Jump to content


Matt's Photo

Matt

Member Since 04 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Aug 26 2014 08:15 AM
****-

#2318007 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by Matt on 11 July 2012 - 12:11 AM

The one person we're all tiptoeing around naming here is pretty clearly only around to troll. The only type of posts he makes are derogitory towards the Wings, Holland and posters here at LGW. That's what really gets my goat.


Concerning the member in question here: the warning in the thread causing tonight's ruckus has been made. Anything further from him will result in removal.

the funny thing about you is, I can't tell if your the cleverest troll I've ever met or just the strangest troll I've ever met lol.


Be patient, it'll take a week for him to respond to that.


#2317992 Reminder: Personal attacks, trolling will not be tolerated

Posted by Matt on 10 July 2012 - 11:39 PM

I guess I never noticed these 'plenty of times' that you said this, and I now see it in the forum guildlines. I don't know how long that's been the there but it's weird I've never seen it before after 6+ years on these forums.


It's been there from the beginning. You've got no one to blame for your lack of reading skills but yourself.

Anyway, I didn't feel the need to go over this mod's head because they were responding back and forth in PM. Their stupidity was more humorous than frustrating, so I didn't fail to do anything but laugh it off. If my post gets deleted even though I was on topic and didn't attack anyone, I'll be sure to come and whine/complain to you from now on.


No, but you felt the need to whine about it publicly on the forum like an offended child rather than taking a route available to you. Oh, that's right -- you failed to read about that part. Again, this feeds into your persecution complex you've laid bare here.

Despite your condescending tone, this was not at all a time that the forum was busier than usual (late Feb/beginning of March), and it was a topic I started. So nothing was reported, the mod just read the topic and clearly wasn't feeling it. Apparently one mod found it ok enough to respond to it, and but the other just removed it.


So right around the NHL Trade Deadline. Right. No traffic increase there. As far as the "condescending tone" is concerned, I will reply in kind when the moderating staff is called "elitist" or "stupid", so get used to it.

I just found the crackdown funny, sorry for being honest. I'll definitely try to hit "print screen" before my posts are removed or something.

Since this one occurrence has offended you so, may I ask what the topic pertained to (since I don't recall seeing it)? I'm virtually 100% confident the moderator that removed the topic did so correctly, but the event has left an ugly scar in your mind since then.

I've looked a this 'warning point" and the details were blank, if you'd like to PM me what this was in reference to I'd love to know. Otherwise I can just assume this is your BS attempt to personally call me out. Which is also just hilarious considering the topic.


Again, you think quite highly of yourself, which is amusing -- but sorry, I have no need to make up "BS attempts" to call you out. What's the point in that? Unfortunately the forum software from four years ago handled warnings a bit differently and there's no specifics other than a record of whom assigned the warning, the date, and the reason. That fancy print-screen effect below:

louisville1.jpg louisville2.jpg

And to your second point, of course I'm not the first poster who feels that way, but I'm sure most just take it without argument. If you want to create an open discussion about this let's at least be honest about that. Otherwise, just post your rules and close the topic.

What exactly have I not been honest about? Is this not an open discussion? Your attempts at trying to skew the discussion are laughable, at best. Argue/debate/discuss all you want, I'm game and I always have been. I don't believe I've ever been known to shun open discussion of site policies as long as it's done so with respect from the start. That isn't how it started here.

Look, I love this forum (why else would I be a booster?) but if something is going to be removed/modified/or result in a ban I would hope that it remains consistent . Looks like you guys are heading in the right direction at least.

If there's one thing that all moderators need to accept it's that you can't keep everyone happy. Someone will always be put off about one thing or another, will take something personal when it's not, etc.. You ARE a Booster -- so you know that there's been a two-year long thread on the first page of the private Booster forum specifically discussing the moderator policies of the forum. What have you contributed to it? Nothing. Zero. Not one post. (But let me guess, you didn't see that either, and I magically made that appear, too?)

No disrespect for regular members here, but I do give the opinions of Boosters more weight when it comes to the discussion of moderator policies on the forums here: after all, they have made a contribution to the site and I consider it an "investment" in the site's growth and future. Does that mean they decide policy? Absolutely not, but I do listen to what they have to say.

The moderators and I are not infallible. Things get missed, some things are edited/moved/deleted when they shouldn't be. It happens, and we try our best to fix it on the random times it does happen. And for those that feel that something was handled incorrectly than can always talk to me -- the buck stops here. I can't improve things if I don't know about the problems to begin with.


#2317951 How bad are we if our roster is now finalized?

Posted by Matt on 10 July 2012 - 09:51 PM

Trying to get through to these homers is like a one legged man trying to win an ass kicking contest. It's not going to happen. It's funny though, the hypocrisy


Enough. The line is drawn in the sand right here. Reply tactfully -- and to the topic at hand -- or find your stay here permanently shortened.

This also applies to all others dragging this thread though the mud.


#2316612 Hi-Res Howard Color/Grunge offset

Posted by Matt on 06 July 2012 - 10:26 PM

I was making some iPad wallpapers for myself tonight and had a really hi-res Jimmy Howard photo that I manipulated quickly in photoshop and figured I'd upload the original (non-cropped for wallpapers) version. The original is 3000px across, but this is downsized to 2000px:

howard-grunge.jpg

I may re-use a version of it for a schedule wallpaper or something later on, I haven't decided yet. But I figured I'd just upload it here regardless.


#2315598 Has the Detroit diamond lost it's shine?

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 10:06 AM

Ownership offered, and will pay, two-hundred-and-fourteen million to one player, paid over a shorter period of time. No difference whatsoever.

This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. So, in effect, you're saying the Wings are "cheap" for not paying a player $24-million for these players when they did for a team in another sport they own? Or it'd be "cheap" if they didn't spend $30-million per year on a player because someone did with Joe Johnson in the NBA?

This is ludicrous on all fronts and I feel dumber having to even respond to it. What the Tigers do in baseball has had nothing to do with the Red Wings spending habits in hockey. Nothing.


#2315535 Has the Detroit diamond lost it's shine?

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 08:25 AM

Sometimes I think that ownership currently has a preoccupation with the baseball diamond.


How do you figure that? Were the Wings offering nearly $180-million to two players not enough? The Wings made incredibly strong offers to both players -- the fact that Ilitch also owns the Tigers has nothing to do with it. Being $17-million under the cap isn't because Ilitch doesn't want to spend -- it's that Ilitch trusts his front office team to spend it on the RIGHT players, not spend it for the sake of doing so. Huge difference.

"For me, knowing Detroit's history they don't really pay the market value for a defenseman or any player,'' Wisniewski said on NHL Live. "So I didn't think that was going to be a fit for myself.


He wanted to be overpaid and he got what he wanted. Now he'll roll around in his $100 bills (when he's not suspended) and languish in Columbus for it. Good for him.


#2315523 Optimism, chill people. we have options

Posted by Matt on 05 July 2012 - 08:03 AM

I heard that Semin may actually go play in the KHL next season, but thats just on various rumor sites.

I recall reading on Twitter (from a reputable media member -- not a fly-by-night hockey "insider) that Fedorov is openly courting him to join his KHL team. We'll see.
____

And count me as one of those that thinks that Suter would've been absolutely worth the money if the Wings matched his offer from the Wild. He is a rock-solid all-around defenseman that contributes in all situations and those players, especially in the era of "lifetime" contracts that teams hand out like candy to those they deem franchise players, hardly ever hit the market.

If you think Suter's contract is "bad" just wait until you see what kind of cheddar Weber gets if he signs his offer sheet and goes UFA next July 1. Depending on the outcome of the CBA (if it remains remotely status quo), you're looking at a contract nearing $9-million per season just because franchise defensemen of that caliber do NOT hit the market anymore, the "Crosby cap" be damned. People will scream and yell that he's "not worth more than Crosby" -- but someone WILL pay it and there will be a line to sign him.


#2314485 Ryan Suter agrees to 13-year, $98-mil deal with Wild

Posted by Matt on 04 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

Suter wanted to come to Detroit... Parise didn't... Suter signs wherever Parise wans to go. These guys don't give a s*** about winning they just want to get paid and have fun. I'm sorry but this is just the way that American born players are. The stanley cup isn't their end all be all. It's weird cause most other nations are passionate about the cup but it seems as time goes on players are choosing $$ and lifestyle over being a champion

I should've instituted an IQ test in order to allow you to post.


#2313623 Suter Watch: Decision today, down to Wings/Wild

Posted by Matt on 03 July 2012 - 01:20 PM

Nope, brought to you by Little Caesars:

0269303.jpg

Ilitch with the hard sell?


#2313614 Suter Watch: Decision today, down to Wings/Wild

Posted by Matt on 03 July 2012 - 01:16 PM

What's hilarious(ly pathetic) is that I was relentlessly looking for planes registered to Olympia this morning and I couldn't find this one... (The others that I did find were in Georgia and Florida.)


#2313421 General free agent signings

Posted by Matt on 03 July 2012 - 08:03 AM

No, we don't. If members don't deem a thread discussion-worthy it will move down the list due to those topics that are. There's no point in having one massive thread that's discussing 20 signings and is scattershot throughout where sifting through pages of posts to find what you want to comment on becomes painstaking.

Events like this only happen this week and on deadline day. No mega-threads.


#2313412 mobile view

Posted by Matt on 03 July 2012 - 07:48 AM

I'm looking into the page navigation for the mobile version. It'll likely have to wait until after the craziness this week, however.


#2312197 Red Wings Sign Jordin Tootoo to 3-yr deal, $1.9M/yr

Posted by Matt on 01 July 2012 - 06:04 PM

So, you guys are saying I should swap out Franzen for Tootoo on the header graphic of the forum?


#2312118 Red Wings Sign Jordin Tootoo to 3-yr deal, $1.9M/yr

Posted by Matt on 01 July 2012 - 05:42 PM

None of these signings affect the Suter/Parise contract talks at all.. Signing Tootoo and Samuelsson has no bearing on signing the other two. Remember, soft cap during the summer is $77-million.


#2312083 Red Wings Sign Jordin Tootoo to 3-yr deal, $1.9M/yr

Posted by Matt on 01 July 2012 - 05:32 PM

Holland has to have something stirring to move some forwards out. That's 2 today, and a full-court press to land Parise tomorrow as a 3rd.