seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
The reason I am trying to behave well, is that at this point in time it is a revolutionary act for a human being to try on purpose to be good. We are such cataclysmic failure, collectively. Treating anyone well is an act of spitefulness toward the failure species we truly are. I am that mad at this reality that I intend to give it the double finger for as long as possible with good behavior.
In that context some person who needs significance like this person in question needs it is not the biggest failure. He's just embracing one of the many energies that make us failures. He's "branding" his idea so he's remembered as its progenitor so that he has significance. You only chase significance if you don't feel significant, and lots of people don't. That's human. He has decided that being a splinter is the most efficient route to significance. He's careful about insulting people and he's very sensitive when people threaten to get authority involved because on a deep level he knows he's acting with malice and IF the authority figure decided he also was he could be cut off from a significance-seeking behavior he is addicted to right now. It takes no talent – any of us could do it – but it takes a lot of work, that's why from time to time he seeks an "out" by saying goodbye. But he can't really leave because of the significance addiction. I would like for him to be free of it, because then he would use his intelligence to make good works. I appreciate good works. If he wants to be subversive he should actually prove he could behave really well. My theory is that he behaves so carefully poorly because he has the know how to behave carefully well.
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
The reason I am trying to behave well, is that at this point in time it is a revolutionary act for a human being to try on purpose to be good. We are such cataclysmic failure, collectively. Treating anyone well is an act of spitefulness toward the failure species we truly are. I am that mad at this reality that I intend to give it the double finger for as long as possible with good behavior.
In that context some person who needs significance like this person in question needs it is not the biggest failure. He's just embracing one of the many energies that make us failures. He's "branding" his idea so he's remembered as its progenitor so that he has significance. You only chase significance if you don't feel significant, and lots of people don't. That's human. He has decided that being a splinter is the most efficient route to significance. He's careful about insulting people and he's very sensitive when people threaten to get authority involved because on a deep level he knows he's acting with malice and IF the authority figure decided he also was he could be cut off from a significance-seeking behavior he is addicted to right now. It takes no talent – any of us could do it – but it takes a lot of work, that's why from time to time he seeks an "out" by saying goodbye. But he can't really leave because of the significance addiction. I would like for him to be free of it, because then he would use his intelligence to make good works. I appreciate good works. If he wants to be subversive he should actually prove he could behave really well. My theory is that he behaves so carefully poorly because he has the know how to behave carefully well.
Why do I feel like I'm in the other room while the psychologists are discussing my BAD BAD case of something incurable?
You guys are over-thinking this one, and as a result, you are badly over-skating the puck.
If I was crazy, my hockey ideas and thoughts would be nuts--and despite many tries--you haven't been able to do that. That means that I am no crazier than you.
Let's all just keep the hockey fights on the ice, eh?
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
The reason I am trying to behave well, is that at this point in time it is a revolutionary act for a human being to try on purpose to be good. We are such cataclysmic failure, collectively. Treating anyone well is an act of spitefulness toward the failure species we truly are. I am that mad at this reality that I intend to give it the double finger for as long as possible with good behavior.
In that context some person who needs significance like this person in question needs it is not the biggest failure. He's just embracing one of the many energies that make us failures. He's "branding" his idea so he's remembered as its progenitor so that he has significance. You only chase significance if you don't feel significant, and lots of people don't. That's human. He has decided that being a splinter is the most efficient route to significance. He's careful about insulting people and he's very sensitive when people threaten to get authority involved because on a deep level he knows he's acting with malice and IF the authority figure decided he also was he could be cut off from a significance-seeking behavior he is addicted to right now. It takes no talent – any of us could do it – but it takes a lot of work, that's why from time to time he seeks an "out" by saying goodbye. But he can't really leave because of the significance addiction. I would like for him to be free of it, because then he would use his intelligence to make good works. I appreciate good works. If he wants to be subversive he should actually prove he could behave really well. My theory is that he behaves so carefully poorly because he has the know how to behave carefully well.
Why do I feel like I'm in the other room while the psychologists are discussing my BAD BAD case of something incurable?
You guys are over-thinking this one, and as a result, you are badly over-skating the puck.
If I was crazy, my hockey ideas and thoughts would be nuts--and you have been unable to beat my ideas. You haven't been able to do that, so that means that I am no crazier than you.
Let's all just keep the hockey fights on the ice, eh?
I am literally explaining why it's not incurable to you the person. Every word I said is true, also
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
It’s not that far fetched. Several years ago I believe someone admitted it. Lying? Perhaps, but then again what is true on an anonymous chat board eh?
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
The reason I am trying to behave well, is that at this point in time it is a revolutionary act for a human being to try on purpose to be good. We are such cataclysmic failure, collectively. Treating anyone well is an act of spitefulness toward the failure species we truly are. I am that mad at this reality that I intend to give it the double finger for as long as possible with good behavior.
In that context some person who needs significance like this person in question needs it is not the biggest failure. He's just embracing one of the many energies that make us failures. He's "branding" his idea so he's remembered as its progenitor so that he has significance. You only chase significance if you don't feel significant, and lots of people don't. That's human. He has decided that being a splinter is the most efficient route to significance. He's careful about insulting people and he's very sensitive when people threaten to get authority involved because on a deep level he knows he's acting with malice and IF the authority figure decided he also was he could be cut off from a significance-seeking behavior he is addicted to right now. It takes no talent – any of us could do it – but it takes a lot of work, that's why from time to time he seeks an "out" by saying goodbye. But he can't really leave because of the significance addiction. I would like for him to be free of it, because then he would use his intelligence to make good works. I appreciate good works. If he wants to be subversive he should actually prove he could behave really well. My theory is that he behaves so carefully poorly because he has the know how to behave carefully well.
Why do I feel like I'm in the other room while the psychologists are discussing my BAD BAD case of something incurable?
You guys are over-thinking this one, and as a result, you are badly over-skating the puck.
If I was crazy, my hockey ideas and thoughts would be nuts--and you have been unable to beat my ideas. You haven't been able to do that, so that means that I am no crazier than you.
Let's all just keep the hockey fights on the ice, eh?
I am literally explaining why it's not incurable to you the person. Every word I said is true, also
Here is what the little psychologist on my shoulder is speaking in my ear:
"ASOGG never did give anybody hell. ASOGG just told the truth and they thought it was hell" - Harry Truman
seattleblue wrote: ↑25 May 2025 11:29 am
I am literally explaining why it's not incurable to you the person. Every word I said is true, also
Here is what the little psychologist on my shoulder is speaking in my ear:
"ASOGG never did give anybody hell. ASOGG just told the truth and they thought it was hell" - Harry Truman
It takes no talent to have a cartoon argument that never acknowledges counterpoints. If I had chosen this character I'd personally be embarrassed because of how little talent it takes to do the presentation in the fashion you've chosen. You really aren't talented enough to choose a character who can handle counterpoints? That's the piece that would shame me, the obvious ceiling of it
seattleblue wrote: ↑25 May 2025 11:29 am
I am literally explaining why it's not incurable to you the person. Every word I said is true, also
Here is what the little psychologist on my shoulder is speaking in my ear:
"ASOGG never did give anybody hell. ASOGG just told the truth and they thought it was hell" - Harry Truman
It takes no talent to have a cartoon argument that never acknowledges counterpoints. If I had chosen this character I'd personally be embarrassed because of how little talent it takes to do the presentation in the fashion you've chosen. You really aren't talented enough to choose a character who can handle counterpoints? That's the piece that would shame me, the obvious ceiling of it
Here is what you are missing...
The puck is always moving. You make a play and move on. When I stick-handle past a defender, it is boring to discuss the matter with the beaten defender. I only ask people to meet me at the goal crease with the horn blowing.
seattleblue wrote: ↑25 May 2025 11:29 am
I am literally explaining why it's not incurable to you the person. Every word I said is true, also
Here is what the little psychologist on my shoulder is speaking in my ear:
"ASOGG never did give anybody hell. ASOGG just told the truth and they thought it was hell" - Harry Truman
It takes no talent to have a cartoon argument that never acknowledges counterpoints. If I had chosen this character I'd personally be embarrassed because of how little talent it takes to do the presentation in the fashion you've chosen. You really aren't talented enough to choose a character who can handle counterpoints? That's the piece that would shame me, the obvious ceiling of it
Here is what you are missing...
The puck is always moving. You make a play and move on. When I stick-handle past a defender, it is boring to discuss the matter with the beaten defender. I only ask people to meet me at the goal crease with the horn blowing.
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
It’s not that far fetched. Several years ago I believe someone admitted it. Lying? Perhaps, but then again what is true on an anonymous chat board eh?
I disagree. And yeah, I think whoever admitted it was full of it.
What is the financial gain for an already dying paper and industry. Most of us use ad blockers. I know I do. I don't see any ads when I post here. So let's just assume for a moment that John Wayne Gacy the clown here is being paid by the post to constantly start threads "Armstrong bad, must have top five picks, I hate the Blues even tho I love the Blues" threads. What's the pay rate? Does he get three cents per person who opens a thread? Is there a legally binding contract or was this a handshake? And more importantly, what exactly does the PD gain? They go from 19 readers to 27 on a good day and maybe if they are lucky once a month somebody goes "oh, yeah, I should get that 1 buck a month online subscription." Occam's Razor.
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
I don't know newspaper financials. So no comment on how they go about it. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I have nothing to do with the PD, any other business, or anyone else. I post for myself because I love my City and my Team. That's it. Nothing else.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
It’s not that far fetched. Several years ago I believe someone admitted it. Lying? Perhaps, but then again what is true on an anonymous chat board eh?
I disagree. And yeah, I think whoever admitted it was full of it.
What is the financial gain for an already dying paper and industry. Most of us use ad blockers. I know I do. I don't see any ads when I post here. So let's just assume for a moment that John Wayne Gacy the clown here is being paid by the post to constantly start threads "Armstrong bad, must have top five picks, I hate the Blues even tho I love the Blues" threads. What's the pay rate? Does he get three cents per person who opens a thread? Is there a legally binding contract or was this a handshake? And more importantly, what exactly does the PD gain? They go from 19 readers to 27 on a good day and maybe if they are lucky once a month somebody goes "oh, yeah, I should get that 1 buck a month online subscription." Occam's Razor.
I don't know newspaper financials. So no comment on how they go about it. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I have nothing to do with the PD, any other business, or anyone else. I post for myself because I love my City and my Team. That's it. Nothing else.
seattleblue wrote: ↑24 May 2025 12:55 pm
it's one thing to [shirt] everywhere, but when you're gutless and don't respond to arguments nobody respects you fwiw
FWIW
I let my argument stand next to the rebuttal, and then people can decide for themselves which argument make sense, and which is nonsense.
I 100% encourage as many replies to my comments as possible. I love it when people tell me how wrong I am. My stuff sells better when it is stocked on the same shelf next to the poor quality nonsense.
You have zero argument integrity. Zero. You have been told articulately by many people many times what the issues are with your arguments, but you are doing a performance. I would highly recommend regular exercise. It'll affect your brain chemistry and you will not have the impulse to do your dismal brainworm show. Exercise might help you not need to play your character.
Responding is what he wants. Whether he’s an employee trying to drive clicks or he just gets jollies off it who knows. I’ve been guilty of feeding him more than I care to admit but he’ll just always move the goalposts.
FWIW I think the employee theory has always been way, way out there. He's obviously more intelligent than the character he's playing, so I'm trying to separate the two, The person himself has a wound. The character is not very talented. The character has no integrity. I can understand people having wounds and he's a Blues fan so I'm inclined to give the person more grace even if I disrespect the character. Because change is only a decision away, and it's his.
I've seen this theory bantered about over the years about trolls, clowns and attention whored being post-dispatch employees. I too think it is beyond farfetched and a silly. This board, on any random day, has what, 25 regular posters. When the team goes on a 12-game heater or wins in the playoffs, sure it goes up. On the average day what on earth does a dying newspaper board have to gain by having some dillweed post his drivel over and over. I mean at this point you occasionally give him some attention. It's no longer positive interaction though you certainly displayed the patience of a saint with it before you gave up. Once or twice a week someone will blast him with a bucket of facts that completely refute whatever it is he is trying to say (Armstrong sucks). Beyond that, he's laughed at and ignored. He's mostly talking to himself at this stage.
It’s not that far fetched. Several years ago I believe someone admitted it. Lying? Perhaps, but then again what is true on an anonymous chat board eh?
I disagree. And yeah, I think whoever admitted it was full of it.
What is the financial gain for an already dying paper and industry. Most of us use ad blockers. I know I do. I don't see any ads when I post here. So let's just assume for a moment that John Wayne Gacy the clown here is being paid by the post to constantly start threads "Armstrong bad, must have top five picks, I hate the Blues even tho I love the Blues" threads. What's the pay rate? Does he get three cents per person who opens a thread? Is there a legally binding contract or was this a handshake? And more importantly, what exactly does the PD gain? They go from 19 readers to 27 on a good day and maybe if they are lucky once a month somebody goes "oh, yeah, I should get that 1 buck a month online subscription." Occam's Razor.
I think we’ve sufficiently beat this to death, but to answer your question, I’d think it would have to do with advertising. The more traffic, the more sponsors they could attract.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑20 May 2025 23:17 pm
Big miss by Army throwing him into the Tarasenko trade. Blues developed him and another team is now benefiting.
Big miss is right. We had Mikkola and he was playing well but Army went out and got Leddy instead of trusting the kid.
Army does have a bad habit of locking up cap space on so called "economically priced veteran players" but man sometimes you got to put trust in the kids. And right here was a perfect example. Mikkola should be a Blue.
Come on now. That’s a bit of revisionist history there IMO. The Blues re-signed Leddy after the 2021-22 season. A season in which they went 49-22-11. Leddy was signed to be in our top-4. Mikkola was the #6-7 guy that year. Are you really saying the Blues should’ve inserted Mikkola into the top-4 and just seen what happens? Assume he’d be able to handle that role even though he’d shown no ability to do so to date?
While I’ll agree with the overarching sentiment about signing vets like Leddy and Scandella, that didn’t make guys like Mikkola the right choice at the time. My argument was they they should’ve gotten someone better than Scandy or Leddy…but it wasn’t Mikkola. At least not in 2020 when they signed Scandy or in 2022 when they signed Leddy.
Mikkola didn’t take a step until he signed with Florida. It would sure be nice to still have him but you can’t keep everyone. He was a pending UFA and hadn’t shown much by that point. He bloomed later. It happens sometimes. But out of all of Army’s moves, him moving Mikkola as a pending UFA isn’t one I shake my head at.
No reason to re visit history.
You can go to HF and read what many thought. But that only matters in the context that Those of us who wanted to see more of Mikkola was right. Those who thought Mikkola wasn't good, was wrong.
But who cares. Those are just moving goalpost.
Why do we act like Army doesn't prefer Veterans over youth. He does.
The guy who claimed he had no use of picks or prospects, isn't the guy we should claim doesn't make mistakes with youth, He sucks at evaluating our own talent. And that's what many are pointing at, while telling you their opinion of Mikkola at the time. Army missed. Simple
What part of "pending UFA" do you fail to comprehend?
It doesn't matter what Army thought of him he was going to walk out as a free agent, and he did, just not from the Blues.
You sound as if you have inside information on what Mikkola plans were and why. Do you have a link.
What i remember is a bunch of vets already on contract. They didn't have to be. But Army and company couldn't put trust, nor give the opportunity to a guy they trained and evaluated.
Remember Binnington needed more seasoning up until he won us a cup.
dhsux wrote: ↑26 May 2025 18:10 pm
I'm not at a near expert level as some here but imo Mikkola was indeed "blocked" by bigger contracts and yeah....the Blues lost him to that reality.
I liked him here and saw what I saw and was very sorry to see hm go.
Further, he has not surprised me by his play since.
It is true though, the Rangers made a bigger mess of it than the Blues.
Players are going to move in a cap league, cannot keep them all. Get used to it, the Blues will soon have an excess of good looking young prospects up front and in goal and a bunch of contracts blocking young prospects on defense. When players are traded you can count on someone making a player Exhibit 666 that Army is the devil.
dhsux wrote: ↑26 May 2025 18:10 pm
I'm not at a near expert level as some here but imo Mikkola was indeed "blocked" by bigger contracts and yeah....the Blues lost him to that reality.
I liked him here and saw what I saw and was very sorry to see hm go.
Further, he has not surprised me by his play since.
It is true though, the Rangers made a bigger mess of it than the Blues.
Players are going to move in a cap league, cannot keep them all. Get used to it, the Blues will soon have an excess of good looking young prospects up front and in goal and a bunch of contracts blocking young prospects on defense. When players are traded you can count on someone making a player Exhibit 666 that Army is the devil.
The problem was the direction at the time … Faulk, Krug, Perunovich … none of it made sense. Krug getting hurt was a blessing and Armstrong redeemed himself a bit n the backend
