No, we can’t get specific on who is offended. Why? Because it’s not the point. It’s entirely outside of the realm of relevancy to this topic. 100% outside of it.
Tawnos, the elephant in the room is that clearly there are
fans who become offended in response to any suggestion of not continuing this practice...
The reason I kept asking for specific examples of retired NHL'ers or ex-Rangers (since we're more familiar with their characters/personalities) who people think would personally be offended over these circumstances, was because I had a pretty darn good idea where most of the 'offense' was originating from and I had hoped that more people would acknowledge that it's largely coming from the fans themselves...
How is this relevant to the debate? If people are offended by something (some notion/suggestion) - clearly there is a psychological motivation to uphold their argument against that which offends them... You can't be realistic and suggest that fans being/feeling offended doesn't factor into these debates on hockey fan forums? I mean, really? That's comprises like 50-60% of the posting activity on this site...
And yes, I’m saying that if the Rangers go back on their policy and put retired numbers back into circulation, they’ve lost their integrity.
The integrity behind the NYR organization comes ONLY from jersey retirements? Or from many different areas/elements within the organization?
If it's the latter and not the former - I don't see how this single issue can result in the organization losing its integrity... ??? Can you explain how this is possible?
Yes, once you retire the number, it should never, ever get worn again. That’s the promise being made by the organization.
So hypothetically if the organization announced tomorrow that it was discontinuing the practice of retiring jersey numbers - you would personally be okay with a future Ranger players wearing #30 for the Rangers simply because the Rangers had not made any promises about that number to said player? (Trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from)... Should Henke feel offended if we don't retire his number and allow another player to eventually wear it?
Even when a player has passed, they probably have a family who should be respected with the honor as well.
How many hockey players have passed and have no retired jersey numbers for their surviving relatives to experience feeling 'respected with the honor' of a retired jersey? Should those relatives feel slighted or disrespected over such circumstances? If not, this is not an argument for why this practice should be upheld... And I'm saying this as someone who has endured through intense grieving in this lifetime.
The way the Leafs choose to honor their players is also not relevant here.
It's certainly relevant to the general practice of retiring numbers - which extends beyond the Rangers organization, does it not?
Once you’ve made that promise, you don’t go back on it. I don’t think I need to explain to you why it’s bad to go back on a promise. Do I?
Yes I think you should - because how many people get married and make a promise to love someone until death due they part? What's the divorce rate again? Do you personally walk around judging anyone who has ever divorced - because hey, they made a promise they didn't keep... I'd hope not, because that would not be a healthy way to live/operate.. Are you accepting of any friends and relatives getting divorces? Or do you tell them it's not okay because they made a promise and under no circumstances can people ever divert course from former promises as circumstances change/evolve?
Every post you’ve made on this subject has had an hysterical tinge to it, including the one I’m responding to. I won’t engage on the question of “too many numbers” because it’s too absurd to bother with. I refuse to take seriously something stretched to the ridiculous.
Please point out the evidence of 'hysteria'... Do you see me using any profanity, engaging in petty ad hominem rhethoric, do you see me typing in all caps or using lots of exclamation points? Where's is it, please?
The real reason you won't address my point about the inevitable lack of numbers is because you can't make any valid argument against the fact that the practice of retiring a finite list of numbers will inevitably result in too many numbers being restricted and the policy/practice ultimately ending... That's why you won't touch it, because your sentimental argument can't survive in the face of it of this inevitable outcome... If you'd like to try to explain how a finite list of numbers can endlessly be retired without ever reaching this outcome - I''d really like to hear it... Comments pertaining to "this will take so long to happpn who cares" or "I won't be around to see this" do not actually address the point that was made, but avoid it...
I haven't seen you be this passionate since they signed Wade Redden all those years ago...
