2024-2025 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread.

PocketNines

Cutter's Way
Apr 29, 2004
13,919
6,002
Badlands
Have you ever had a friend who spouts off dumb illogical opinions once in a while, such as a bad take about a hockey trade or a movie you admire, and you still loved him as a friend and treated him with respect? That’s what I struggle with. The contempt for posters you disagree with makes it all come across as unnecessarily mean-spirited and dismissive. Would you throw that hypothetical friend in the metaphorical garbage? I hope and suspect that the online version of that interaction is a melodramatic exaggeration of how a face to face friend would be received in a similar discussion.
You brought up an old post of mine and called me intellectually dishonest. Then you apologized because it was old, not because you openly flamed me.

Do you possess even the basic self awareness to understand I put you on ignore for literally years because you couldn't not do that? By having you on ignore I literally never interacted with you, but you entitled yourself to troll me throughout. Do you understand how contemptible that behavior is?
 

PocketNines

Cutter's Way
Apr 29, 2004
13,919
6,002
Badlands
You inveritably insert yourself into these discussions. 2 posts here, ostensibly about hockey, and yet with far more discussion about you: all your wonderful traits, people you know, and things you have done. In two posts, you named dropped a celebrity you knew, a feat you accomplished and praised yourself for 3 different admirable traits like 7 times. I am really trying not to be mean here. But do you not understand how people can potentially find this grating? Who actually talks like that: "the most important trait is this one that I have in spades as evidence by this thing I did"? Its not even a humble brag, there is no humble to be found.
Someone told me I was intellectually dishonest. You take yourself exactly seriously enough to know that when someone says that it's a flame because it's a moral evaluation.

When someone says you're intellectually dishonest you have the right of reply, do you not?

Since you're questioning my method of presentation, I am responding to what you have just brought up for purposes of clarity: I wrote what I wrote because it doesn't break any rules, and was my sixth choice but my first five choices were deleted. the final four of those were literally simply quoting the personal attack because that is so comically corrupt to let an attack be up there but no right to quote the literal words. it should embarrass the authority as they do it, like "holy crap I am CORRUPT."

If it grated you personally then that's not an issue for me, but sorry to hear that
 

Spektre

Registered User
Apr 10, 2010
9,103
6,852
Krynn
You inveritably insert yourself into these discussions. 2 posts here, ostensibly about hockey, and yet with far more discussion about you: all your wonderful traits, people you know, and things you have done. In two posts, you named dropped a celebrity you knew, a feat you accomplished and praised yourself for 3 different admirable traits like 7 times. I am really trying not to be mean here. But do you not understand how people can potentially find this grating? Who actually talks like that: "the most important trait is this one that I have in spades as evidence by this thing I did"? Its not even a humble brag, there is no humble to be found.

I had an uncle that used to sing..

Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way 😃😃

But of course he was joking
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,479
9,069
That is exactly what happened. Lmao what?
At no point did I definitively say Broberg was more important than Bouchard.

I made a bold claim ("Broberg may end up being more important to the oilers than Bouchard on this playoff run.") in an attempt to generate a discussion about Broberg's impressive play. Looking at Broberg and Bouchard's roles and their utilization, along with their impact on the oilers' turn around from 0-3 to 3-3, I thought there was an interesting discussion to be had.

I explained to you how this claim rested on specific assumptions, outlined those assumptions, and admitted that they may not be correct...even going as far as to explicitly state that the original claim is probably not correct.

To say I was arguing with you about how Broberg was more important to Edmonton’s run than Bouchard is at best a massive oversimplification. It completely mischaracterizes what actually happened.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,962
7,870
Central Florida
Someone told me I was intellectually dishonest. You take yourself exactly seriously enough to know that when someone says that it's a flame because it's a moral evaluation.

When someone says you're intellectually dishonest you have the right of reply, do you not?

Since you're questioning my method of presentation, I am responding to what you have just brought up for purposes of clarity: I wrote what I wrote because it doesn't break any rules, and was my sixth choice but my first five choices were deleted. the final four of those were literally simply quoting the personal attack because that is so comically corrupt to let an attack be up there but no right to quote the literal words. it should embarrass the authority as they do it, like "holy crap I am CORRUPT."

If it grated you personally then that's not an issue for me, but sorry to hear that

I has a similar experience with modding. I did not handle it well. But that was on me. Mods have a tough job. Most times, the best path is to turn the other cheek. Easier said then done, I know.

I wrote my post, not because you grate against me. You do, but that is better handled by not engaging. I chimed in because I think presented differently, you'd be a tremendous poster. Its not just me you grate against.. You often have issues with posters on here. From stories you have told, you've had issues offline as well, being bullied as a child. Bullying is wrong regardless, but the reason isn't that you are exceptional. It's that you won't stop trying to tell people.

I think you could be a genuine asset to the board. You are obviously intelligent. You don't have to tell us that for us to know it. But I also think you are insecure . I relate to the later. So I wanted to offer my unsolicited advice. Telling someone how great you are has the opposite of the intended effect. Show them instead. Take it for what it's worth, which is probably not much.

I wish you the best of luck.
 

BleedBlue14

UrGeNcY
Feb 9, 2017
6,417
4,990
St. Louis
Would you be ok with paying a 1st and a 3rd as compensation to sign Broberg?

I would be ok with paying a 3rd.

This is a guy who has had multiple extended looks at the NHL roster and failed to solidify himself there. He looked good in a few games in the playoffs but had limited ice time.

He’s young and had a good draft pedigree, but I’m not sure he’s changed anything about the narrative of him possibly not having the best IQ.

I think it would be a mistake to give him 4m+ that’s without even considering the draft pick compensation needed to do so.

If we were willing to do something similar we would’ve been way better suited not acquiring Faksa and doing an offer sheet on Harley. He has a pretty large sample size of success at the NHL level.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
52,940
16,394
If we had our 2nd, there are a few guys I'd be fine throwing an offer-sheet at, teams that have cap issues and would be forced into a tough spot. Since we don't have that, and we'd essentially have to do a 1st and 3rd to get any RFA, there isn't anyone that would interest me. You'd basically have to work out a trade where the 1st has top 10 protection.

Imagine if you sign a guy to an offer-sheet, and someone like Thomas, Parayko, or Binnington tears their ACL in training camp. That's going to be a big time pick that we are losing.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Idiot Control Now!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,983
14,248
Erwin, TN
You brought up an old post of mine and called me intellectually dishonest. Then you apologized because it was old, not because you openly flamed me.

Do you possess even the basic self awareness to understand I put you on ignore for literally years because you couldn't not do that? By having you on ignore I literally never interacted with you, but you entitled yourself to troll me throughout. Do you understand how contemptible that behavior is?
I should have just deleted that when I discovered I was not responding to a fresh post. I'm not sure how old it was, but I thought it was new material in that thread at the time. I apologized then, and I apologize again. The moment to respond to that stream of discussion was probably past. For all I remember, I probably already responded to it.

But in my mind, there is a difference between the ARGUMENT being made as intellectually dishonest and making a value judgement about the person. I also don't believe I singled you out, since your post was giving voice to an argument that others on the site share. But if a poster here makes an argument that is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) I in no way am implying that all their arguments are, or that they are a worthless person.

If I really thought poorly of a poster, I'd just put them on ignore and not bother to interact. The fact I'm responding to the post reflects that I DO hold the poster in respect and have an expectation for a back and forth discussion that holds promise for some interesting insight. Sometimes those types of discussions change my mind or help me see something I'm not seeing. Sometimes no one changes their mind. (With the Pietro conversation, at least on this board its become almost a ritual rather than a discussion. I usually know better than to engage in that.)

Anyway, I have never intended to shut you down or antagonize you. I find your style tends toward acerbic, but that's a style and not necessarily good/bad (although it can seem unfriendly). But you don't hesitate to speak your own mind, and you have a command of the language that is fun to read. And I know we both love Blues hockey, so it gives me a strong motivation to read what you have to say (true for many posters on this forum, but not all). From what I know about you, I think you respect clear and direct communication, so if I have a criticism of something you wrote that's how I respond. But its never been meant to be disrespectful.

If I go back on ignore, I understand. But if not I hope we can give each other the occasional rebuttal without it feeling personal, and find the times we agree as well.
 

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
8,064
8,674
I should have just deleted that when I discovered I was not responding to a fresh post. I'm not sure how old it was, but I thought it was new material in that thread at the time. I apologized then, and I apologize again. The moment to respond to that stream of discussion was probably past. For all I remember, I probably already responded to it.

But in my mind, there is a difference between the ARGUMENT being made as intellectually dishonest and making a value judgement about the person. I also don't believe I singled you out, since your post was giving voice to an argument that others on the site share. But if a poster here makes an argument that is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) I in no way am implying that all their arguments are, or that they are a worthless person.

If I really thought poorly of a poster, I'd just put them on ignore and not bother to interact. The fact I'm responding to the post reflects that I DO hold the poster in respect and have an expectation for a back and forth discussion that holds promise for some interesting insight. Sometimes those types of discussions change my mind or help me see something I'm not seeing. Sometimes no one changes their mind. (With the Pietro conversation, at least on this board its become almost a ritual rather than a discussion. I usually know better than to engage in that.)

Anyway, I have never intended to shut you down or antagonize you. I find your style tends toward acerbic, but that's a style and not necessarily good/bad (although it can seem unfriendly). But you don't hesitate to speak your own mind, and you have a command of the language that is fun to read. And I know we both love Blues hockey, so it gives me a strong motivation to read what you have to say (true for many posters on this forum, but not all). From what I know about you, I think you respect clear and direct communication, so if I have a criticism of something you wrote that's how I respond. But its never been meant to be disrespectful.

If I go back on ignore, I understand. But if not I hope we can give each other the occasional rebuttal without it feeling personal, and find the times we agree as well.
Healing.gif
 

ChicagoBlues

Terraformers
Oct 24, 2006
15,917
6,716
Bold prediction: not really

David Perron will sign his final contract with the St. Louis Blues and retire. One day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drubilly

PocketNines

Cutter's Way
Apr 29, 2004
13,919
6,002
Badlands
I has a similar experience with modding. I did not handle it well. But that was on me. Mods have a tough job. Most times, the best path is to turn the other cheek. Easier said then done, I know.

I wrote my post, not because you grate against me. You do, but that is better handled by not engaging. I chimed in because I think presented differently, you'd be a tremendous poster. Its not just me you grate against.. You often have issues with posters on here. From stories you have told, you've had issues offline as well, being bullied as a child. Bullying is wrong regardless, but the reason isn't that you are exceptional. It's that you won't stop trying to tell people.

I think you could be a genuine asset to the board. You are obviously intelligent. You don't have to tell us that for us to know it. But I also think you are insecure . I relate to the later. So I wanted to offer my unsolicited advice. Telling someone how great you are has the opposite of the intended effect. Show them instead. Take it for what it's worth, which is probably not much.

I wish you the best of luck.
We live in a world where on this board everyone is seemingly entitled to sound off on their assessment of my personality. I find this to be an ongoing, enragingly abusive situation. So, "who I am" is sanctioned here on this subforum as an Open Question.

If I am forced for this to be a question against my will, the reality that things I have done could not have been done by someone without integrity and intellectual honesty, is a completely fair rebuttal to the Open Question.

So your problem is supposedly the presentation of that rebuttal, and your problem is apparently important enough to post publicly. I am telling you it's a choice between 'don't brag' and take this abuse. "Bragging" was my sixth option, but I felt cornered into it, to give concrete examples that bigfoot things to a degree. And "it ain't bragging if you've done it" tips the scales even further on something that isn't a close call.

Recently you yourself started talking here about your brain and how it is so different, remember? Notice I had not entitled myself to attack you for that. And that non self entitlement was not random, it was purposeful. You do not offer me the same courtesy, you must speak on my personhood too. And the unmitigated gall of your substance is "ways P9 could be better."

It's against the rules but it is sanctioned, and I know it is sanctioned because I am constantly dealing with it and the same people do it and they will continue to do it. Yappi is an example, I asked him man to man three years ago to not do it but he couldn't, so I put him on ignore to prove which one of us was doing it to the other and he insulted away and nothing happened, it was sanctioned. Somehow though I am the bad guy in that, he is convinced. It's totally degenerate. You're on his side and joining in. It's all of a piece.

But since you are offering advice, I feel obligated to let you know there's some missing piece to your story. Look at my join date. The vast majority of those posts were way back before the likes system. I used to post like Brian. There are definitely posters who remember. It used to be totally in that style and with statistics and argument that anticipates all the counterarguments and answers them preemptively and so forth. There was a time when I was putting out an incredible volume of content like that.

So what happened. May I now remind you of when I returned to the board about three years ago and my main argument was that the Petro decision was a collapse decision and Krug was absolutely not part of any solution in any way. Who immediately got into it with me with full intensity about how this was wrong and I wasn't giving Krug enough credit? Brian. And then you did a third man in with poison, you were not even in the conversation. Both of you have come around on the substance since. Great, good for you thanks for catching up is how I feel about it.

So let me ask you, what kind of effect do you think it has on a person, over decades, when they come to give their sincere Blues opinion and be willing to hold out in a crucible situation when the entire community is against you, such as when nearly all of you wanted Ryan Miller that year, and some of you hated me so much for opposing it that you literally researched my photo and put it up as your avatar? I left the board before the Miller trade and later that summer I tried to kill myself but didn't. I was personally stuck for other reasons, but my disappointment in other people was and remains near total. People don't try. We deserve Extinction 6, bring it. But again, you have a suggestion for how I could be better.

So yeah, I could choose as you say to present crystalline opinions written eloquently but are you sitting here asking me to believe the collective You would treat me differently. But it's a lie. You would not. You your own self personally did not. So me not being that writer on Blues topics when I could be that writer is satisfying to me personally in the withholding. My best deserves to be withheld here. Instead I am writing a film noir book, it is about human corruption and inevitable doom.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad