDittero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right out of the gate, I'm talking about hockey. Not war or politics. I'm talking about white noise in sports.

Your comparison, while interesting, is just switching words around in a sentence. Period.

This is sports entertainment news not world events.

It's absolutely easy to tune out the message, it all depends on what information you choose to accept as fact and what you can reasonably determine is BS or personal opinion.

The Laraque story for instance: an ex Hab starts a rumour that some of the Habs don't like playing for Martin. The ever starved for attention media will run with it cause it makes good fodder.

No one ever asks or demands that he site sources and everyone who chooses to believe it makes themselves a victim of media sensationalism. There are too many holes to poke in that great little piece of journalism.

I work on documentaries all day, so I'm very aware of the power of the linguistic twist as a tool to glaze over real information. A little bit of journalistic sleight of hand.

The problem is that most analysts are not expressing news or facts but rather their own opinions, and you know what opinions are like.....

That's why I find it infinitely easy to tune it out or shrug it off.

And finally, 90% of what I know about hockey come from watching games, watching morning highlights and reading the stats, not the pundits.

I'm not saying it's wrong to listen to the experts, it's a great way to kill time and that is all.

It makes no difference whether the topic is politics or hockey. My point is exactly that this applies to every sentence in every language. The example could easily be:

Halak carries Habs past Penguins.

Halak backstops Habs past Penguins.

Halak, Habs top Penguins.

They are all recounting the same story but with slightly different connotations. The first version seems to imply that Halak stood on his head and was the only reason the Canadiens won. This perpetuates the myth that Halak is the sole reason Montreal won the series. The second version makes it sound like Halak played a solid game in a team win. The third version is pretty neutral and merely implies both that Montreal won and that Halak is one of the key players on Montreal.

The way this sentence is stated makes it appear to be an objective fact. It is not presented as an opinion. This can be deceiving. When a journalist presents his opinion, people have the chance to accept or reject it. When he embeds his opinion into his phrasing of "the truth" (something that is impossible not to do) most people do not even realize they are reading something that is slanted. If you are able to shrug it off, you are in the minority.

The sentence I bolded from your post is exactly my point. You don't completely ignore the media, you merely choose what is objective, what is intelligent opinion and what is dumb opinion. What I'm saying is that an objective relaying of the news is impossible and that if you accept any journalist's writing as such, your point of view is being manipulated (maybe accidentally) by that journalist.

I'm not talking about the Laraque story. Laraque blatantly expressed his view and people decided for themselves whether they thought he was full of shit. There are much more subtle cases where even intelligent people are fooled. In these cases, the journalist's view is inserted into a sentence without leaving much of a trace. People read it and take it as fact without even realizing they were being fed an opinion at all (note the above example).

About the last point - how many Stanley Cups do the Habs have? Who is Bobby Orr? Who is the captain of the Atlanta Thrashers? How is Ovechkin's year going? Have there been many hits to the head this season? All of this information you've accumulated comes from the media. You said you get your info from games, morning highlights and stats.

Games: They are narrated by Pierre and Benoit. Even if you tune out the intermission commentators, Pierre Houde has a tremendous influence over how people perceive the game. Most people watch the game first and listen to the commentary second. They take in Houde's words but don't pay 100% attention to them. They can easily be subject to his influence based on his word choices alone. Camera angles also change how you view a game but that does not fit this example so well because sports matches have standard angles.

Highlights: They are narrated by Jay and Dan. Same thing as above. As your post suggests, these guys aren't taken seriously as hockey analysts, they're merely reporting the news. This is exactly where people then become victim to external influence. If they hear the same myth repeated (even - especially - when it's in passing) every single day (e.g. goaltenders are the most important players on the team) people start to believe it. After all, it doesn't sound like an absurd statement.

Stats: Who chooses which stats you get to see? Who chooses which stats are important when it comes to evaluating players? Who tallies these stats? NHL, TSN, ESPN, The Gazette, HabsInsideOut, ... In other words, the media.

Basically, the information you get about hockey largely comes from media sources (TV, newspaper, web sites, magazines). None of it is 100% objective. (Or even 99% objective, if you're going to argue that nothing is 100% objective.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes no difference whether the topic is politics or hockey. My point is exactly that this applies to every sentence in every language. The example could easily be:

Halak carries Habs past Penguins.

Halak backstops Habs past Penguins.

Halak, Habs top Penguins.

They are all recounting the same story but with slightly different connotations. The first version seems to imply that Halak stood on his head and was the only reason the Canadiens won. This perpetuates the myth that Halak is the sole reason Montreal won the series. The second version makes it sound like Halak played a solid game in a team win. The third version is pretty neutral and merely implies both that Montreal won and that Halak is one of the key players on Montreal.

The way this sentence is stated makes it appear to be an objective fact. It is not presented as an opinion. This can be deceiving. When a journalist presents his opinion, people have the chance to accept or reject it. When he embeds his opinion into his phrasing of "the truth" (something that is impossible not to do) most people do not even realize they are reading something that is slanted. If you are able to shrug it off, you are in the minority.

The sentence I bolded from your post is exactly my point. You don't completely ignore the media, you merely choose what is objective, what is intelligent opinion and what is dumb opinion. What I'm saying is that an objective relaying of the news is impossible and that if you accept any journalist's writing as such, your point of view is being manipulated (maybe accidentally) by that journalist.

I'm not talking about the Laraque story. Laraque blatantly expressed his view and people decided for themselves whether they thought he was full of shit. There are much more subtle cases where even intelligent people are fooled. In these cases, the journalist's view is inserted into a sentence without leaving much of a trace. People read it and take it as fact without even realizing they were being fed an opinion at all (note the above example).

About the last point - how many Stanley Cups do the Habs have? Who is Bobby Orr? Who is the captain of the Atlanta Thrashers? How is Ovechkin's year going? Have there been many hits to the head this season? All of this information you've accumulated comes from the media. You said you get your info from games, morning highlights and stats.

Games: They are narrated by Pierre and Benoit. Even if you tune out the intermission commentators, Pierre Houde has a tremendous influence over how people perceive the game. Most people watch the game first and listen to the commentary second. They take in Houde's words but don't pay 100% attention to them. They can easily be subject to his influence based on his word choices alone. Camera angles also change how you view a game but that does not fit this example so well because sports matches have standard angles.

Highlights: They are narrated by Jay and Dan. Same thing as above. As your post suggests, these guys aren't taken seriously as hockey analysts, they're merely reporting the news. This is exactly where people then become victim to external influence. If they hear the same myth repeated (even - especially - when it's in passing) every single day (e.g. goaltenders are the most important players on the team) people start to believe it. After all, it doesn't sound like an absurd statement.

Stats: Who chooses which stats you get to see? Who chooses which stats are important when it comes to evaluating players? Who tallies these stats? NHL, TSN, ESPN, The Gazette, HabsInsideOut, ... In other words, the media.

Basically, the information you get about hockey largely comes from media sources (TV, newspaper, web sites, magazines). None of it is 100% objective. (Or even 99% objective, if you're going to argue that nothing is 100% objective.)

Nicely done :halm: You are much to wise for your age.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely done :halm: You are much to wise for your age.

It helps that I study in Communications and I'm currently in the process of writing a take home exam on material that is closely related to this subject (semiotics, encoding-decoding, metaphors).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It helps that I study in Communications and I'm currently in the process of writing a take home exam on material that is closely related to this subject (semiotics, encoding-decoding, metaphors).

At least your eyes are wide open. That can never hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes no difference whether the topic is politics or hockey. My point is exactly that this applies to every sentence in every language. The example could easily be:

Halak carries Habs past Penguins.

Halak backstops Habs past Penguins.

Halak, Habs top Penguins.

They are all recounting the same story but with slightly different connotations. The first version seems to imply that Halak stood on his head and was the only reason the Canadiens won. This perpetuates the myth that Halak is the sole reason Montreal won the series. The second version makes it sound like Halak played a solid game in a team win. The third version is pretty neutral and merely implies both that Montreal won and that Halak is one of the key players on Montreal.

The way this sentence is stated makes it appear to be an objective fact. It is not presented as an opinion. This can be deceiving. When a journalist presents his opinion, people have the chance to accept or reject it. When he embeds his opinion into his phrasing of "the truth" (something that is impossible not to do) most people do not even realize they are reading something that is slanted. If you are able to shrug it off, you are in the minority.

The sentence I bolded from your post is exactly my point. You don't completely ignore the media, you merely choose what is objective, what is intelligent opinion and what is dumb opinion. What I'm saying is that an objective relaying of the news is impossible and that if you accept any journalist's writing as such, your point of view is being manipulated (maybe accidentally) by that journalist.

I'm not talking about the Laraque story. Laraque blatantly expressed his view and people decided for themselves whether they thought he was full of shit. There are much more subtle cases where even intelligent people are fooled. In these cases, the journalist's view is inserted into a sentence without leaving much of a trace. People read it and take it as fact without even realizing they were being fed an opinion at all (note the above example).

About the last point - how many Stanley Cups do the Habs have? Who is Bobby Orr? Who is the captain of the Atlanta Thrashers? How is Ovechkin's year going? Have there been many hits to the head this season? All of this information you've accumulated comes from the media. You said you get your info from games, morning highlights and stats.

Games: They are narrated by Pierre and Benoit. Even if you tune out the intermission commentators, Pierre Houde has a tremendous influence over how people perceive the game. Most people watch the game first and listen to the commentary second. They take in Houde's words but don't pay 100% attention to them. They can easily be subject to his influence based on his word choices alone. Camera angles also change how you view a game but that does not fit this example so well because sports matches have standard angles.

Highlights: They are narrated by Jay and Dan. Same thing as above. As your post suggests, these guys aren't taken seriously as hockey analysts, they're merely reporting the news. This is exactly where people then become victim to external influence. If they hear the same myth repeated (even - especially - when it's in passing) every single day (e.g. goaltenders are the most important players on the team) people start to believe it. After all, it doesn't sound like an absurd statement.

Stats: Who chooses which stats you get to see? Who chooses which stats are important when it comes to evaluating players? Who tallies these stats? NHL, TSN, ESPN, The Gazette, HabsInsideOut, ... In other words, the media.

Basically, the information you get about hockey largely comes from media sources (TV, newspaper, web sites, magazines). None of it is 100% objective. (Or even 99% objective, if you're going to argue that nothing is 100% objective.)

Are you going for a repeat ? Moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sentence I bolded from your post is exactly my point. You don't completely ignore the media, you merely choose what is objective, what is intelligent opinion and what is dumb opinion. What I'm saying is that an objective relaying of the news is impossible and that if you accept any journalist's writing as such, your point of view is being manipulated (maybe accidentally) by that journalist.

This is a very nice piece you've written about sports media. Good luck with that take home exam.

Yes BTH, my knowledge of hockey comes from watching / reading media ( stats sheets, video ) No denying that.

All I said was that no one needs to buy into what analysts are saying about teams and players when they are stating opinion, even if it's phrased in "the truth"

Not to mention that the original post was about sports reporters running with ridiculous stories because they need to fill time.

Cammy scored a goal tonight. Fact, didn't need anyone's option to figure that out. No pundit can color that.

The Habs can't win the cup because they don't have enough scoring ability. Opinion, very easy to ignore.

Sure anyone can be accidently manipulated by the sports media, but It's up to the individual to decide what they will accept as fact from a news source and what might require further investigation.

I think what I highlighted from your post is the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I think you're proving a point I'm not trying to make.

Nice article though, I'll give that three headbangershalm.gifhalm.gifhalm.gifand maybe a dancing banana for good measurebanana.gif

Edited by BrenDittero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very nice piece you've written about sports media. Good luck with that take home exam.

Yes BTH, my knowledge of hockey comes from watching / reading media ( stats sheets, video ) No denying that.

All I said was that no one needs to buy into what analysts are saying about teams and players when they are stating opinion, even if it's phrased in "the truth"

Cammy scored a goal tonight. Fact, didn't need anyone's option to figure that out. No pundit can color that.

The Habs can't win the cup because they don't have enough scoring ability. Opinion, very easy to ignore.

Sure anyone can be accidently manipulated by the sports media, but It's up to the individual to decide what they will accept as fact from a news source and what might require further investigation.

I think what I highlighted from your post is the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I think you're proving a point I'm not trying to make.

Nice article though, I'll give that three headbangershalm.gifhalm.gifhalm.gifand maybe a dancing banana for good measurebanana.gif

It is easy in theory to ignore the media, but I find that 90% of the people I talk hockey to believe that their regurgitation is their own thought.

How else can you explain the repetitive nature of the excuses that appeared after the Chara hit. I heard the same ridiculous NHL/Media lead narratives in regards to why it wasn't a dangerous hit. Chara didn't mean it. If it was in a different part of the arena it wouldn't have happened. He was finishing his check..etc...etc...etc.

If you asked the majority of fans the question immediately following the hit with zero media influence we all know that the answers would have been more varied. In essence what BTH was presenting.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very nice piece you've written about sports media. Good luck with that take home exam.

Yes BTH, my knowledge of hockey comes from watching / reading media ( stats sheets, video ) No denying that.

All I said was that no one needs to buy into what analysts are saying about teams and players when they are stating opinion, even if it's phrased in "the truth"

Not to mention that the original post was about sports reporters running with ridiculous stories because they need to fill time.

Cammy scored a goal tonight. Fact, didn't need anyone's option to figure that out. No pundit can color that.

The Habs can't win the cup because they don't have enough scoring ability. Opinion, very easy to ignore.

Sure anyone can be accidently manipulated by the sports media, but It's up to the individual to decide what they will accept as fact from a news source and what might require further investigation.

I think what I highlighted from your post is the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I think you're proving a point I'm not trying to make.

Nice article though, I'll give that three headbangershalm.gifhalm.gifhalm.gifand maybe a dancing banana for good measurebanana.gif

I know what you were saying: that some people are more aware of the media's bias than others and that it is possible to not be a brainwashed idiot. It just seemed like you were underrating the power and extent of their influence. Or maybe I just felt like talking about communications and culture because I'm in exam mode. :monkey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew...glad we figured out the pitfalls of relying on the Hockey media. How about a round of clapping smilies for all who participated 1clap.gif1clap.gif1clap.gif

Finally we can put this Blackhawks vs Habs thread to rest.

Well played everyone.

Maybe to get this train wreck back on course and give this topic a proper burial we can end with:

1gohabs.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew...glad we figured out the pitfalls of relying on the Hockey media. How about a round of clapping smilies for all who participated 1clap.gif1clap.gif1clap.gif

Finally we can put this Blackhawks vs Habs thread to rest.

Well played everyone.

Maybe to get this train wreck back on course and give this topic a proper burial we can end with:

1gohabs.gif

Wait wait wait. End this topic? Not quite. You did not think all this wonderful ranting would go unnoticed in ATB: http://habsworld.net/article.php?id=2452

Come on. You guys made my weekly piece both easy and entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...