StevetheClub

I'm hesitant to keep posting in this thread because I don't want to take away from discussion of the game itself - I would actually recommend the mods move it to it's own thread - so this will be my last comment in this thread. I'm trying really hard to be tactful, but I'm honestly not sure if you've read any articles on this based on what you've written so far. The point, from the parent's mouths themselves, is to bring attention to a ridiculous policy. There is nothing in any of the articles that I have read that indicates that they are trying to get attention for themselves, or get free tickets, or whatever. I don't feel like going through the thread and quoting every else, but it's also not about privilege or entitlement. Damn right they can still complain and with the NHL trying to pay them off they should complain louder. Because not only is the NHL going to do nothing about their insensitive and out-of-touch policy, they tried to bribe them with tickets on the condition they stay quiet. Of course, the NHL has every right to have stupid policies, just like these people have the right to bring to light one policy that goes against the standard practice at every other similar venue.

The thing is, none of what you wrote is actually true (although I suppose I'm not convinced it's a human rights issue, so perhaps that and yeah, we agree the kid shouldn't need a ticket, so there's that too). What I mean to say, is that I don't see anything in the article that states they want free stuff. Everything I see points to them wanting to right a wrong policy. And breastfeeding is not just a milk delivery system. It is a more complex interaction than that, and a mother shouldn't have to compromise on this.

As for those who say it is a child protection issue, the kid could wear protective gear, like many do of that age at events like this. There's no reason for CFS to be called.

It's unfair, and potentially discriminatory, to tell a woman who is breastfeeding her child to either pay for a ticket or she can't go. There is plenty of precedent for this and the intensity of the reactions in this thread is honestly confusing to me. The practice of allowing a child under 2 to sit in a lap and not pay for a ticket is quite common. Airlines and athletic venues everywhere, including our own MTS Centre, have a policy allowing this. Certain events where quiet is both important and expected, such as the opera or live theatre, have no babes-in-arms policies and given the context this makes sense. For a hockey game or a flight this does not make sense. Nowhere in the article does anyone say the mother is not allowed to breastfeed, that is very clearly not the issue. The issue is being forced to buy a ticket for the child who would sit in her lap. Again, it is common practice to not have to do this and why the NHL would do this does not make sense. As to what the problem is, the problem is that the policy is still not to allow this, which is, again, unfair and potentially discriminating. They are standing up for breastfeeding mothers everywhere and for that, I say good on them.

I know this will probably be an unpopular position, but I say good on them.

Np. It really irks me when people seem to be just looking for conflict (such as in most of this thread) and perhaps I shouldn't have taken your post as such. I don't think it's my place to shed more light as I've been a lurker for most of my discussion board years but I will say he has become somewhat of a legendary poster going back to the early (some might argue golden) days of CFL discussion boards. Perhaps Iso can do the honour and provide some context for his post.

Why on earth would you assume it's either? It's a toast to an old friend.

Nope, I that's not how I imagine you and I think "the incredible" and "utter nonsense" is a massive exaggeration. Skepticism is definitely healthy in a lot of contexts. Here, I just don't get the point. Of course people embellish and lie of a daily basis, I'd didn't say or imply that I thought otherwise and I don't get your point in saying that. Again, I just don't see the benefit in being so critical of this story.

You're right, it almost never occurs. But this time it did, and that's a problem, a big problem. I'm not going to sit here and read all of the stories and put together all the details so I can somehow disprove this kid's story, because, well, why would I want to do that? What appears to be your worst case scenario: a kid and mom make up a story about being harassed to get some Bomber stuff. Honestly, I would rather be wrong in defending them and have this actually be the case then to be so jaded as to assume they're lying because their story isn't air tight. There's nothing naive about that.

Why didn't the kid take off the jacket? BECAUSE THE KID SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. It doesn't matter what colour he was wearing, no kid deserves that. And maybe it didn't happen exactly as reported and maybe the reports don't all corroborate. There's enough to say at least some approximation of what was reported occurred and that's too much. How you're trying to rationalize against the victim's story is what makes zero sense.

That's very true, Nichols and the O have done an excellent job of avoiding turnovers. Why does that have to be considered a streak, or at least any more than the "streak" the D has been on, with all the turnovers created? I'm not arguing that we have a great offense, but we definitely have a good enough one that I don't think is playing above it's ability.

Agreed, and I think Milanovich is just the one to cure him.

And I guess I disagree that this is just a streak. I don't think we've been winning in spite of Nichols and the offense, I think all three phases have been complementing each other quite well.

That's actually the point I was trying to make, that I don't think this trade should be based on how well he does in Toronto. Guaranteed, though, people will use his future performance to judge this trade.

Nichols is under our microscope so we see his near-misses more than any other QB's. There are near-misses by every QB.

I think right now it looks like we fleeced the Argos but I think this will end up being win-win. I think Willy will end up flourishing in Toronto but I don't think it will be fair to look at his future performances and say look at what we lost. Drew Willy in Toronto will be a different - and I think better - QB than Drew Willy here and given that he was almost guaranteed to be gone next year for nothing I think a DB among the league leaders in ints and couple of picks is a remarkable haul. On the flip side, I can see the Argos saying our future starting QB for a couple of picks and an imp DB is a remarkable haul. So, win-win.

For sure. I live in Northern Alberta (about 3 hours S of the NWT border) and there is significant farming pretty much to the NWT border.

I think the point is not that they are playing well and getting the turnovers, it's that the turnovers seem to be coming at an unsustainable rate, which I think makes some sense. That being said, while I think our turnover rate will slow down (to a degree) the team is good enough to still be successful.

Exactly, Some people have argued that that is a bad idea and some people have argued that it isn't; personally I see merit in both sides and fall on the side that it is a good idea. I'm not going to elaborate as to why, because it seems at this point the arguments have been made and that aspect of this thread is just going in circles.

For sure, it just seemed to really take off this year. I suppose he made the mistake of poking the bears.

The D was definitely bad to start the year, but I think that motivation is a factor that has to be considered as well. Perhaps the stats won't back me up on this (I'm too lazy to check) but it at least seemed like the offense was punchless, which has to be demoralizing and exhausting for the D. I know they are pros, but they are also human, and it had to be hard to feel like a defensive stop actually wasn't going to mean much in the grand scheme of things. Lately, there is actually the possibility of the offensive scoring points, even touchdowns, and hitting back after a defensive stop. That has to effect their play in my opinion.

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the original comment. I'm all for criticizing the guy in general, but that wasn't what this thread was about though that's what it has turned in to. The question was why such a feud between him and the journalists/reporters/columnists/whatever and I too am interested in why the relationship has changed so much this year. I mean, the guy has been a homer every year, why the hostility this year?

I don't believe for a minute that their one and only priority is to make money, and so if they are making a political statement it's because they think that's what people want and will spend money on, not because of any principle. Whether or not they are right, well I guess we'll see.

With respect to Willy keeping his helmet on: I brought this up yesterday and a friend said it's so he can hear the plays and follow along. Not sure if this is accurate but it makes sense to me.