Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Dwayne Hole-son

Vancouver is best known as a goalie graveyard and if you saw Demitra's goal last night in Minny you get the feeling they're always ready to build new crypts;) But while the Oilers have seen guys like Fuhr, Moog, Ranford and Cujo wear their silks, plus there's a story about how Ron Lowe was picked up late one season and did a job for them too, there also still looms large the spector of Tommy Salo.

In a time when the Oilers basically let all their big ticket items walk out the door, Salo was the guy they kept. It turned out being the wrong horse to bet on and while everyone else made comparitive peanuts, Salo was making nearly four million and when his performance tanked he took the team down with him.

I can't say that it didn't make me hate goaltenders because it did. TSN guy Bob McKenzie says they should just call the game "goalie" and while I think that might be a bit extreme I do know that while teams can win with just good goaltending, no one wins with average netminding.

The Oilers gambled on Conkkanen and cost effectiveness for the '06 season and it damn near killed them. I don't mind saying I supported the move but Conklin put the first f**k in the plan by not playing enough in the lockout season and then he got hurt early in the '06 camp and Jussi couldn't handle the ensuring workload. Meanwhile, the D crops were doing a job before Spacek showed up and the forwards were consistently outchancing the opp but the Oilers were doing little more than treading water. Enter old hand Dwayne Roloson at last year's trade deadline and the offense nearly immeadiately went as cold as a witch's titty while Roloson struggled with the rust of inactivity. For awhile things looked tough all over.

But the Oilers squeeked into the playoffs and depending on who you talk to came within an injury to Roloson and/or a G1 pinch by Jason Smith from winning their sixth mug. Along the way Roli was magnificent with rebounds being perpetually controlled, magnificent saves being occasionally made and masks being shaken off when the heat threatened to burn down his kitchen.

It looked like old times were here again early in the '07 season but disparaging eyes are now once again being cast towards the Oilers crease.

Here's a link to Roli's game by game stats from this season. I'll admit it's hard to judge a guy just by SV PCT along but at the end of the day I still believe it's the most salient of netminding statistics.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/gamelog?playerId=796

So, Roli's awesome in six his first seven starts and then he starts to go downhill come Oct 25th in Ana with the Oilers outchancing the Ducks at the Pond but Roli being simply awful. He got the next night off in Phx but Jussi was pulled and Roli came in but only to be awful again. Then he bounces back with a home blanking of the Caps but the Oilers played such a buttoned down game that most goalies could've done the same thing. Then Roli struggles in consecutive home losses to the Preds and Stars and we're looking at stretch where he was terrible in four of his last five appearences.

But then just like that Roli bounces back starting on Nov 7th in Mtl and he runs off an outstanding eight game streak that yields six straight wins and points in seven of eight games. But then it disappears again starting with Getzlaf's goal in OT on Chris Pronger night on Nov 28th and he goes into a three game slump that's broken up by two consecutive shutouts first in Van and then in Dal but since then he's fallen back again with terrible goals in losses at Chi and Col and then a flat out embarrassing home defeat to the Avs.

I questioned AsiaOil earlier in the season when he said legitimate questions could be raised about Roli's durability. Well it looks like his fears just may be founded. Roli's had just three great games in his last 10 starts and four of those starts have been simply vomit inducing. We could raise some legimate concerns about rust down the stretch in '06 and now it looks like Roli's struggling because he's being overused. He says he has a great relationship with MacT regarding playing time but maybe the coach is doing a bad job when it comes to imposing his will. Yes I know Fuhr and Martin Brodeur can handle 70 games plus a season but not a long of guys can or maybe it's the fact that not a lot of coaches try and find out.

Jussi was good his last time out in a home win vs the Canes and I thought it was ac curious move to go back to back with Roloson last Thurs and Fri vs Min and at Col respectively. And I know the longview and long plan has Roli playing the primary role but did anyone else find it odd he was allowed to start the third period last night?

I think Roloson might have a little too much power right now when it comes to determining playing time and I also believe MacT's being too passive when it comes to asserting his authority.

One thing we don't have to guess is just how ineffective Roli's been of late and now we just sit back and wait to see how long the team must suffer in order for Roli to work out his quirks.

28 Comments:

Blogger namflashback said...

you may be right Dennis. Not sure why Jussi didn't play in either or both of Chicago and Colorado. That would have made a 5 games in 5 cities in 8 nights a little better. Then Roli would have had a 4 day rest before the back half of the Colorado series.

12/20/2006 4:26 pm  
Blogger IceDragoon said...

Dennis, MacT is a very astute coach with a flaw. He is terrified of goalies. He just signs the purchase order for the materials to build the altar, and ensures a steady supply of live chickens. ;-) He completely depends on Pete's read. (and this scares me - lol)

MacT has spent his life studying the nuances of the game and honing his player reads. He's got great instincts, except when it comes to goalies. Experience has taught him that they are typically fragile and just plain weird, so all the logic in the world is irrelevant.

Roli (a veteran with strong character) was a gift from the hockey gods, so he'll just keep praying at his altar, and probably overplay him.

A stronger team game plus the addition of a few vets should ensure that his flaw does not prove to be fatal. Here's hoping.

Cheers
Louise

12/21/2006 9:56 am  
Blogger She said...

Markkanen is in tonight.

Good? or not...

12/21/2006 3:40 pm  
Blogger Vic Ferrari said...

I think the Salo era has left some marks on you Dennis. :) And I think it's left a few on MacTavish as well.

Roloson was just terrible in that game, but he'll bounce back for sure.

I really agree with Louise's take on MacTavish and goaltenders. I heard him being interviewed on the radio a couple of weeks ago, Gregor's show I think, and it was obvious that he was lost when it came to goalies. He seems happy to just let Roloson do his own thing, likes that he's accountable and seems to know what he needs to do to prepare himself. He did take the time to throw out a thinly veiled insult at Salo though. Sounds like it was never Tommy's fault, just bad bounces, and there was nothing he needed to work on to improve his game.

We know that MacTavish won't hesitate to whack a skater where it hurts (ice time) if they are playing badly or outside the system. And he'll even go through the media when the mood strikes him. Just like most coaches in this league. With goalies though, MacTavish is scared and uncertain I think. To steal some of mudcrutch's words, I can't help but wonder if the Oilers wouldn't have had fewer goaltending problems over the years if they'd hired one of these goaltending svengali types instead of an old buddy with a conveniently located farm.

12/21/2006 7:11 pm  
Blogger Slipper said...

From the very beginning of the Salo era I always had an uneasy feeling while watching him. Every shot on goalwould give me a tight nervous pang in my stomach. He had a decent run when he first came to Edmonton, but I always felt that when he was good he was simply lucky. He didn't even have a style, he just hoped the puck would hit him and hoped more that it would stick.

So I'm not one to make excuses for goaltending, but they're going to tank a few once in awhile. It certainly doesn't help when Andrew Brunestte gets a free ticket all night a seat at the goal mouth. Turgeon's goal was stinky but credit him for still having some cerebral and physical skill to sneak that one in there.

Roloson is a pretty smart guy, and in his interviews he always alludes to some dude in Minny and his secret ninja techniques that he uses to tweak his game. If in fact his game does end up slithering down the toilet I'm going to blame Peeters and the inept goaltending department of the Oilers;) Like fuck man, how come all these goalies, both acquired and developing, get progressively worse once they come into the Oiler's fold?

12/21/2006 8:09 pm  
Blogger Dennis-IOF said...

Oh it has scarred me for sure and I won't even try to hide it:)

I just think given Roli's age and Jussi's track record, we should be seeing more of Markkanen and it took Roli totally blowing up for the Juice to make another starting appearence.

And yes we need some outsiders for our coaching staff and we need those outsiders to banish Pete Peeters and Craig Simpson to somewhere in the Yukon:)

12/21/2006 10:26 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

Awesome blog, some pretty good hockey writing/analysis here, can definitely hear the passion. What's the blog stance on the NHL returning to the old division and conference names? And if the Penguins moved to Anchorage, would they be the Oilers new rivals? You know, since the Flames suck.

12/22/2006 6:25 pm  
Blogger Vic Ferrari said...

I clicked on your name, Matt Scofield, just because your comment was so bizarre.

And damn, do you hate Mexicans or do you hate Mexicans? Freaky stuff there buddy, very spooky. If I had never listened to AM talk radio while driving through middle America, I would have thought you were taking the piss.

Your blog has 'Irreverent' in the name, as does ours. A quick google search shows us how you found us ... of 5.8 million hits for the word 'irreverent' your site is 4th and this one is 6th. Which tells us that google has a lot of bugs to iron out yet.

I don't think that this is what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the intarweb.

12/22/2006 7:41 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

Wow. What idiocy you have displayed Vic, its best you stick to hockey. If you can keep up with me, I'd like to understand why you say such stupid things:

1) My comment was "so bizzare"? I complimented this blog, because it deserves it, and -- being an irreverent blog -- I asked what I thought were two irreverent, hockey-related questions. I even put in a dig at the Flames, is saying the Flames suck now bizzare?

2) Regarding my post on immigration, your inability to understand my words (and that my anger was directed at leaders of Mexico and the general biased tenor of US press coverage on the issue), and your strong ability to hit the racist button simply because I'm talking about immigration, shows what a fool you are. Freaky? Spooky? Do you have the intelligence to explain why you think so...or are you the type that when someone disagrees with you, that person is automatically freaky and spooky? I certainly wrote my immigration post with a definite point of view, but that shouldn't make you afraid to comment there, say why you disagree with me, hell start a discussion. But you ain't got time for that do you? Guess you ain't got time to challenge your own point of view, or provide decent criticism for someone else, when everyone who disagrees with you is freaky and spooky and bizzare...

...or perhaps you don't want to discuss the issue because you canucks have been beat down too much by the Quebecers, as far as I'm concerned, people that can't stand up to the french need to shut the hell up (or is this too irreverent for you?)

12/22/2006 8:38 pm  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

...your strong ability to hit the racist button simply because I'm talking about immigration, shows what a fool you are.

Hmm. Strong language. No one likes to be called a bigot though.

as far as I'm concerned, people that can't stand up to the french need to shut the hell up

Hmm. So much for the simple but eloquent "I'm not a bigot, you're stupid!" response.

Anyway Matt, if the French hadn't bailed you pussies out in 1776, you'd all be drinking tea and doing whatever the hell the Queen told you to these days. Out of curiosity, has America ever won a military conflict in which the French weren't on board with you? They saved your ass in the Revolutionary War, you lost to the Canadians (including the French) in 1812, they had your backs in WWI and WWII, you were screwed in Vietnam without them and they refused to join the latest American adventure in Iraq. Just saying.

By the way, I also took a quick look at your site. Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton is the worst president in American history, give or take a Jimmy Carter, is either woefully ignorant of American history or so blinded by his own political orientation that he's hardly worth paying attention to.

Cheers,
Tyler

12/22/2006 9:32 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

Especially when they aren't a bigot Tyler. Leave a friendly comment and get called a bigot, that's exactly what I was thinking when I stopped by. Am I not supposed to use strong language when charged with being a racist? Vic got off lightly if you ask me, but that's only because I have zero respect for his intelligence, so his charge is akin to a monkey flinging its poo (which I'm sure mirrors the technique of his wrist shot).

As far as my french comment, I was being irreverent and actually said so. Yes, indeed, I actually said so. Did you catch that I actually said that? (Perhaps I shouldn't take such a tone, but its fun.) It was a response to what Vic had said about google and what constitutes "irreverence" (and actually this was further in the context of me wondering aloud what obviously stupid reasons Vic had for not explaining himself and just resorting to calling someone a bigot -- so just to make sure I spell it out, my french comment is an "obviously stupid reason", its the meat of what makes it irreverent)

If I may clarify, we used to have a great relationship with the French, I appreciate any sacrifice from them on our, or the world's, betterment. The French have a serious problem with a declining birth rate among native born and a high birth rate, and social unrest, among its predominantly Muslim immigrant population. Why is this a serious problem? Because there's gonna be mo' of dem brown people and we's gots to keeps them down? (Hi Vic)

No, its because of the questions surrounding how this will play out. Does this Muslim minority reject doctrines such as Jihad and sharia law? Things that are incompatible with what typically has been known as Western Civilization. Will this definition of Western Civ change in France? How? How will it affect its neighbors, like Germany, also with a large muslim population, and England, where one of the most important religious monuments ever constructed for Muslims is under construction (next to an old Jewish cemetary I may add). How will changes by Muslims in the West affect what happens "back home"? Or will "back home" force changes (like how the French have become increasingly hostile to Israel, arguably the only regime which respects human rights in the region, because they don't want to anger their immigrant Muslim population)?

12/22/2006 10:32 pm  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

I don't know Matt. You seem to think that "irreverent" can be used interchangeably with "stupid". Your comment about the French in Canada was stupid. I like to think irreverent implies something more than just saying something that isn't tolerated by the guys with top hats and monacles in polite society. It's more than just being outrageous for the sake of being outrageous - your comment about the French was almost stereotypically ugly Americanese. So is the chunk of your site I checked out.

As for Vic's intelligence - none of us here know you from a hole in the ground. All I've got to go on is what's on your site which, to be quite frank, is asinine. Bill Clinton is the worst president in US history, give or take a Jimmy Carter? Seriously...I stand by what I said before. You're either woefully ignorant or blinded by partisanship. Hell, you probably would have voted for Tom DeLay if given the choice. I'd hardly be calling people stupid if I was you.

I've read Vic for a long time and I think he's a pretty insightful cat. As for you - I mean shit - the Anchorage Penguins? What the hell was the point? I mean, it's just connected to nothing. It's like me stopping by your site and asking what you think about Ed Stelmach or something.

All that shit about France and the Muslims...who gives a fuck? What does that have to with the price of a top 4 D at the deadline? I can't change it and it's a whole fuck of a lot less interesting than whether or not Pete Peeters has too much influence within the Oilers organization.

Finally, if you don't want to be considered a bigot, it's best not to write shit like this and attach your name to it:

"--I've been reading more and more stories of of despotic Arab governments buying American property. Are they buying them so they sneak terrorists in to blow them up? Or spending their oil money while they can? hmm...I'll go with both."

Like I said, look it up - irreverent is not synonymous with stupid.

12/22/2006 10:53 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

Oh, as far as Clinton, I did post a comment just now taking that back. He's in the bottom 10, but not worst ever, that was a rash and incorrect judgement; I would say I was being irreverent, but I wasn't really, it was a bad one. I will say I made it because at the time (and even now) I'm very upset at the recent revelations about Sandy Berger and his theft and destruction of national security documents while he was national security chief for Clinton.

As far as my party orientation, feel free to look at the recent blog archives, but I've left the GOP and haven't given them any money, time and very little votes since I made that decision. It may seem unimportant to others, but I very much strive not to think in a blind manner and appreciate without question new points of view, its a reason why I blog in the first place.

12/22/2006 10:54 pm  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

He's in the bottom 10, but not worst ever, that was a rash and incorrect judgement; I would say I was being irreverent, but I wasn't really, it was a bad one.

If you take out the criteria of "Do I fucking hate the guy or have an axe to grind?" and fairly evaluate his administration's accomplishments, I have a hard time saying he's anywhere out of the top half. Off the top of my head, ones who were inarguably worse in the past 80 years or so:

Bush II: He's been a fucking disaster. Iraq is a disaster. He's the decider. He decided wrong.
Bush I: Deft with his foreign policy, but sucked domestically. His domestic incomptence is what got Clinton elected.
Carter: Don't disagree with you that he was worse.
Nixon: Lots of good stuff but pretty hard to ignore Watergate and it's effect on America (malaise until Reagan took over).
Kennedy: If you want to have everyone overlook your stunning lack of legislative accomplishments, the best thing you can do is get shot in the head. I hear Robbie Schremp is considering this.
Hoover: Sucked.

I think I'm being pretty generous here - I'm giving Reagan credit for what may have been an historical inevitability, overlooking Iran Contra and the huge rise in the US deficit/debt, giving LBJ credit for riding Kennedy's death to serious civil rights reform and overlooking the fiasco in Vietnam that he escalated and giving Eisenhower credit for a lengthy post war expansion.

FDR is the only President in this time who I think was inarguably better than Clinton. Of course, I tend to think that historic moments make great men and not the other way around. FDR was met with an historic moment greater than any of the others. There's a rational argument that Clinton is #2 since Coolidge and at worst, he's in the top half.

12/22/2006 11:16 pm  
Blogger Lowetide said...

MC: That's about right. Clinton is about as far from my political bent as is humanly possible but he clearly had a brain and some ability to finesse his way through the landscape.

Of course the two Bushes make Gerry Ford look like Thomas Jefferson.

12/22/2006 11:23 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

The reason I talked about the French and Muslims is because I knew you thought I had some kind of "ugly Americanese" view about the French. So I wrote what I did to explain how I think about them, you know, so that way instead of just resting on a stereotype you could see what reality is. Just like the reason I'm writing the rest of this comment is in response to something specific you said, so that you can see reality for what it is.

As far as Anchorage Penguins, its been in recent hockey news that the Penguins are exploring relocation. I assume, being hockey people who keep up to date with hockey news, you'd be generally familiar with this. So the reason I phrased the question the way I did was really just to say the flames suck at the end, because I've never liked them, but I was pretty sure y'all really didn't like them. So it was a stretch, and hey if you don't appreciate it that's fine, but it was all with good intentions towards getting a chuckle.

...okay tyler, How the hell is that comment about Dubai bigoted? That country, among other human rights abuses, is essentially a center for the slave trade in the region and there is a strong lack of accountability by the gov't. Proves the despotism problem (you can also visit the US state dept website too for the details).

I think the fact the Dubai Ports (DP World) deal didn't go through proves the terrorism problem:

Critics of DP World cited the UAE's history, noting that some of the money that financed the Sept. 11 terror attacks moved through their banking system, and the government's past support of Afghanistan's Taliban government before the 2001 attacks. (http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=782&ArticleID=29326&TM=46020.08)

True Dubai has been getting better, I hear its getting Westernized (though in the bad commercialized way), but they've still a ways to go.

Tyler, all the best, but I think you might be uh, stupid, and not getting what is irreverent. It seems your definition is you know it when you don't see it, "it's something more", which you just can't specify I guess. So since you can't provide a definition, and seeing as I've already explained it pretty fucking well, adios.

12/22/2006 11:29 pm  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

Ah fuck it...here I tried to be all reasonable and shit and now I've been labelled stupid as well. I'm many things Matt, but I assure you that stupid isn't one of them.

The reason I talked about the French and Muslims is because I knew you thought I had some kind of "ugly Americanese" view about the French.

That still doesn't explain your initial comment about our French. Nor does it explain "...people that can't stand up to the french need to shut the hell up." What the hell do Muslim birth rates in France have to do with Quebeckers?

The answer: not a fuck of a lot.

As far as Anchorage Penguins, its been in recent hockey news that the Penguins are exploring relocation. I assume, being hockey people who keep up to date with hockey news, you'd be generally familiar with this.

Show me the news reports about them moving to Anchorage. Otherwise, this is like me dropping by your site to round up a posse to shoot some of those Chileans who keep sneaking across your border.

So it was a stretch

No shit. The Flames do of course suck, but I didn't even notice that part, the Anchorage comment was so fucking out there.

How the hell is that comment about Dubai bigoted?

You suggested that they bought land so that they could sneak terrorists into the country. Now, I'm no expert on the American system of entry, but I'm pretty sure that you cats don't have a system whereby a person can come into the country so long as a property owner vouches for them. Just doesn't work that way. I'd go further and say that government types owning land will have no impact whatsoever on Dubai's ability to launch terrorist attacks on America. I mean, it's just fucking obvious that there's no connection between the two, unless you've got an axe to grind with those fucking ragheads.


I think the fact the Dubai Ports (DP World) deal didn't go through proves the terrorism problem:

No, it proves that guys like you sometimes end up getting elected to Congress. Bush was for that deal and he's been all for suspending chunks of the Bill of Rights. Now, I don't want to be accused of relying on his judgment but when Bush - who I believe at one point authorized the arrest of anyone caught facing Mecca anywhere in America - is fine with handing over port security, I'm inclined to believe that there's not a real issue here. I'm also inclined to think you know that just as well as me, and your argument is just a whole pile of rationalization.

As for our disagreements on your failure to understand the meaning of irreverent - who knew that "No Child Left Behind" really meant "No Child Left Behind - We Won't Teach Any of Them A Goddamn Thing"

Good day sir.

12/22/2006 11:48 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

No lets not be done with it, apologies, for I should've written what you wrote was stupid. That doesn't necessarily make you stupid, but alot of what you wrote was stupid, so forgive me for rushing the connection.

Was going to respond to the rest, but something like this:

who I believe at one point authorized the arrest of anyone caught facing Mecca anywhere in America

is just baldy moronic. For believing something which has never been true -- has never ever existed in reality here on the planet earth -- You sir, are now, without reservation, without apology, stupid.

Its not that I've an axe to grind with "fucking ragheads", and frankly I'm appalled you would refer to the people of Dubai in such a way, its quite bigoted. I have a problem with corrupt despotic Sultans and their under the table support for fanatical islamic activity, and I have a problem with anything close to that controlling property in my country, because at the very least its just going to entrench the status quo and generate more money for it. I don't think countries should enjoy the fruits of a free society unless they are, to a significant degree, free themselves. Its in no way bigoted to point out the status quo of the MidEast: fanatical muslims are funded by the rich elite. the rich elite get richer when they buy US property. some of this money will go to fanatical muslims, who will kill innocent people, either here or abroad. wake the hell up, the connection is real and has been for a while. I hope one day you'll realize that its the fanatical muslims that have an axe to grind with us.

12/23/2006 12:05 am  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

For believing something which has never been true -- has never ever existed in reality here on the planet earth -- You sir, are now, without reservation, without apology, stupid.

You ever read that piece that Swift wrote about how eating babies would solve the problems of Ireland? I thought it made a lot of sense. And that he was absolutely serious. Have you considered just killing all of the Mexicans who sneak into your country and feeding them to the people you've got locked up in Gitmo? Think of the benefits:

1. Provides a disincentive for illegal immigration - word will get back.
2. Cheap source of food.
3. Gets rid of those Mexicans who are taking all the jobs that Americans want like cleaning bathrooms and working as migrant labourers.

As for the rest of your babble:

I have a problem with corrupt despotic Sultans

...

wake the hell up, the connection is real and has been for a while.


Your comment that led to the aforequoted response was "Are they buying them so they sneak terrorists in to blow them up?" That's insane. None of what you said just now about enjoying the fruits of freedom explains that comment.

12/23/2006 12:26 am  
Blogger Julian said...

Matt, I don't know Tyler (MC79) personally or anything, but I've been reading his blog and his comments around the oil-blogopshere for the last year or so, and he certainly looks pretty damn intelligent from what I've seen.

I'm fairly sure his "arrest anyone facing Mecca" line was hyperbole, possibly a reference to the various racial profiling accusations which have happened and the US govt's willingness to lock up anyone they see fit in Gitmo. Hyperbole to be sure.

And the "fucking ragheads" line was almost certainly sarcasm, I mean, he even bolded it and put it in italics.




I don't know that your initial comment was "so bizzare", but there isn't a wide range of people that post at this blog, so when someone new posts something a little odd, it doesn't suprise me that someone would check their background.

12/23/2006 12:31 am  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

Julian, you've restored some of my faith in humanity.

12/23/2006 12:57 am  
Blogger Julian said...

I was posting at the same time you were, so I may have gone and spoiled your fun if you were trying to see how far you could take it with the sarcasm before he caught on.

12/23/2006 1:03 am  
Blogger mudcrutch79 said...

Ah, the part about feeding the Mexicans to people in Gitmo probably would have given it away.

12/23/2006 1:05 am  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

I'll happily retract calling Tyler, and this vic person, stupid, if they retract their bigot comment about me. I am not a bigot, and until you apologize, I guess all I can do is try to convince you here otherwise. We'll see what your responses, if any are, but before you go talking about faith in humanity ya ought to make sure you don't go throwing the bigot charge around. Its not intelligent, julian, to throw this charge around. His only explanation is not that he disagrees that Dubai is despotic, nor that these rich despots support fanatical muslim terrorists, nor that these terrorists then go on to kill people. He notes that my comments about enjoying the fruits of freedom have nothing to do explaining how terrorists would get in via property and For once he is right, they have nothing to do with it. I never said they did, I said it was another problem I had with the regime who owns the property.

As for explaining that comment about "sneaking them in to their property", Let me lead whomever by the nose:

I don't like being called a bigot because I am not one and this is a serious charge to label on someone. I asked how the Dubai comment was bigoted. In response Tyler, who called me bigoted, called the people of Dubai fucking ragheads. But he didn't really did he? Either:

1) This was hyperbole. So in response to a serious question, as I said I don't like to be called a bigot, he -- in what can only be described as bizarre -- breaks out some serious racial epithets. Proving that...he can deliver a good racial insult??

AND I'm bizarre for asking you to imagine for a second that the Penguins moved to Anchorage? Its so much easier to imagine someone is a bigot for you I guess, but you are really gonna have to try harder.

or

2) Seems pretty clear his intent was to say that the comment was bigoted because the only way one could see a connection is if they view the people of Dubai as fucking ragheads and further, or perhaps because of this, they have an axe to grind against them. I find this amazingly dumb having already illustrated the connection between Dubai and terrorism, and further, I know this was tough for some to get, but regarding terrorism I directly referenced the Dubai ports deal.

...Now I think Bush's treatment of the issue was dumb, his stance ended up losing to the people who had security concerns, so obviously enough people thought something was wrong with Bush's assessment of security in this particular case...

SO anyhow the big concern with the ports deal was the fear that through control of the ports, the Dubai owners could be susceptible to aiding fanatical muslim terrorists to get on our soil. (Here is where I answer your question about how could I say "Are they buying them so they sneak terrorists in to blow them up?")

And the deal didn't go through. The critics leading the effort to kill the deal had a main charge which said: because of security issues related to terrorism we don't want this deal to go through. Thus the fact that the deal was killed is proof there are legitimate concerns about the ties between the despotic government of Dubai and fanatical muslim terrorists. To further bolster the legitimacy of that concern, I'll note again that Dubai is a center of human trafficking. I think a country with this ongoing practice has know how about how to move people and obviously doesn't have a concern for human rights or the innocent, all of which is a danger to free and open societies such as ours and a travesty for the people under their rule. Their recent support of the Taliban and use of their banks to move some of the money related to the 9/11 attacks are even further reasons to suspect their intent until they consistently prove otherwise. So, knowing all this now, perhaps you can see why I used the example of the Dubai ports deal to refer to the terrorism connections which refers to "sneaking them in to blow up buildings" -- there's already a legitimate concern that they would've let terrorists sneak in through the ports to blow up crap, so thus the hyperbole was made to what they would do with their property. Its not bigoted to point out that Dubai has a history which makes this a legitimate concern.

12/23/2006 5:10 am  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

"this" being the legitimate concern between Dubai and terrorists.

12/23/2006 5:15 am  
Blogger PDO said...

Think of the benefits:

1. Provides a disincentive for illegal immigration - word will get back.
2. Cheap source of food.
3. Gets rid of those Mexicans who are taking all the jobs that Americans want like cleaning bathrooms and working as migrant labourers.


I'll be damned if that wasn't one of the funniest things I've read in my entire life.

Someone give this man a medal.

- PDO

12/23/2006 12:26 pm  
Blogger Vic Ferrari said...

Matt said:
...
But you ain't got time for that do you? Guess you ain't got time to challenge your own point of view, or provide decent criticism for someone else, when everyone who disagrees with you is freaky and spooky and bizzare...


That's probably a fair criticism. I really had little more than a glance through your blog. What I did read was a bit disconcerting though, given my own biases and sensibilities.

I think that one of the best things about the internet is that people are willing to honestly share their viewpoints, as opposed to grimbling these thoughts into their beers at the local pub. One of the worst things is that they find others of like mind to validate these views. Be they views that I agree with or not, there is no doubt that the controversial viewpoints at any extreme, or variant of it, can find an audience. I have little interest in politics, but it is a fascinating phenomenon.

And while your comment here may have not have seemed bizarre to you, it did to me. At the very least it was very quirky. Strange that the word 'irreverent' should be thought to bind us.

12/23/2006 2:30 pm  
Blogger Matt Scofield said...

Quirky fine, but not as quirky as folks who say they love seeing an exchange of viewpoints, but then casually throw the bigot charge around, and then can't give specifics explaining themselves. The fact that you two did this only proves you are the ones who have been stuck looking for like minds to validate your views. Or it proves you're callous morons, I'm not sure.

And I find this all further quirky because of what you wrote on your nhl code blog vic:

"Once they realize that it takes less time to prove (or disprove) their point in a compelling way ... less time than takes to actually argue about it ... then we're going to be moving forward with speed I think."

And how do you want them to prove their point in a compelling way? By using specifics -- if its hockey we're talking specific numbers about what transpired during games and their relation to one another, if its politics we're talking about specific points of fact and their relation to one another. I gave you specifics, you have given none...apparently because you have "little interest" in politics. If you have little interest in politics, you shouldn't run around calling people bigots for a political position, because your "little interest" likely means you've no idea what you are talking about. Your inability to respond to my specific points further shows this. Ergo, thus, and in sum, you're a jackass for calling me something which is not true and for not being able to explain yourself. I normally would just move on (or do this at my own blog, which is where you should've left your original comment), but am still so amazed at the unapologetic stupidity I am finding here with you and Tyler. You kids got anything worthwhile to say?

12/23/2006 4:34 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home