Confirmed with Link: Canucks hire Jason Krog as new NHL/AHL Skills Coach

[F A N]

Doesn't seem like the term was being used all that innocently towards the end of the dispute, though.

Agree with your post except aren’t you now drawing conclusions based on what you were ranting against?

 

[Shareefruck]

Agree with your post except aren’t you now drawing conclusions based on what you were ranting against?

Oh, for crying out loud.

I never contended that there was anything inherently wrong with "drawing conclusions." I simply said that I found the specific conclusion that you drew in that instance based on his rant to be unwarranted due to other simpler explanations (which seem very normal and probable to me) that don't require a baseless strawman explanation of him secretly being a teacher who took things overly personally. Hell, I even asked you for more reasons that might make the conclusion more warranted in my eyes.

In your case, my supposed "conclusion" (based on your post, not mine) is that "rant" doesn't appear to be used all that innocently here.

Sure, I could be corrected (and you're welcome to shed light on it), thus my non-committal phrasing with "doesn't seem like", but how is the term "ranting" in this:

Now you're ranting. You also seem upset which also strikes me as odd but I won't express further since you'll be even more upset and accuse me of drawing conclusions.

.... supposed to be taken as the innocent/light-hearted variety? The paragraph is a pretty clear-cut attempt to be dismissive/disparaging of me (the opposite of innocent).

Disagreeing with a certain conclusion that you've drawn does not automatically make any conclusion that I draw hypocritical.

 

[Javaman]

I actually made the exact same point in my original response, but cut it down because it was getting too long. Personally, I find it very frustrating and take it with a grain of salt when someone is framed as being "weirdly defensive" simply because they're willing to endlessly reply to instances of their point being challenged (often requiring increasingly detailed clarification). It's happened to me a lot, personally. I don't do it to be defensive, I do it because (a) I don't mind, (b) to be helpful and (c) (ironically) try to show myself as arguing in good faith.

I am curious now, though. Can you clarify if you did make that rant because you're simply anal about the irrational logic of the statement, or because you are a teacher who happened to personally take offense to it because it hit close to home (or I guess both)? I did not see any sign of the latter, except that I wasn't sure why you didn't respond to any of FAN's multiple teacher-based accusations. Was that just out of a complete unwillingness to engage in spun narratives?

I debated a while about whether or not I should continue to engage in this sub-discussion largely because I already feel bad about the way it's sorta derailed the thread. I genuinely did not expect that my offhanded complaint about a specific comment would generate the drama that it did. In the end, I felt your thoughtful comments and questions deserved a response.

I still don't think a single post counts as rant, fwiw, lol.

Anyways, I can personally think of several reasons why someone, such as myself, would be irked by a statement that have absolutely nothing to do what they do for a living. It appears that a certain poster is unable to conceive of those possibilities.

As is usually the case, the real reason I didn't respond to the demands to reveal my occupation is pretty mundane and definitely not worthy of the passionate responses it's apparently compelled a certain poster to make. When I joined this site about 14 years ago, I decided I would not divulge personal information that had the potential to pierce the anonymity HF provides by default.

I'm simply continuing to abide by that principle. Nothing more, nothing less.

I won't make any further comments about this subtopic.

Instead I'll say that if you stuck Krog into any adult rec-level hockey team, he would absolutely dominate.

Oh, for crying out loud.

I never contended that there was anything inherently wrong with "drawing conclusions." I simply said that I found the specific conclusion that you drew in that instance based on his rant to be unwarranted due to other simpler explanations (which seem very normal and probable to me) that don't require a baseless strawman explanation of him secretly being a teacher who took things overly personally.

In your case, my conclusion (based on your post, not mine) is that "rant" doesn't appear to be used all that innocently here.

Sure, I could be corrected (and you're welcome to shed light on it), but how is the term "ranting" in this:

.... supposed to be taken as the innocent/light-hearted variety? The paragraph is a pretty clear-cut attempt to be dismissive/negative of me (the opposite of innocent).

Disagreeing with a certain conclusion that you've drawn does not automatically make any conclusion that I draw hypocritical.

You see what I've been dealing with, right?

 

[MS]

Huh? You didn't make the post that started this. Why are you making this about you?

I genuinely don't get why you're riffing on the "bad teacher" thing. It makes zero sense to me. What has you so triggered?

Your post is just... weird.

[MOD]

I agree with your initial post, by the way. 'Those who can't, teach' is generally only used as a cheap shot at teachers to disparage the profession and your post expressed this perfectly reasonably and wasn't a 'rant' in any way. And I'm not a teacher.

 

[Shareefruck]

I debated a while about whether or not I should continue to engage in this sub-discussion largely because I already feel bad about the way it's sorta derailed the thread. I genuinely did not expect that my offhanded complaint about a specific comment would generate the drama that it did. In the end, I felt your thoughtful comments and questions deserved a response.

I still don't think a single post counts as rant, fwiw, lol.

Anyways, I can personally think of several reasons why someone, such as myself, would be irked by a statement that have absolutely nothing to do what they do for a living. It appears that a certain poster is unable to conceive of those possibilities.

As is usually the case, the real reason I didn't respond to the demands to reveal my occupation is pretty mundane and definitely not worthy of the passionate responses it's apparently compelled a certain poster to make. When I joined this site about 14 years ago, I decided I would not divulge personal information that had the potential to pierce the anonymity HF provides by default.

I'm simply continuing to abide by that principle. Nothing more, nothing less.

I won't make any further comments about this subtopic.

Instead I'll say that if you stuck Krog into any adult rec-level hockey team, he would absolutely dominate.

Got it, and very reasonable. Was just curious about the reason for its own sake.

 

[F A N]

When I joined this site about 14 years ago, I decided I would not divulge personal information that had the potential to pierce the anonymity HF provides by default.

I'm simply continuing to abide by that principle. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hilarious. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MS]

Hilarious. Nothing more, nothing less.

View attachment 883816

You must be so proud of yourself.

 

[Javaman]

Hilarious. Nothing more, nothing

Well, it appears I've been less than consistent on my original intent. But I can't help but wonder what compelled you to dig through AFF to find that. Doesn't seem healthy. It certainly has nothing to do with Krog's competency as a coach.

While I doubt you'll agree, this doesn't change the original point I was making.

 

[RobertKron]

Hilarious. Nothing more, nothing less.

View attachment 883816

Good lord.

At least know who will be incredibly good at teaching reply guy behaviour if we ever need a coach for that.

 

[F A N]

Well, it appears I've been less than consistent on my original intent. But I can't help but wonder what compelled you to dig through AFF to find that. Doesn't seem healthy. It certainly has nothing to do with Krog's competency as a coach.

While I doubt you'll agree, this doesn't change the original point I was making.

It only took a few seconds. It also doesn't change my post to you. I don't think anybody here was trying to attack your profession.

Good lord.

I notice you and @MS like to call out to your good lord. I wonder if it's the same one.

 

[RobertKron]

It only took a few seconds. It also doesn't change my post to you. I don't think anybody here was trying to attack your profession.



I notice you and @MS like to call out to your good lord. I wonder if it's the same one.

Are you okay?

Edit: Also, according to the search I've posted the phrase "good lord" on here three times in, uh, 17 years - the last time being almost a year and a half ago. What are you even on about? Like, seriously, are you okay?

 

[F A N]

Are you okay?

Edit: Also, according to the search I've posted the phrase "good lord" on here three times in, uh, 17 years - the last time being almost a year and a half ago. What are you even on about? Like, seriously, are you okay?

I'm ok. Thanks. Are you? You were calling out to your Lord. Hope all is well with you.

BTW, HF history was purged a while back so you won't find any history dating back 10+ years.

 

[rypper]

WEIRD.

 

[mathonwy]

What's going on in this thread. It's not even off season yet.

 

[Hit the post]

 

[RobertKron]

I'm ok. Thanks. Are you? You were calling out to your Lord. Hope all is well with you.

BTW, HF history was purged a while back so you won't find any history dating back 10+ years.

So you were going off your vivid memory of me posting "good lord" a lot 10+ years ago. Alright.

 

[Vector]

It's too much work to clean this thread up. I'm just going to banish it.