View Single Post
02-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Registered User
Kodiak's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Originally Posted by Fish
I guess you could apply that logic to any of our opinions no?
I readily apply it to the more ardent pro-PA supporters, but I don't see any of that here. I think we all (as in the posters on this board) recognize that the NHL has problems that need fixing and that neither side seems particularly interested in solving those problems. We often come off as pro-PA because (a) we don't agree with the NHL's "solution", (b) we don't agree with the NHL's tactics, and (c) the majority has chosen to blindly follow the NHL, which forces the moderates into defending a side they don't fully agree with (I liken it to moderate Republicans who were forced to not only vote for John Kerry, but vigorously defend him against Bush supporters).

When I say someone is too emotionally invested, I do so because they have either, as TB pointed out, become unable to comprehend an opposing viewpoint and summarily dismiss it as wrong, or blindly accept what one side says without thinking critically, or make statements like "I won't watch the NHL anymore if my side gives in" (there was a thread like that this morning on the business board that has since been deleted). I may defend the PA, but I can see the NHL's point even if I don't agree with their remedy and the route they are taking to get there. And I couldn't care less if a hard cap is implemented so long as it came about through a valid agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

Kodiak is offline