HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2011, 01:10 AM
  #1
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?

Quote:
Originally Posted by objectiveposter View Post
this was an interesting statement by bollick:
The law firms who were asked to analyze the deal were given a set of facts by the City, including the assumption that the team owned the parking rights. I would not have expected those firms to dig beneath what the City told them. Our job is to do just that.


so the law firms just assumed glendale doesnt own the parking rights? ....sounds fishy to me
No, the exact opposite. Glendale presented a set of facts the law firms' opinions were based on. Their opinions are based on the assumption Glendale owns the parking rights. Bolick is suggesting Glendale doesn't own them.

supahdupah is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:12 AM
  #2
NODLR
The Dog House
 
NODLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Margaritaville
Posts: 2,267
vCash: 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
the photo in question exists- it has been taken down from facebook though- one of the Coyote people may have cached it
This was a personal FB page or what?

EDIT: Better yet, please PM me, this is WAY OT, IMO. Thxs

NODLR is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:14 AM
  #3
Klaus
Teemu!
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,739
vCash: 500
Is this it


Klaus is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:14 AM
  #4
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Shoalts has me thinking about this one. If you:

-- Announce the move now "the Coyotes attendance will crater."

-- Announce the move now it could hurt ticket sales down the stretch

-- Announcing the sale now "would not be good business for the NHL..."

Maybe many of those here are right. The Coyotes in Arizona are a lost cause. We've been the pawns all along, not Winnipeg and Canada.

Maybe we should just face that and give up. Stop buying tickets. If losses continue to pile up to $40M or more, all it does is drive up the price of the franchise. But that's not really our problem if the team is gone anyway.

Food for thought. Thanks DS.
At this point, it is pretty much inevitable. Goldwater isn't going to back off. Glendale has shown no signs that it will sell the bonds at a higher rate, probably because the rate they'd have to sell them at would be prohibitively (and embarrassingly) high.

There is no deadline because there's no need for one. The deal is dead. End of the road.

But why would you stop buying tickets? This could be the last NHL hockey you see in your city in your lifetime. Might as well enjoy it.

Ernie is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:20 AM
  #5
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
in response to earlier request- here is facebook group that Bolick placed his photo and I believe posted some comments- his wifes comments remain as of tonight, the title of the facebook page is- Support the Goldwater Institute, bring home the Jets

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...92895147409774

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:22 AM
  #6
NODLR
The Dog House
 
NODLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Margaritaville
Posts: 2,267
vCash: 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
in response to earlier request- here is facebook group that Bolick placed his photo and I believe posted some comments- his wifes comments remain as of tonight, the title of the facebook page is- Support the Goldwater Institute, bring home the Jets

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...92895147409774
TY, muchly appreciated.

NODLR is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:23 AM
  #7
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by objectiveposter View Post
this was an interesting statement by bollick:
The law firms who were asked to analyze the deal were given a set of facts by the City, including the assumption that the team owned the parking rights. I would not have expected those firms to dig beneath what the City told them. Our job is to do just that.
This is the exactly the point I tried to make a few days ago. Legal opinions are made on the basis of assumed facts -- typically set out by or in agreement with the client who pays for the opinion. A legal opinion is only as good as the factual basis on which it is based. If you adjust the facts, you may well get a different opinion. If the "facts" are incorrect, the opinion may be worthless in its conclusions.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:24 AM
  #8
Coach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsetHabs View Post
Is this it

People are calling this a Jets Jersey, sure looks like a COYOTE sweater to me.

Coach is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:26 AM
  #9
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsetHabs View Post
Is this it

Not getting the uproar. GWI isn't actively working to see the Coyotes move.

Brodie is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:27 AM
  #10
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach View Post
People are calling this a Jets Jersey, sure looks like a COYOTE sweater to me.
posted on a "Support Goldwater Institute , bring back the Jets" facebook page, his wife states she is a Penguin's fan as she originally hails from Pittsburgh

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:27 AM
  #11
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Secondly, and most importantly, much as free speech is not an absolute unfettered right for individuals, it is not an unfettered right for political organizations or anyone commeting on a proposed business transaction. If you sit back and look at the tort of intentional intereference with economic or prospective economic relations, from a lay point of view it is pretty much akin to slander of individuals, only applied to an economic setting. No one, whether a person, a political entity or a self-professed "watchdog" , can simply make up whatever they want without being subject to a requirement to demonstrate the truth or fair comment of their statement. Again - everyone is entitled to HAVE an opinion, but when you start expressing that opinion, you are subject to the law of the land as well.
With respect to free speech and tortious interference.

Pardon my non-legal opinion, but it appears that you are muddling a couple of important concepts. You are right that commercial speech (speech commenting on commercial activity) does not receive the same level of protection as political speech. However what you seem to be missing is that speech commenting on public (state) commercial activity IS NOT commercial speech, but is inherently political and therefore accorded a higher level of protection.

Secondly, tortious Interference is essentially a commercial version of defamation. It is my understanding that statements of opinion are generally not actionable. So when you say:
Quote:
when you start expressing that opinion, you are subject to the law of the land
(IMO) - you are off the mark. When you start making false factual statements, you are subject to civil action, but political statements of opinion are (as far as I know) protected.

Thirdly, you say that GWI needs to "demonstrate the truth or fair comment" of their speech. Again, this is wrong. The burden of proof would be on the city to demonstrate that any statements of fact were false.

Finally, you imply that GWI is just making up a bunch of stuff and stating it as fact. As far as I can tell, this is not the case. Other than statements related to compliance with court orders, receipt / production of documents and easily verified historical events (meetings, transactions etc.), Goldwater has primarily offered opinions. They have expressed their concern (opinion) that the transaction may violate Article IX Section 7 (gift clause) of the AZ state constitution. They have expressed an opinion that from reviewing the documents provided by the city, the CoG may already own the parking rights they seek to purchase. They have provided an opinion that the economic value of the parking rights and the Arena Management rights may be less than what the city is paying for them.

How is this any different than stating that you believe the state (federal/county/city) budget will cause widespread unemployment or shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor (or vice versa), or is a social redistribution of wealth, or corporate welfare, or any of the other things that are generally said about public finances?


Last edited by LeftCoast: 03-12-2011 at 01:36 AM.
LeftCoast is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:28 AM
  #12
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach View Post
People are calling this a Jets Jersey, sure looks like a COYOTE sweater to me.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the big deal about this picture again? Is this this bolick's guy everyone is talking about? Sorry, but why are we talking about him again? Just the Coal's notes version will do.

Thanks!


Last edited by Puckschmuck*: 03-12-2011 at 01:41 AM.
Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:35 AM
  #13
Coach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
posted on a "Support Goldwater Institute , bring back the Jets" facebook page, his wife states she is a Penguin's fan as she originally hails from Pittsburgh
I would sure hope he supports Goldwater and yes with the way the deal is currently structured it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they want to kill this deal which likely means a return to Winnipeg.
What does it matter that his wife is a Penguin fan. We just came off back to back games with Detroit and Vancouver where the visiting fans outnumbered the Coyote fans so it's not really a big deal to find someone in Arizona who supports another team.

Coach is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 01:54 AM
  #14
TRVIPERS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Home of the Jets
Country: Canada
Posts: 263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
No, the exact opposite. Glendale presented a set of facts the law firms' opinions were based on. Their opinions are based on the assumption Glendale owns the parking rights. Bolick is suggesting Glendale doesn't own them.
Whoa,wait a second,is this statement not backwards?

Is it not GWI saying that the COG already owns the parking rights,which should mean the law firms opinions were based on the COG not owning the rights...

TRVIPERS is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 02:04 AM
  #15
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 500

Not likely.


Yup.

And for the hell of it:


12-08-2008 Hockey in The Desert (Phoenix franchise and finance/business matters)
02-04-2009 Hockey in the Desert II (Phoenix Coyotes franchise and business matters)

05-05-2009 Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
05-07-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part II
05-18-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part III
05-22-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
06-03-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part V
06-09-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VI
06-12-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VII: I'm just waitin' on a judge
06-16-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VIII: It's dead, Jim
06-24-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey
07-25-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part X: The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!
08-03-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XI: A Fistful of Dollars?
08-07-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XII: For a Few Dollars More
08-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIII: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
08-21-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIV: The Wrath of Baum
08-27-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XV - SITREP: SNAFU
09-02-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVI: Barbarian at the Gate
09-08-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVII: Wake Me Up When September Ends
09-10-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVIII: Is that a pale horse in the distance?
09-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum
09-21-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum
09-28-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXI: 2009 -- A Sports Odyssey
10-26-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXII: Long and winding road

Followed up by the ever popular:

11-24-2009 Keeping up with potential owners for NHL Phoenix Coyotes (UPD: Ice Edge signs LOI)
03-14-2010 Part II. Potential owners of NHL's Phoenix Coyotes
03-26-2010 Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)
04-10-2010 Part IV Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy; UPD COG approves Reinsdorf MOU, not IEH MOU
05-02-2010 Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?
05-11-2010 Part VI Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy
05-23-2010 Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-22-2010 Part IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input
07-26-2010 Part X: Phoenix Coyotes - Between Scylla and Charybdis
08-27-2010 Part XI: Phoenix Coyotes -- Greetings, Starfighter, You have been selected ...
09-16-2010 Part XII: Phx Coyotes - Still haven't found what I'm looking for
10-12-2010 Part XIII: Phoenix Coyotes - The Final Cut?
10-27-2010 Part XIV: Phoenix Coyotes - To Infinity And Beyond....
12-05-2010 Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore
12-14-2010 Part XVI: Phoenix -- Money for Nothing
12-20-2010 Part XVII: Phoenix -- Thread Title Available For Lease
01-09-2011 Part XVIII: Phoenix -- Imminence Front
01-24-2011 Phoenix XIXth: Nervous Breakdown
02-02-2011 Phoenix XX: Two weeks
02-11-2011 Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?
02-22-2011 Phoenix XXII: It's Now or Never
02-28-2011 Phoenix XXIII - Bond: The Phoenix Project
03-03-2011 Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?
03-07-2011 Phoenix XXV: Anyone in the theatre seen a pale horse?
03-08-2011 Phoenix XXVI: Pain in the AZ
03-11-2011 Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?

With Part IX in only 3 days - the Chara/Pacioretty threads should pass us in about ... Two Weeks.


Last edited by kdb209: 03-12-2011 at 02:15 AM.
kdb209 is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 02:16 AM
  #16
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,605
vCash: 500
Wow. These are really racking up!!

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 02:23 AM
  #17
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRVIPERS View Post
Whoa,wait a second,is this statement not backwards?

Is it not GWI saying that the COG already owns the parking rights,which should mean the law firms opinions were based on the COG not owning the rights...
Yep, I am an idiot who can't edit his posts [mod]. I posted it while watching a movie with my wife. Can't win em all. The funny thing is I know exactly what Bolick was saying, yet i wrote that. The slow decline to death.


Last edited by Fugu: 03-12-2011 at 02:56 AM. Reason: can't talk about it ;)
supahdupah is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 02:47 AM
  #18
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
Yep, I am an idiot who can't edit his posts [mod].
I feel your pain!!! Many typos and stuff have gone on because of this....and it really bugs me.

Oh wel....

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 08:36 AM
  #19
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supahdupah (end of previous thread)
Are you sure you can handle this game with me? Based on past experience I would say not. Can you make a post which talks only in fact and isn't a derogatory jab at someone? Olsen is an moron. Sitren is a moron. Shoalts is a moron. Lawless is a moron. Winnipeggers are mostly morons. Experts are morons. This is getting old. Funny thing about most of these people, that have it so wrong, are in elite positions. I have no idea how any of this passes here.
1. Not sure what "game" you're talking about.

2. Sorry if you think detailing the facts of Ms. Olsen's qualifications to comment on business transactions (which she has offered herself to the public to do) is "derogatory". The facts are what they are. I am afraid I must decline to just ignore them just because it makes some unhappy.

3. "Elite" positions? You think being the head of an obscure rightwing organization about as far removed from Washington is an "elite" position? Being a junior attorney for said rightwing organization is an "elite" position? Columnist of a newspaper? I guess we will have to add to the list of disagreements what constitutes "elite". Hey, they all have jobs; maybe they will all go on to fantastic things.

4. Probably how this "passes here" is because the offering of statements and opinions is allowed - even encouraged. This would extend to comments on the credibility of the various actors in this transaction. Shane Doan's kids are offlimits (and rightly so), but the credibility of Messrs. Lawless and Shoalts and Ms. Olsen and Ms. Sitren as either commentators or actual involved parties are not, as far as I am aware.

5. You would search in vain for ANY post where I ever suggested that Winnipeggers are mostly morons or any kind of morons. This is utter crap, and I think you should withdraw it. You are making a completely false assertion. The reason why you would never find such a statement is because I have never believed it - so why would I ever make it? I have no reason to believe WPG has any more or less morons than Hamilton, or Glendale, or Kingston (Ontario or Jamaica) or any other place.

Hopefully at some point you can post without making it about me, but you are going to make it about me, at least don't falsely ascribe views to me.


Last edited by GSC2k2*: 03-12-2011 at 09:37 AM.
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 09:13 AM
  #20
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,934
vCash: 500
Hopefully the email from Bolick deters further misguided hatred against him and the Goldwater Institute.

WJG is online now  
Old
03-12-2011, 09:36 AM
  #21
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally posted by GHOST (end of previous thread)
Nice hit job on Ms. Olsen's accomplishments. She's "never held a real job"? You know what, if that's true and she's making a decent living, maybe that is a real accomplishment -- just another way to look at it.
Since you went to the effort of posting, I did want to provide the courtesy of a reply.

My answer is that the world of partisan politics is chock full of people making a handsome living doing nothing but pursuing partisan political matters - what I referred to as not "a real job" (a description I stand by). Ms. Olsen is one of thousands of fish swimming in that particular sea, moving between the Cato Institute to Goldwater to the Heritage Foundation to National Review to the Weekly Standard and back again. The left has similar groups, albeit not as well funded. I have no idea if Ms. Olsen is making a "decent" (financially speaking) living, whatever that means. I don't really care. What I do care about - a little bit - is her credibility, since she is now the public voice of GWI. That role comes with scrutiny. I applied some. Accept or reject it as you wish. The sun will rise tomorrow.

Quote:
You always seem to come down on the side that supports position X and opposes position Y, regardless of the actual point in consideration. One might assume that occasionally the position you are apparently opposed to might have a point going for it now and then, but you almost never seem to see that way. Now if you would admit your bias that would be fine. To my knowledge you haven't done that though.
How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?

Your positions have always confused "opinion" with "bias". They are not the same thing. Holding an opinion is not to have a bias. I assume that intellectually you would agree with me, yet you consistently mischaracterize my every opinion as a mere "bias". The difference between the two terms is that a "bias" is a predetermined point of view generally based on motives or desires that have nothing to do with the substance of the matter, like a racial bias. An opinion, though, is something that one earns through investigation and consideration. I dislike lobster, but that is not because I am "biased" against lobster; I have tried it several times, and discovered that I did not enjoy the taste or texture. I am not biased against lobster. I have an opinion about lobster.

Now, you may not enjoy my posts. That is an opinion to which you are entitled. I would not suggest that you are biased against my posts, because I know you've read a lot of them and have earned your opinion that you disagree philosophically and in terms of tone. That's okay. I am your lobster.

Disagree as you may, but I doubt that you would say that I have not done a lot of research on the matters that get discussed around here, or that I do not follow these things in the media like a hawk, or I have no knowledge base, or that my views are not half-assed.

See, Ghost, those are all the things that I, or you, use to develop an opinion. Not a bias, an opinion. I have done the research and spent way more time than is justified. I believe that, for myself (not anyone else), in order to have a viable opinion on something, I need to earn that opinion by doing the work. Researching, reading, listening (including, you might be surprised, to your posts), etc. With that, I have formed opinions. Those opinions, contrary to your views, evolve, but others get reinforced as I continue to learn more. Unfortunately for us, the ones you seem to care about (a team in WPG) have not changed at their core. That is not because I am biased against WPG. I have never been there. I have friends who come from there. WPG is not like lobster to me.

There are some biases around here, mostly revolving around a desire to have a team in their home market. Another common bias revolves around a preference for "real hockey fans" to get preferential treatment over others. Those are biases. THere are others who, for the first one at least, hold an opinion regarding the return of a team to their city; they have clearly done some research and some hard thinking on the subject. I say bravo to them, even if their opinion does not agree with mine.

I will, however, cop to one bias. I have a bias against the expression of unearned certainty. IMO, if you are going to be certain - REALLY certain - about something, do the work to earn your certainty. I guess I am biased against bias. IF someone is going to put forth an argument to me that begins with "everyone knows ...", I have no time for that. EVeryone is entitled to their biases in the same way as everyone is entitled to their opinions (there does not seem to be any HF rule against them, other than the racist ones, etc. of course), but that doesn't mean that they have to be listened to by me.

You are welcome to your views. I have had it with discussing myself with you or others. Engage me on my views, or don't waste your time.


Last edited by GSC2k2*: 03-12-2011 at 09:42 AM.
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 10:01 AM
  #22
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Since you went to the effort of posting, I did want to provide the courtesy of a reply.

My answer is that the world of partisan politics is chock full of people making a handsome living doing nothing but pursuing partisan political matters - what I referred to as not "a real job" (a description I stand by). Ms. Olsen is one of thousands of fish swimming in that particular sea, moving between the Cato Institute to Goldwater to the Heritage Foundation to National Review to the Weekly Standard and back again. The left has similar groups, albeit not as well funded. I have no idea if Ms. Olsen is making a "decent" (financially speaking) living, whatever that means. I don't really care. What I do care about - a little bit - is her credibility, since she is now the public voice of GWI. That role comes with scrutiny. I applied some. Accept or reject it as you wish. The sun will rise tomorrow.



How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?

Your positions have always confused "opinion" with "bias". They are not the same thing. Holding an opinion is not to have a bias. I assume that intellectually you would agree with me, yet you consistently mischaracterize my every opinion as a mere "bias". The difference between the two terms is that a "bias" is a predetermined point of view generally based on motives or desires that have nothing to do with the substance of the matter, like a racial bias. An opinion, though, is something that one earns through investigation and consideration. I dislike lobster, but that is not because I am "biased" against lobster; I have tried it several times, and discovered that I did not enjoy the taste or texture. I am not biased against lobster. I have an opinion about lobster.

Now, you may not enjoy my posts. That is an opinion to which you are entitled. I would not suggest that you are biased against my posts, because I know you've read a lot of them and have earned your opinion that you disagree philosophically and in terms of tone. That's okay. I am your lobster.

Disagree as you may, but I doubt that you would say that I have not done a lot of research on the matters that get discussed around here, or that I do not follow these things in the media like a hawk, or I have no knowledge base, or that my views are not half-assed.

See, Ghost, those are all the things that I, or you, use to develop an opinion. Not a bias, an opinion. I have done the research and spent way more time than is justified. I believe that, for myself (not anyone else), in order to have a viable opinion on something, I need to earn that opinion by doing the work. Researching, reading, listening (including, you might be surprised, to your posts), etc. With that, I have formed opinions. Those opinions, contrary to your views, evolve, but others get reinforced as I continue to learn more. Unfortunately for us, the ones you seem to care about (a team in WPG) have not changed at their core. That is not because I am biased against WPG. I have never been there. I have friends who come from there. WPG is not like lobster to me.

There are some biases around here, mostly revolving around a desire to have a team in their home market. Another common bias revolves around a preference for "real hockey fans" to get preferential treatment over others. Those are biases. THere are others who, for the first one at least, hold an opinion regarding the return of a team to their city; they have clearly done some research and some hard thinking on the subject. I say bravo to them, even if their opinion does not agree with mine.

I will, however, cop to one bias. I have a bias against the expression of unearned certainty. IMO, if you are going to be certain - REALLY certain - about something, do the work to earn your certainty. I guess I am biased against bias. IF someone is going to put forth an argument to me that begins with "everyone knows ...", I have no time for that. EVeryone is entitled to their biases in the same way as everyone is entitled to their opinions (there does not seem to be any HF rule against them, other than the racist ones, etc. of course), but that doesn't mean that they have to be listened to by me.

You are welcome to your views. I have had it with discussing myself with you or others. Engage me on my views, or don't waste your time.
Just asking a question here, not accusing anyone of anything. If someone was, say, paid by the NHL to support the NHL's position on these boards, would that qualify as a bias, in your opinion?

HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 10:29 AM
  #23
Niagara67
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Holding an opinion is not to have a bias.
You've never heard of a biased opinion?

There are degrees of bias, but by definition only a newborn baby can have zero bias (and even that is debatable).

And, get ready for this, facts can cause bias! If you have a group of 20 people and ask their opinion about something 19 of them know nothing about, the 1 expert opinion is likely to be the most biased (predisposed, prejudiced, etc).


Last edited by Niagara67: 03-12-2011 at 10:48 AM.
Niagara67 is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 10:37 AM
  #24
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
If Bettman had done the intelligent thing and had a conversation with Balsillie way back when he wouldn't be tied up in this fiasco with all it's problems and problems yet to come when far more serious issues face the league today.

But he didn't. He had to show the world he was the man and then some.

I expect him to keep playing his fiddle and try to make this happen. He is that fool by his actions.

Assuming he has any friends he listens to I expect him to wait until season's end perhaps summer to announce that this team is going to Kansas.

Bettman looks out of his league at this point. Classically. He's in Phoenix to fight a battle that was lost before it begun while the real issue for the NHL comes to a head in Montreal.

Give your head a shake Bettman. You have a professional sports league to run.

Dalton is offline  
Old
03-12-2011, 10:37 AM
  #25
Krautso
Registered User
 
Krautso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Since you went to the effort of posting, I did want to provide the courtesy of a reply.

My answer is that the world of partisan politics is chock full of people making a handsome living doing nothing but pursuing partisan political matters - what I referred to as not "a real job" (a description I stand by). Ms. Olsen is one of thousands of fish swimming in that particular sea, moving between the Cato Institute to Goldwater to the Heritage Foundation to National Review to the Weekly Standard and back again. The left has similar groups, albeit not as well funded. I have no idea if Ms. Olsen is making a "decent" (financially speaking) living, whatever that means. I don't really care. What I do care about - a little bit - is her credibility, since she is now the public voice of GWI. That role comes with scrutiny. I applied some. Accept or reject it as you wish. The sun will rise tomorrow.



How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?

Your positions have always confused "opinion" with "bias". They are not the same thing. Holding an opinion is not to have a bias. I assume that intellectually you would agree with me, yet you consistently mischaracterize my every opinion as a mere "bias". The difference between the two terms is that a "bias" is a predetermined point of view generally based on motives or desires that have nothing to do with the substance of the matter, like a racial bias. An opinion, though, is something that one earns through investigation and consideration. I dislike lobster, but that is not because I am "biased" against lobster; I have tried it several times, and discovered that I did not enjoy the taste or texture. I am not biased against lobster. I have an opinion about lobster.

Now, you may not enjoy my posts. That is an opinion to which you are entitled. I would not suggest that you are biased against my posts, because I know you've read a lot of them and have earned your opinion that you disagree philosophically and in terms of tone. That's okay. I am your lobster.

Disagree as you may, but I doubt that you would say that I have not done a lot of research on the matters that get discussed around here, or that I do not follow these things in the media like a hawk, or I have no knowledge base, or that my views are not half-assed.

See, Ghost, those are all the things that I, or you, use to develop an opinion. Not a bias, an opinion. I have done the research and spent way more time than is justified. I believe that, for myself (not anyone else), in order to have a viable opinion on something, I need to earn that opinion by doing the work. Researching, reading, listening (including, you might be surprised, to your posts), etc. With that, I have formed opinions. Those opinions, contrary to your views, evolve, but others get reinforced as I continue to learn more. Unfortunately for us, the ones you seem to care about (a team in WPG) have not changed at their core. That is not because I am biased against WPG. I have never been there. I have friends who come from there. WPG is not like lobster to me.

There are some biases around here, mostly revolving around a desire to have a team in their home market. Another common bias revolves around a preference for "real hockey fans" to get preferential treatment over others. Those are biases. THere are others who, for the first one at least, hold an opinion regarding the return of a team to their city; they have clearly done some research and some hard thinking on the subject. I say bravo to them, even if their opinion does not agree with mine.

I will, however, cop to one bias. I have a bias against the expression of unearned certainty. IMO, if you are going to be certain - REALLY certain - about something, do the work to earn your certainty. I guess I am biased against bias. IF someone is going to put forth an argument to me that begins with "everyone knows ...", I have no time for that. EVeryone is entitled to their biases in the same way as everyone is entitled to their opinions (there does not seem to be any HF rule against them, other than the racist ones, etc. of course), but that doesn't mean that they have to be listened to by me.

You are welcome to your views. I have had it with discussing myself with you or others. Engage me on my views, or don't waste your time.
Are we in court? Is this a court case? A lobster analogy? Really?

Would you say that a lawyer representing a client has bias? When the prosecution raises a piece of relevant evidence to their case does the defence go "yeah, thats a good point!" or does the defence seek to disparage or dismiss the evidence? You have treated this entire CoG/Coyotes saga as a lawyer (oddly enough) and testing each individual piece of information or development against whether it helps your case or not. That is the definition of bias.

Many others here are discussing each development with more of a coffeehouse discussion attitude than a court of law attitude. Not every development in this story is a piece of evidence that needs to be championed or attacked. Nobody on these boards has any direct influence as to the turn of events here. Many of us read this thread to get more information on the subject and many to try and discuss objectively each turn of events. If you have a jets or Coyotes logo in your avatar (or Wpg vs AZ location) there maybe some emotional bias in your posts which are usually readily admitted but if its a discussion instead of a court case, it usually all comes out in the wash.

Krautso is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.