« How Do the Hurricanes Hang in There? | Main | Sjo Shines in Debut »

February 29, 2008


i have a feeling Strudwick will be in the lineup against a physical Flyers team.

just to say, from a reader rather than a regular poster, what a terrific website

I dunno I am willing to cut Backman some slack for not having a perfect debut. He is very happy to be out of St. Louis so it appeared that he tried to do too much too fast.

If he repeats this performance on Sunday then we can begin to worry.

As for the NHL refs, maybe we need to single out those who screwed up as last night it was Bill McCleary who was repeatedly the ref who was makes those calls against the Rangers.

Ranger fans have seen McCleary over the years have some sort of a vendetta against the Rangers so last night was nothing new. Did the other ref even make a call?

Jess against the cryers Strudwick & Orr might need to be in. They have too many intent to injure 'players' on that team.

It is beyond inexcusable for two referees no less to call penalties on the wrong player; their job is to watch the game and call infractions--last night's officiating team was asleep on the ice and uneven in their calls.

It's tempting to say McCleary targeted the Rangers, but he was the ref who missed Backman's high stick to Cole, even though he appeared to be looking right at it -- it was the other ref out in center ice who made that call, and that at least was indisputably a correct call (except for calling the wrong guy). Imagine if the second ref hadn't caught it -- it would have been the Canes and their fans upset at McCleary for missing it.

We get it. There isn't a self-involved fan on Earth that doesn't believe the refs have it in for their beloved team. But at some point you just sound paranoid -- and that point was reached about three months ago. Yes, the refs stink, they call arbitrary penalties, they miss obvious calls, but it's highly improbable that officials hold a personal vendetta against the Rangers organization.

I can't even decipher this "sentence":

"To not call any of the instigation attempts against Avery that Avery wisely backed off of, and still cost Avery ten minutes from just trying to back off -- forget about suspending these guys, just fire them."

(Will this post be censured or censored?)

The most distressing thing about the officiating last night was that McCreary and Dwyer are both veteran refs, these are not new guys. Walkom officiated with both of them. There is nothing that will be done about it, just like nothing Walker did last night will be reviewed, and we all know it. But it's not on account some conspiracy against the Rangers or anything like that, it's on account of the league and its management having no accountability for anything, ever.


If you believe last night's game was called well or even fairly, you clearly must've watched a different game.

And that "sentence" makes sense in context to what's written before and after it. Keep trying.

f-champs -- Given your history of inaccuracy, your defense of the refs will be neither censored nor censured, just mocked.

McQueery always sucks against the Rangers, but what I can't figure out is why he made that call against Eric Staal at the end of the game. Maybe his conscience is getting to him. If I'm Back man I would ask for a different number. I can't remember anything good happening to anyone who wore it. If the Rangers brought Backman in to make the fans feel better about Malik, then I think its working. Malik has actually strung a couple of strong games together...

Phill --

No, I don't believe the game was called fairly, but I also don't believe there was a conspiracy -- or "some sort of a vendetta" -- in the works against the Rangers. I believe the karmic is true in sports: these things even out.

And no, that sentence doesn't make sense in any context.

Thanks, though. I will keep trying.

(Will this post be censured or censored?)

Have you guys seen this fight?


This kid Lucic on Boston is the real deal.... no wonder why they are calling him the 2nd coming of Cam Neely. I think Dubinsky & Callahan should take lessons from him, not Orr.

Great W for the beloved blue shirts again last night.... I think we should all hold off on passing judgement on Backman until he has a few games under his belt as well.

Wow, Avery and Jagr...who would have saw that one coming? The JAD line is on fire. The joking and wise-cracks between Jagr and Avery are some of the best signs I've seen all season from this team. When Jagr is happy, he plays well, and so does the whole team. They really are like the odd couple.

Sjostrom looks good out there and I think will help turn the 4th line into a 2-way threat. I'm not sold on Backman, but I'm gonna stay optimistic. I remember when Ian Leperiere debuted. He fought in his first 3 games and got tossed from all of them. Messier kinda calmed him down and he started laying better and scoring goals...then we traded him. Hopefully Backman just needs to chill, but considering Malik is playing good hockey and we just need Backman until Mara can return, I'm not gonna sweat it.

Solid win over a good 'canes team. Now onto Philthy!!!

Dubi --

When and where have I been inaccurate? The trouble is you don't like any critics of Jess, yourself, or the know-nothing in Hartford, posting on this site. That's your prerogative, of course. But I haven't been inaccurate, much less, shown a "history" of it. Nor am I defending the refs overall. I'm simply labeling "vendetta" talk paranoid.

Two rows from the ice and we were in hockey heaven (in Raleigh, NC, no less). Caught Dubinsky's, Avery's and Shanahan's goals right in front of us. Beauties! Callahan's fight was right in front of us, too, and you should have seen Avery's reaction to the first goal, looking to the rafters in disgust after Jagr failed to deal with Girardi's clearance. I could swear, too, that Avery told Jagr to "shut the blank up" after Jags was given instructions to Avery. Seemed liked an older brother talking to the fiesty little bro. Of course, knowing Avery, he was probably talking to the other team. (Is it my imagination, or is Avery going to the tanning bed everyday?_

Lot of Rangers' shirts at the RBC Center, but the fans were TOO cordial, letting us take pictures, saying "Good game" afterwards, and the like. One Messier-wearing New Yorker had his drink, unthoughtfully sitting on the boards, spilled all over him when players collided in the glass.

Dubinsky looks solid out there, as does Mark Staal and Brendan Shanahan. Gomez is just flat out fun to watch and Drury is a gamer, talking to refs, his teammates, giving orders, etc. Eric Staal was leading his team well and, I have to admit, that final cross-check penalty called against him was rather lame. Rutuu was a human pinball, charging everything in sight. He really laid into Roszival before the charging, elbowing, jumping, interfering behind the net. No. 3 was dazed and at first looked hurt pretty badly.

I didn't get from Dubi's post that there's a vendetta against the Rangers by the refs. I don't believe there is a conspiracy against the Rangers by the NHL or the refs. What I believe is the NHL's officiating is deeply flawed and EXTREMELY inconsistent. From rookie refs to veteran refs, they also don't have a system where if one ref calls something and is wrong the other ref won't have a conference with him to get the right call.

The "standards" have been slipping for weeks for EVERY team but most of us make it a point to only watch the Rangers play which is why it seems that is them vs us which isn't the case.

IMO the refs should be fired if they aren't doing their jobs properlybut guess what its not their fault. The fault lies in their employer, the NHL, which looks the other way and allows mediocre officiating to be the rule and not the exception

F-champs how is it fair for a player to get 10 min misconduct for skating away from a fight?
What do u call that?

the two refs on the ice are more in competition than cooperation.

ANT --

I never said it was fair. Life's not fair. And I can assure you the Rangers have benefited from the dreadful officiating, as well. I've been watching the Rangers since 1979 -- when I was a kid -- and NHL officiating has always been terrible.

I read a comment over at Sam Weinman's blog about Backman not being ice during the Hurricnaes second goal - the one where he got the holding penalty. I checked the boxscore and he is not listed as being on ice. The defense pairings were Tyutin and Giradi with Betts and Straka. That means either Backman was assessed the penalty and the Rangers changed their defense or the refs screwed up on a penalty again. Since Backman should have gotten the four-minute high sticking penalty, he ended up ahaed two minutes as it turns out.


In all seriousness, insulting McCreary by implying he's gay ("McQueery") is an affront to the gay community.

McCreary has had it out for us since Richter chest bumped him into the boards after the Devils tied with 7 seconds in '94.

Just kidding, but I seem to remember a crucial call that went the Rangers way the following year against the Fleur-de-Lis. I believe Kovalev was hurt on a play and the Nordiques went up the ice to score...however the play was incorrectly blown dead by the refs since the Rangers never regained control of the puck to cause a stoppage - or at least that was the argument Quebec used.

Either way, if the Rangers can score 3-4 goals a game I don't think it matters how the refs call the game.

Given that the power play still hasn't really consistently clicked (especially at home) do we really want to be a man-up anyway?

Well, you referred to the distinction between censored and censured, so I know you read my comments that quoted all those inaccurate statements -- did you not recognized your own handiwork from the last time you came over to this site to antagonize us?

"I doubt they would move Cullen. Dubinsky will just have to prove himself on the wing."

"Why does anyone on Earth believe the Rangers would trade Cullen and allow a rookie like Dubinsky to play big minutes on a team vying for the Cup? Forget Dawes, he's not going to make this team either."

"Cullen is far from perfect but I'd keep him. And if his salary is prohibitive -- and I don't think it is in this market -- why would another team take it on? TO do the Rangers a favor?"

"friendly bet with anyone here -- dawes will not make the rangers as a regular next year."

"Avery -- a nice player but nothing special -- will sign because he has no place to go."

"I hope this 6-8 Ogie Oglethorpe we just got will make the club. I'd love to hand out some real punishment occasionally. Orr is touch and go on that front."



It was a Kovalev dive on that Nords play. Because of that, the refs allegedly held a grudge.

Actually, I shouldn't say 'dive'. He was hit in the small of the back by a one hand stick swing, and he embellished it.

Way to bring back the memories Paul. The Nords scored on that play too that was eventually brought back and I think we scored on the ensuing PP. What game was that in anyway? 3 or 4?

Oh, I forgot about the Richter chest bump. The Kovalev call is one that I remember well because a year later, I had the opportunity to hear Terry Gregson discuss it at length in a Q&A session. While fans on both sides will forever dispute whether Kovalev dove vs. Kovalev showing everyone the welt he sustained, Gregson explained that Andy Van Hellemond (there was only one ref at the time) had to decide whether the injury was serious enough to warrant blowing the whistle even though the Nords had possession of the puck.

It's possible that van Hellemond was wrong to decide that it was that serious -- just as he was possibly wrong to not make a penalty call in the first place on the slash that took Kovalev down. But what cannot be disputed is that once he decided to check Kovalev out, the play was irrevocably altered, and Sakic's goal not only cannot have counted, it may not have even happened if play continued on a different arc, with everyone fully committed to the play.

It's like when they say that it doesn't matter whether the whistle has actually blown, it matters that the ref had made the decision to blow the play dead -- once Van Hellemond took himself out of the play, the play was dead. Period. Whether the Rangers caught a break or not is hard to say -- there should have been a penalty in the first place, in which case the whistle blows as soon as Sakic touches the puck.

Based on just last night's game I think it's safe to say that in a long term Hossa - Sjostrom trade will be a wash. Laugh all you want but I truly believe that when Hossa finally be able to put it all together he'll be a solid 20-goal two-way forward (I'm probably in minority on this one but let's see in a few years). Same goes for Sjostrom and in this case with the trade both get a fresh start and a second (third, forth) chance to live up to their potential.

On the other hand, I don't want to form a premature opinion about Backman but I'm really concern with the TYPE of penalties he took last night. I'd be fine with hooking, slashing, tripping etc, however as Dubi noted he was taking a penalty while trying to protect himself from a hit. I hope it doesn't mean a flaw in his hockey character which would be more difficult to deal with instead of simply teaching him on the ice discipline.

There was talk that the refs held it against Kovalev for years to come, but not against the Rangers themselves, because Van Hellemond took so much grief over it -- in fact, he was fined by the NHL for a "glaring error in judgement" in making that call, proving that the league has it within its power to levy such fines for bad officiating (if it does, it doesn't make it public).

Of course, Van Hellemond was ultimately disgraced for shaking down his refs when he was head of officiating. But Gregson was clear that whatever else you might think about what happened on the play, you can't assume that Sakic would have scored had play continued -- you just don't know whether Richter eased up when he saw the ref 150 feet away leaning over Kovalev, knowing that the play was already dead.

no conspiracy here. the refs just stink, consistently. you see that ruutu bloodied face?? it happened against the devils and no friggin' penalty called. amazing. and last night was so pitiful it deserves some sort of ranger complaint. refs should be fined or suspended, or given community service work. maybe they can hand deliver blueshirt bulletins??

i was hoping and praying that backman would have a good starting game. too bad, it didn't happen. i'll cut him some slack tho, seemed like he was trying too hard and too quick with the stick. seems like he'll be a work in progress, not an instant weapon. i guess that's why the blues opted out on him?? the one good thing, he made malik look steady like a rock!

the other new guy, freddy, was excellent and deserves some kudos for a great game!!

final point, thank you ncsteve for the game notes.

Found a Times article on the game:

Van Hellemond's decision to nullify Joe Sakic's goal with 38.9 seconds to play in the first period, because of an injury to Ranger forward Aleksei Kovalev, prevented the Nordiques from taking a 3-0 lead. Van Hellemond's decision, and its impact on an eventual 3-2 Ranger overtime victory and New York's three-games-to-one lead in the four-of-seven-games series, inspired bitterness at one end of the corridor, relief at the other, and confusion in the middle.

Brian Burke, a senior vice president of the league and its Director of Hockey Operations, did not know if the league had a protest procedure or, if so, how it works. "I doubt very much there's any avenue there," Burke said.

Burke said he was told by Van Hellemond that he had blown his whistle to stop play before Sakic's shot, after twice seeing that Kovalev was prone, and unmoving, on the ice. A referee has that power under a note to Rule 19 (f): "In the case where it is obvious that a player has sustained a serious injury, the Referee and/or Linesman may stop the play immediately."

But Burke acknowledged that a post-game review of videotape furnished by the Nordiques, with an ice-level microphone, revealed that the whistle did not sound until after Sakic's goal. "It is clear that you hear the whistle after the puck is in the net," Burke said. "However, I am not a physicist. I don't know how long sound takes to travel, and Andy is out of the frame."

Van Hellemond, a referee with more than 22 years of experience who has been assigned to the last 17 Stanley Cup finals, did not speak with reporters following the game. Burke called Van Hellemond one of the best referees in the league. "I have total confidence in our staff," Burke said, but added: "It's troubling to reconcile the tape with the sound on the tape. But I don't have for a second any second thoughts that that's what Andy saw and that's what he called."

The Rangers were already trailing by two goals as they approached the final seconds of an unsuccessful power play. Kovalev was struck in the back from behind by the stick of Quebec defenseman Craig Wolanin, who reached back and swung his stick with his right hand. Replays showed that Kovalev, who was retreating toward the Quebec blue line near the left boards, was in possession of the puck at the time he was struck.

Van Hellemond, who was not looking in the direction of Wolanin's swing, did not call a slashing penalty. Kovalev fell to the ice, dropping to his knees and then face first as the play moved toward center ice. With defenseman Brian Leetch pinching forward, the Nordiques were able to break out of their zone, and the Rangers suddenly were facing a crisis.

Sakic, whose 62 points led the Nordiques in scoring and whose hat-trick score won Game 1 with 37.7 seconds to play, moved up the right side against Ranger defenseman Sergei Zubov.

Van Hellemond, heading up ice behind the play, looked back over his right shoulder as Kovalev was on the ice, and then continued to follow the play. Sakic fanned on an initial attempt from his forehand, and at that point, in the explanation Van Hellemond gave to Burke, the referee blew the whistle. Sakic collected the loose puck on his backhand and slid a shot to the left of starting Ranger goaltender Glenn Healy and inside the right post for an apparent 3-0 lead.


Per LB's article in the Post today, Gratton would likely be lost on re-entry. Question: does that also apply to next year or is the slate wiped clean at the beginning of a season?

Also, good to see Callahan stick up for himself after the hit from behind but he needs to be careful fighting with a shield on, yes?

marty, that would be per Blueshirt Bulletin's article Wednesday, quoting a Blues blogger about Gratton requiring re-entry waivers, and yes, the slate is wiped clean at the start of next season.

In all seriousness, insulting McCreary by implying he's gay ("McQueery") is an affront to the gay community. Now my feminine side is hurting sniff sniff...

Dubi.... from last thread.

I hear ya. Unfortunately for you guys, you have to pretty much read everything that is on here. When this place gets out of control, I usually take a break from reading the comments section to ease my nerves. I guess you can't really do that.

On last night's game, I thought they played pretty well for the most part. A little scary at times, but they put the game away when they needed to. I also like the way they have been comng out of the gate lately. They have had great starts to their games during this stretch. Backman had a tough night. But to me it looked like nerves and definitely trying to do too much. He also looked to suffer from not knowing the system entirely. There were times when he held onto to the puck too much and looked out of place on the breakout. Nothing that a little practice and gametime won't cure.


When and where have I been inaccurate? The trouble is you don't like any critics of Jess, yourself, or the know-nothing in Hartford, posting on this site. That's your prerogative, of course.

UH how to break this to you softly and even gently. We can start with the repeated posts wondering if the post will be censored or censured after Dubi clearly laid out what causes it.

Yet poof here are the posts. Of course you will make an excuse to explain away your behavior rather than say "whoa I was wrong". You hide behind behind a screen name.

But I haven't been inaccurate, much less, shown a "history" of it. Nor am I defending the refs overall. I'm simply labeling "vendetta" talk paranoid.

Here is where I really start laughing at your own paranoid behavior. You repeatedly post a smartass remark about your posts being censored yet you do not think there is nothing wrong with name calling someone who works for the magazine.

Let me ask you something, this is a business site so how would you feel if I went to your employer's customers and told the world that you were a bad employee who did not know your job.

How about I stood outside where you worked with a sign that said "F-champ is a know-nothing who will screw you". Bet you would want me removed from that site and please do not try to say "Oh I would ignore it" because no you would not as I would be publicly attacking you for the world to see.

You complain about the critics supposedly being silenced, only those who broke rules have been silenced. If anything you do not realize just how far Dubi bends over backwards to be fair to people like yourself.

See if it was up to me I would require registration for posting. I would require that instead of hiding behind a screen name you would have to use your real name using a real email address so you can be held accountable for your posts.

You claim that you have no history of anything but here is where you do not get it. You are using a screen name so how can anyone know that you are not posting under multiple names? Answer you can not

Of course you will not get it but thankfully the level headed ones will. You want to claim that nobody is allowed to be critical but you are not being critical you are attacking.

oops, sorry about that; certainly prefer to credit BB (of which I am a dual subscriber) than the Post...

Assuming the boys can keep this run going into the playoffs, will be interesting to see where Renney goes with 4 th line. Could we possibly see Prucha/Betts/Sjostrom?

Man, I remember how much the fans hated Andy VH. I remember I was at a game in 1994 and I think Kovalev (him again!) nailed a Blackhawks guy from behind and got booted from the game by AVH. Aside from the obligatory a-hole a BS chants that came from the crowd, the blue seats started chanting "Andy Sucks!"

The funny thing was I went to the game with a friend and his dad (who had a share of season tickets in the 300's) but one of my parents had gotten someone's corporate seats near the corner section where the visitors enter/leave the ice and my friend's dad joined in the serenade much to the dismay of the suits sitting all around us.

Read on another board that Leneveu will go to UFA this summer if he doesn't get at least 30 minutes in 7 games.

Time to bench Hollweg, and bring up Mitch "Godzilla" Fritz, if Orr isnt ready to go. Or you can get Josh Gratton in.

Happy Birthday Bobby Sanguinetti


You wish to bench a healthy Hollweg for an injured Fritz? Fritz has been out with a bad shoulder that does not want to heal it seems.

The reason why the Rangers traded for Gratton was because the Wolfpack needed an enforcer with both Fritz and Lessard out injuured.

Dubi –

Turns out you're intellectual dishonest, as well. I don't remember writing all the things you posted (this one especially doesn't sound like something I would write: "friendly bet with anyone here -- dawes will not make the rangers as a regular next year.") though I don't deny that I'm the author.

But none of those comments are "inaccuracies." They're opinions and guesses. And since you make absurd distinctions between censuring and censoring, words should matter to you.

Now that you've set the standard, I'll keep a sharp eye out for your guesses. I won't even take comments out of context, as you have. For instance, these three:

1. "I doubt they would move Cullen. Dubinsky will just have to prove himself on the wing."

2. "Why does anyone on Earth believe the Rangers would trade Cullen and allow a rookie like Dubinsky to play big minutes on a team vying for the Cup? Forget Dawes, he's not going to make this team either."

3. "Cullen is far from perfect but I'd keep him. And if his salary is prohibitive -- and I don't think it is in this market -- why would another team take it on? TO do the Rangers a favor?"

All of these, I gather, were made before the trading deadline last season when there was talk of trading Cullen. If so, I was right. Dubinsky didn't get big minutes then, Dawes didn't make the team then and Cullen wasn't traded then. But even if I was wrong ... well, I'm wrong all the time. But it's not an "inaccuracy." I most likely assumed management wouldn't allow so many young players on the roster. I'm still a little surprised by it.

And these comments? I'm not even sure why you even cite them.

"Avery -- a nice player but nothing special -- will sign because he has no place to go."

I still think Avery is a nice player but nothing special. I still think he's going to sign here. That's an opinion.

"I hope this 6-8 Ogie Oglethorpe we just got will make the club. I'd love to hand out some real punishment occasionally. Orr is touch and go on that front."

I guess, I'm talking about Mitch Fritz here? I'm not sure why it's "inaccurate" for me to "hope" that he makes the club over Orr. I still think Orr is a B-line heavyweight -- though he's improved this season.

None of these amount to maliciously erroneous comments. And they certainly don't point to a "history of inaccuracies." All this does is reinforce the notion that you're petty to censor – excuse me, censure – readers trying to post here. If you wanna be a real journalist, grow thicker skin, or stop pretending.

And the truth is, other than some needlessly wordy prose by you(everyone needs an editor), it's a nice site. I'm a longtime reader. But reading a self-important know-it-all like Jess each day has driven me to comment. Nothing worse than a lightweight bully who's infused with a delusional sense of self-importance. Trust me, his talent is about as real as his "sources."

Jess --

I only post under f-champs. The above post explains those supposed "inaccuracies." And I think any honest person reading that post will agree, I had opinions not inaccuracies. We all have them. And, other than you, we're all wrong sometimes.

I also wrote earlier that it's Dubi's prerogative to censor or censure any posts he wishes. My opinion – and unlike you, I don't place any special importance on my opinion – is that censoring undermines the vibrancy and honesty of this site. Unless, that is, the person is a racist, or uses offensive language or something else in that vein, censoring comments shows us that you have thin skin.

Finally, why am I not level headed? I've not gratuitously posted on here. I've not cursed or attacked the sanctity of someone's mother. All I've done is challenge your faulty, poorly though-out assertions. You're the one who's always mocking other posters. I guess when you come out on the losing end, you ask Dubi to censure that poster. You must be busy.

Anyone else notice:
The Rangers have the best in-conference record in the East! (70 points in 55 games) Only Ottawa and Montreal have more points but in more games. Sens have 2 more in 3 more games played, and the Habs have 3 more points in 4 more games played. And as everyone knows all the remaining games are in conference!


First, I don't know the history of what is being claimed one way or the other here so I won't comment on that. The only thing that I will take issue with is the petty attack on Dubi and Jess.

Dubi happens to be a well informed and emotional person when it comes to the Rangers and especially when it comes to all the hard work and energy that he has put into this site and the magazine. It's good that you see the value of it as you state you are a frequent reader. Personally, I just wish that when people disagree that things wouldn't sink into a name-calling contest which you did here. Yes, Dubi called you out on your comments, and you made a good argument in defense of them. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. You made your case and explained yourself well. The attacks were totally unnecessary.

The one thing that I do want to take offense with is your attack on Jess. It's no secret here that Jess and I have had a very up and down relationship over the past couple of years so you know when I speak, it's from an honest point of view. Your questioning Jess' "sources" is totally out of line. I'm one of the few people on this site that has actually spent time with him away from the website and I got to know him when we covered last years' draft together in Columbus. I know many of his sources and trust me they are first rate. Look, Jess is a lot of things both good and bad as we all are, but one thing that I don't question is his dedication to bringing accurate information to the readers of this publication or his passion about reporting on these young kids. It's the reason that I read and the reason why I care what he has to say. To make this a personal attack on his credibility and the hard work and the sacrifices that I personally know about is not only wrong but it's highly unfair.

You seem to want respect for the opinions you are espousing here and not to take what you see as harsh criticism about it. I agree with you 100% on that point. Every person writing here should be given that. However, it's a two way street. If you want the respect of those reading your postings, if I might make a suggestion, you should extend that same courtesy to those around you, especially two hard working and dedicated people like Dubi and Jess...


I only post under f-champs.

That of course is just your word, I can ask why not use your real name?

My opinion – and unlike you, I don't place any special importance on my opinion – is that censoring undermines the vibrancy and honesty of this site.

You also missed a key point, this is the site for the magazine Blueshirt Bulletin, so far you have called Mitch a know-nothing and now me accused of soft-skin. Now the goal of this magazine is to try to sell it but here is someone who is again HIDING behind a screen name damaging the credibility of those who work here.

Again I ask you how would you feel if I trashed you either with your employer or company customers? Tell me what would you do? Would you allow me to keep doing that?

See you want to claim censorship but as far as I see you have not had a single post censored.

Unless, that is, the person is a racist, or uses offensive language or something else in that vein, censoring comments shows us that you have thin skin.

Let me get this right in your eyes Dubi should allow someone like yourself to be allowed to keep taking cheap shots at his writers. Now that would be a smart business move now would it.

How about you post for all of us your name, your work address or school, a way to contact those who you work for and then we will see how you would like posters hiding behind screen names telling people that you are a know-nothing or maybe that you have ripped people off.

Wonder how fast you would be wanting to see some censorship

Actually, Mitch, I don't particularly care if my opinions are respected. I make my argument and let them stand.

Second. Most of us work hard. If Jess can accuse a hard-working referee, for instance, of having an unprofessional vendetta against a team, he should be able to take some light criticism himself. He's a big boy.

And as far as Jess and "sources" go ... For the record, I'm been a pretty successful journalist and author. There is no way a reporter would be allowed to use anonymous sources exclusively, especially non-beat guy who never sources his stories. Frankly, I don't really believe he has any genuine inside sources. That's my opinion. And perhaps he should cool down his own unpleasantness if he doesn't want blowback.

But let's just end this, because it's boring and irrelevant. Censoring comments for the reasons noted is one thing, censoring them for containing strong opinion, is quite another -- even if it’s personal. That's my beef.

The comments to this entry are closed.