I put off replying to this topic all day because I wanted to write a dissertation on why I think Feds is a lock for first ballot, and how I believe that a lot of his reported "attitude" problems hinged on cultural issues, and to reflect on the ways I feel Feds is superior to Forsberg.
But now I'm sleepy and hungry and I don't want to say anything other than
So we can't discuss the merits of your answer now if we don't like it? I thought that's what this forum was for? I hate the don't like it don't read it argument. I read every post on the forum, how am I supposed to know what I agree with before reading it? Similarly then, pm people if you don't want people to refute your arguments
This. FFS, frank. Just as you have the right to post your opinion throughout the course of discussion, others here have the right to comment on, question, or otherwise dispute the validity of your statements. In the real world, when we say things, there are repercussions to those statements. You don't live in a bubble, and this website is not your personal diary. So just as you seem to have adopted a "don't like it don't read it" policy (which has been pointed out as asinine as you don't know if you like it until you read it), I would argue that if you don't like your views commented on, don't post them on a public forum where the sole purpose is discussion.
Can they both be classified as rats? The answer is yes.
And I think that's where your opinion differs from a lot of the folks here. Because I for one see NO justification for calling Subban a "rat." Frustrating to play against? Embellishes occasionally like every other swinging dick on the Habs? Knows he's a good d man and plays like he knows he's a good d man? Sure. I fail to see how any of those things makes him a "rat."