View Single Post
02-11-2005, 04:18 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kodiak
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.
Okay, yeah I see what you're getting at...I tend to see it in terms of people trying to define these issues in black and white terms, while I'm more of a "shades of gray" guy.

Fish is offline