NomadFromKazoo

Classic overreading. Clearly they are not satisfied and they are trying EVERYTHING. If they didn't "trust" him he would be waived and there's no basis to say that at all. With his record and our record it's nonsense to make that extreme statement they don't "trust him," pa-lease. With his save percentage and GAA there's no basis to say they are or should be satisfied. As they keep saying, you don't win playoff games 6-5. But because rather then playing Ozzie or sitting Ozzie for Conklin they try bringing up Howard and you jump to they don't "trust" him? It's baseless and frankly pretty inane. The only playoff experienced guy in the organzation who won two Cups, the last in J-U-N-E. And they don't trust him. Why do people feel the need for such nonsense?

You got the spin going already? As an Ozzie "supporter," my basic argument is that there is no other obvious better solution and none of the coaches were saying Conklin or minor leaguers are. I was and am totally skeptical of solving the problem with a trade for all the reasons discussed: who we can get, who we'd give up, the cap hit, syncing with the D in a short time... We were relying heavily on the coaches rather then arm chair GMs who told us they had all the answers and that was Conklin, Howard, trade, whatever. I haven't seen ANYONE say Ozzie's not sucking or the coaches should not make a change if they see a better option. And BTW, this completely glosses over that trying Howard out now locks us into nothing and that you're WAY over reading that Ozzie is somehow "done" as you seem to be implying. So I'll stand up and say I've "supported" Ozzie, and yes I support this move, and yes, I stand by both. I shy away from nothing. And I think the coaches will make the best call in the playoffs, which I still think is going to end up being Ozzie, but I'll be perfectly happy if it's not.

Maybe you were just watching him on a big TV... But seriously, I have a hard time believing Babcock would be playing Ozzie if he were playing scared. And frankly Ozzie's been in the toughest job in Detroit a lot of years between his two stints, which includes the choice to come back and then sign an extension. If he can last here this long I just don't see how he could now have his confidence shot eight months after being in the net winning the Cup. I have a hard time with the smell test.

Here's the second one I promised. Here'sthe quote you're referring to: Kaz: "Actually I would say it in real life, but you'd take it more humorously as the people who know me do. Of course you don't get that from a few messages on a message board." Look at what I said and your flagrant misquote. I said I would say "it" in real life, a reference to a specific statement. You generalize that to that I "would talk to someone in person exactly how you are here." This is such a weak logical fallacy leaving you far short of your "rational" self description. In addition to defending our bitterest enemy and saying you do not "support" the Wings because we're a bunch of pansies, you must misquote and perform flagrantly fallacious logic. It's no wonder you were so offended that I insulted you, it was WAY too close to home, far closer then originally intended when I thought your inflammatory statements were just a call for some spirited jousting.

I was just messing with you. Just a suggestion, if you're going to be a thin skinned whiner, don't post messages on a message board at all much less posting contentious ones like you're doing, defending Lemieux and criticizing the Wings as pansies and saying you don't "support" them? Your choice, just a suggestion. Frankly when I saw that I thought you were in this for some fun. I stand corrected, you were serious and you're not going to stop whining. So, I'll stop playing and just examine your logic. But I'm going to last a lot longer posting on the Internet then you are if this bothers you so much. When I said, "don't defend our most bitter enemies and then whine you get some grief" you hear "If you can't be 100% positive to all things Red Wing then don't bother coming to LGW" and when questioned where I said that you provide that quote and explain "to me, that means we're not allowed to argue any points against the Wings or their enemies without being insulted." You're defending our bitterest enemy is according to you that you have to be "100% positive?" That's what you hear? I guess it is since you followed it up with "TO ME, that means we're not allowed to argue any points against the Wings..." Wow, if you can't defend our bitterest enemy, you can't say ANYTHING. That's your "rational" logic? And let's talk consequence. I said if you do it, you're going to get some "grief." To your rational mind that means "don't bother coming to LGW." You'll get grief means you can't come here. That's your "rational" comprehension of the statement? Those are the only choices? And you're self declared "rational?" Thanks for clarifying that. And I have another one to follow...

You're right, Drake was a loss. I'd argue Stuart for the whole season and Hossa are a net addition and I don't think Drake alone takes us from pansies to gritty and justify a "fan" saying he can't "support" us because of it, but I specifically said we lost no one important and you're totally right that was wrong, Drake was a loss.

I'm a little sick talking to you now that you and Hank's hands are so deep in each other's pants, but I didn't say Lemieux was dirty just because someone got injured and his team was mad at them. I hate the Canadians and the Flyers and it was like 20 years ago. I'd have to see the hit to say it was "dirty," particularly to the level of a Lemieux. I don't remember him hitting Propp into the boards from behind, wasn't it open ice? So I guess rather than saying I do or don't remember, I have to say I sort of remember but just the name doesn't make me say Cheli is Lemieux or get why it's a defense of Lemieux if it is. Anyway, it's been fun, gotta do some other stuff. Feel free to blast me with some more insults and I'll get to them later!

You guys have a nice little cluster going there agreeing with each other's points back and forth.

Umm...show me where I said that. If you're so "rational" then why do you need to completely fabricate the points you're arguing? Do you mean that once you fabricated a point your response to it is completely "rational?"

Again, I AGREED with the antagonist. I hate Lemieux becuase he was DIRTY. Yes, I totally remember Cheli being a complete irritant. No, I don't remember him trying to take out our players. And no, it wasn't just that one hit with Lemieux. Certainly without that one extreme one he did to Draper my hatred of him wouldn't be as high, but it seemed the guy was always after guys who were in vulnerable positions. That they weren't injured doesn't make it not dirty. I know people bring up Cheli, but I'm not getting the connection that I need to be OK with Lemieux in some way because of Cheli. And while some people are stuck on the dirty word with Cheli, I don't remember that. I remember him going after the play, jawing and generally being an ass. I don't remember cheap shots. Pushing and shoving after plays are over and irritating your opponents is part of hockey, and isn't going to injure them. As for people aren't online like they are with people in real life, congratulations on your firm grasp of the obvious. In fact that's a nice thing about the Internet. You guys chose to defend the evil one and I like to argue. So I did. Wow, I wouldn't do that if I met you in a cafe, you're onto something there. Could catch on when people realize they can do that, shh. Maybe some people would even like that. But since you chose to defend the most reviled enemy of the Wings and admit you do not "support" us, I still don't feel sorry for you no matter how much you want to whine about it.

Yes, I'm a strange type of fan who doesn't declare I don't "support" my team, make ludicrous statements like the Lemieux can beat up anyone on our roster showing what a bunch of pansies are and defend our bitterest enemy. But hey, I'm not "rational" like you are so I'll have to deal with that. And interestingly the other guy I've been arguing with agreed with you he doesn't support us either. I may not be rational, but I ID'd who's not really a fan, at least by my irrational definition of one that they support the team. I don't know what you're looking at that the team that won the Cup last year and signed trade deadline Stuart to an extension and Hossa in the offseason while losing no one important is to fem to win, but frankly since you guys ID'd your allegiance isn't with us, I'm satisfied it's a pointless question to ask.

Hank question: I'm asking this with 100% sincerety; what are you talking about? At what point did I threaten physical violence? I never once stated ANYTHING about 'beating anyone up'. Answer, Hank quote: I find it quite ironic that you call someone like Claude a coward and classless and yet you feel very comfortable throwing insults at someone who never attacked you from behind the safe confines of your computer screen Kaz: Since you can insult me back, what does this mean? How is it not a reference to my being a coward because you can't physically do anything to me since you have every disposal to respond to me and my computer screen is in no way "safe" from that? Edited add on: I see you addressed this point above. I find your explanation weak that you just mean I wouldn't SAY it in real life, it sure sounds like a reference to physical, but OK. Actually I would say it in real life, but you'd take it more humorously as the people who know me do. Of course you don't get that from a few messages on a message board. Hank: The 'attacks' I was referring to were how you referred to me having the comprehension of a 12 year old. Why did you feel the need to insult me? Kaz: Actually the reference to 12 was that anyone older should remember Claude Lemieux, it wasn't a reference to "comprehension." As for your not liking being insulted, again, whatever any other player did, no one has been as dirty with the Wings as the guy you're defending. And you're doing it on a Wing's fan site. Do the math, don't defend our most bitter enemies and then whine you get some grief. As for me, I like to argue and I HATE Claude Lemieux. If you were saying it about say Joe Thornton and I hated him because he drove over my dog I could totally see you saying WTF!?! But you choose to defend our most bitter enemy of all and whine? Good luck with that.

Well, how I got into this and with the back and forth I get lost between who said which quote, I got into this with the absurdity that Lemieux could beat up our entire roster. Somehow that changed to that we don't play physically enough, which is a completely different point and one that I wouldn't have gotten into this whole discussion over. But regarding the quote, it was that the "fan" doesn't "support" the team this year. Not that the "fan" doesn't have "confidence" or "faith" we'll repeat, but that the "fan" doesn't even "support" us. A pretty strong statement. A pretty absolute statement. For gosh sake, we're the defending champs, ADDED talent and have the third best record in the league. It's not like we were more physical last year then this year. Even FAIR WEATHER fans haven't abandoned us. And yet a self declared "fan" doesn't even "support" us because we're not physical enough? That just doesn't add up. Defending Lemieux because he is a friend of the "fan" who hates us totally adds up.

I'm criticizing you and your cohorts who defend Claude Lemieux on a Red Wing fan site. And no, I feel no remorse for that. Funny though how you bring up the need to beat people up who disagree with you. At no place did I threaten anyone or say they deserve to get what Claude Lemieux dishes out or in any way bring up any personal threat directly or indirectly. Then you bring up how I'm a coward because you can't beat me up? So let's analyze the hypocrisy. I criticize and stand here to take the criticism. That's hypocrisy? How? I get what I dish out and don't whine about that. I criticize the Lemieux defenders again, but I don't say, oh boo hoo you're criticizing me like you do. I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. You're being insulted and whining that you're being insulted and lamenting you can't physically beat me up. Is that hypocrisy? Seems to be.

This must be some sort of the use of the word "fan" I hadn't previously heard before. But bam, you did admit I was dead on, you're a wolf in wolves clothing.

Um...how exactly do you know what my mood is? Stop crying Nancy. Funny how you're saying the Wings wear dresses and proving that you do since you're the one who needs to discuss our "mood" in the discussion. How do you FEEL about that, Kaz? I don't care how you "feel" so why do you care what I do, my dear? If it's not the Leaf's, what team do you follow anyway? I guess with all the Wings jerseys everywhere we play we're bound to pick up contentless wannabes who's friend is anyone who's our enemy and look for any opportunity to bash us. OK, you got it, our team are a bunch of girls, who won 4 of the last 12 Stanley Cups. Hockey players in dresses who could be beaten up by the wives of the other teams players. You go ahead and believe that, I bet we have a lot bigger chance of hosting our FIFTH cup in 13 years then your team has of hoisting their first or you wouldn't be here living just by backing our enemies. A team of pansies who can't defend themselves but win Cup after Cup, how do you "feel" about reality?

Chelios was an agitator, Claude was dirty. Chelios was relentless, Claude was a thug. Chelios got in your head, Claude tried to take it off from behind. Hypocrisy BS, you're full of it. Yes, it was very hard to get used to Cheli in the beginning. No true Wings fan old enough to remember the scum bucket of a human being going by the name Claude Lemieux would EVER accept him as a Detroit Red Wing. And you want him on our roster? I hope you're 12 and just don't know any better.

Jumping people being Lemieux's specialty. But I see now, if Lemieux EVER fought anyone, that means my pointing out his having cowered from them is an "umm," even when my example was people skating up to him, not jumping him. Got it. I've been learned, thanks! Anyway, good defense of the scum bucket, your parents must be proud.

What a retarded post. Are you really that stupid or just a Wing hating Leaf's fan? Either way, you have no knowledge of the past because even in the day the fem Lemieux would only fight smaller Wings. An announcer pointed that out once that Lemieux would stake towards smaller Wings and if anyone remotely his size skated towards him he "skated away." And that our team doesn't play dirty means they are whusses is the sort of thing I expect from you losers from Toronto who can fight, the dirtier the better, and can't play hockey.

I think the theory is with our main players signed up forever that eventually the economy improves, the cap goes up, and that's how we keep them. We lose Sammy, Huds, or some short term and fill them in with the farm which we can pay because the cost of our best players won't go up anymore.

You consider this a "verbal assault?" You must be a charm to know. Grow a pair, Nancy.

Ozzie's been great! He came back to us and stole a cup for us when anyone who's honest was getting very, very nervous about the Dominator who was showing serious decline at that point. But the rafters? I totally agree, no. You don't put every player who's good for us up there, even ones who are good for us a long time. You put guys like Y and Lids up there. Maybe someday Z or Datusk make it. Federov could have been but chose not to by trying to leave every time his contract was up and then taking less money to do so after saying our 10 mil offer was an insult to his manhood. The great Wings take less to stay, not less to leave.

Don't cry. It wasn't my intention to distress you, but if I did I don't really care, I just viewed your comparison as ridiculous and said so. The emotional reaction you want to have to that is your choice.

Sarcasm is my genre, but this isn't sarcastic, it's just an insult to long time great wings. The four guys mentioned are guys who have done the dirtiest work for us for long periods of time. The Grind line and Homer have been true Wings. Why insult them by comparing retiring their numbers to retiring Lilja?

I love those guys, but in the rafters? No, no, no and no.