Dan Cleary Suffers Upper Body Injury

[Echolalia 2,961]

I can understand why a person who hasn't had much success in their life might get off on winning an internet argument, if and when that happens, I hope they savor it. I only wish they'd be honest enough to save those "gotcha" posts for times when they're, you know, right. The argument that a toughguy prevents all cheapshots was never made, but some here sure do like to argue against it.

Oh Micah... so quick to make personal jabs on something as trivial as an internet forum argument. I still love you though, champ!

[Doc Holiday 0]

Yeah, it sucks having this repeatedly brought back up. But I guess this is what you (plural) get for constantly pointing out how necessary an enforcer was and the Holland bashing. Apparently, some people do just wait around to say "I gotcha!"

Necessity?

What?

And honestly this is an internet discussion forum. The "anti-enforcer" crowd (or whatever group you want to refer them to) has made little to no threads based on the fact that an "enforcer" does or doesn't help the team. However the "pro-enforcer" crowd (once again whatever you want to call them, but this is mainly ESAD I'm talking about) has made numerous threads about how enforcers are so neeedeeedd and that Holland like sofffttt Eurrroossss. Who should be more annoyed?

If you can't take little fun remarks regarding "enforcers" on an internet discussion forum then perhaps an internet DISCUSSION forum is not for you.

Also, Micah, you have your opinions and I have mine and he have gone round and round and round again with it so I'm just going to say "no thank you" to another fifty page "enforcerrrrr" thread.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Hey, it's not Brad May's fault that his teammates are made of glass.

The only injury I can recall off a sheapshot was Kronwall's, and I don't think May was even playing that night.

The other injuries were just guys made of glass easily breaking. Not much anyone can do about that, even if we had 5 Proberts playing in the lineup in those games.

[Chunkylover 26]

Necessity?

What?

And honestly this is an internet discussion forum. The "anti-enforcer" crowd (or whatever group you want to refer them to) has made little to no threads based on the fact that an "enforcer" does or doesn't help the team. However the "pro-enforcer" crowd (once again whatever you want to call them, but this is mainly ESAD I'm talking about) has made numerous threads about how enforcers are so neeedeeedd and that Holland like sofffttt Eurrroossss. Who should be more annoyed?

If you can't take little fun remarks regarding "enforcers" on an internet discussion forum then perhaps an internet DISCUSSION forum is not for you.

Also, Micah, you have your opinions and I have mine and he have gone round and round and round again with it so I'm just going to say "no thank you" to another fifty page "enforcerrrrr" thread.

That's why I didn't give those who kept bringing up the "need" for an enforcer and the "cowardice" of Holland a break. Their constant nagging of the team has earned them the type of response Micah originally decried. They wanted a fight and now they have it.

I think it's annoying because just as Micah never really said enforcers prevent all injuries, you and I who are labeled "anti-enforcer" have never argued against having someone like May on the team. As you said, the enforcer debate was contrived, mostly by the poster you mentioned, and I would like to avoid it as much as you.

[Guest micah]

That's why I didn't give those who kept bringing up the "need" for an enforcer and the "cowardice" of Holland a break. Their constant nagging of the team has earned them the type of response Micah originally decried.

I disagree about anyone's behavior on this board deserving dishonesty replies.

I think it's annoying because just as Micah never really said enforcers prevent all injuries, you and I who are labeled "anti-enforcer" have never argued against having someone like May on the team. As you said, the enforcer debate was contrived, mostly by the poster you mentioned, and I would like to avoid it as much as you.

Enforcer threads were the most posted in threads in LGW before I got here. I also don't believe I've labelled anyone as "anti-enforcer" with a few exceptions - those who say fighting has no place in hockey, for example.

[Chunkylover 26]

I disagree about anyone's behavior on this board deserving dishonesty replies.

I don't agree with it either, but since another poster (not you, but you know who I'm talking about) couldn't pass up the opportunity to bash Holland for not having an enforcer, this is the kind of stuff that's going to happen.

Enforcer threads were the most posted in threads in LGW before I got here. I also don't believe I've labelled anyone as "anti-enforcer" with a few exceptions - those who say fighting has no place in hockey, for example.

I wasn't necessarily singling you out for labeling "anti-enforcers", you know my position on that term. However, in the "enforcer" threads that term was frequently and wrongfully applied in many cases where it was inaccurate.

It's unfortunate that a thread about an injured Danny Cleary went on this tangent, which was my original point, and that was not directed toward you, but the person to whom you first responded.

In the interest of re-aligning the thread: yes it hurts to keep having injuries, but how much are we losing with this injury to Cleary? As Mick likes to say, "What have you done for me lately?"