PCM

Yes I am!

Crap! We have no chance!

(Insert Mike McFeely sigh here) No I'm not. But I'm done talking about this and having to explain the same points over and over again.

How did the "Feeling No Pain" tour turn out?

Words fail me. Logic failed Dilks.

Pretty much, yeah.

I usually wear a no-hit, no-pass, no-shoot, no-score, no-allowed on the ice, no-allowed on the bench or no-allowed in the locker room jersey.

Having your ear hair pulled is far worse than getting his below the belt.

I believe so, although I'm certainly no expert on network security. But consider just how absurd Gary's defense is. First, I've had to help Sioux-cia send a JPG by e-mail, so she's not exactly the type of person with the expertise to go around hacking into wireless networks. Sorry, Jo. Second, what kind of moron sets up an unsecured wireless network in an apartment building? Third, Sioux-cia or I would have had to have known Gary had a wireless network. Never having been in his apartment or apartment building, how would I/we know that? Fourth, even if I knew that Gary had a wireless network (which I didn't), how would I know which specific wireless signal was his if there was more than one signal coming out of the building? Or would the same idiot who set up an unsecured wireless network in an apartment building be stupid enough to set its SSID as "Gary LaPointe's Open-To-the-World Wireless Network"? Fifth, until a couple of weeks ago when I set up a wireless network, I had no idea how they worked or how to make them secure. Most people who neglect to make their wireless networks secure use the default SSID, which is typically something like linksys, netgear, belkin, etc. So it's doubtful that even if Gary was the totally clueless Internet dweeb he now claims he was, it's doubtful that he would have known enough to change his wireless network's SSID to something that would tell the outside world it was his. At any rate, Gary is weaving quite a tangled Web for himself.

I'm thinking a line with Oshie and Miller would be good. There seemed to be some chemistry between them.

Yes, on Nov. 1. Everyone can read the NCAA's response here.

Yes he has and, no, I'm not surprised either. He's not only delusional, he's a liar as well. I'm glad the Dakota Student has seen fit to nominate this "wonderful person" for sainthood.

Yes, Mike had a goal against Niagara (or was it Nigeria? ) in the playoffs and of course the great goal against BC. By the end of that season, it was clear that he was ready to turn pro. But scoring goals was hardly indicative of his play at UND and hasn't been his strong suit since then. Commie had five goals and seven assists as a junior that season. Roche had six goals and 22 assists as a freshman that year.

Here's the editorial.

After UND beat BC for the national championship, I remember a fan on USCHO proclaiming Commodore to be the best offensive-defenseman the Sioux had. Hey, Travis Roche was on that team!

You're right. No standing and no cheering in the press box. If I'd been a spectator, I probably would have had to stand to see what was happening. Cheered? I doubt it. I got that. It's not what I'm talking about. Commodore was drafted in 1999, which I believe was after the fight with Alex Brooks. I'm sure it did, given the fact that there was even more emphasis on fighting in the NHL at that time. I still think he would have been drafted anyway and don't know what that has to do with this discussion or my position on fighting.

I thought it was obvious that we were discussing the state of hockey in the U.S., not in Canada where its popularity needs no help. So if fighting is what makes hockey great in Canada, why isn't the game even more popular in violence-loving, bloodthirsty America? Who said it was? I said it might help the game's popularity in this country by improving its image. In hockey-loving regions like parts of North Dakota and all of Minnesota, the game's image needs no help, just as it needs no help outside of Canada. And that's where I think many in this discussion are making a mistake. They think that because everyone they know agrees with them, there's no problem. I don't expect anyone who's satisfied with the status quo to agree with me. I'm interested in improving the game in ways that can actually protect the players and broaden its appeal. That would mean making some changes. I don't claim those changes would make hockey an overnight sensation. That's actually a spinoff benefit, not the ultimate goal. Not that I recall.

That's not the same thing. There are lots of scrums, but most don't result in anyone dropping the gloves. I would place the Prpich fight under the choreographed type you say you can't stand. It could easily have been stopped by the officials. I didn't see how the Schneider fight started, so I can't comment on that one. At any rate, I stated earlier in this thread that because of the intensity, sticks and physical nature of hockey, fights are inevitiable in hockey when tempers flare. Those don't bother me because I understand why they happen. Hadn't he already been drafted by the Devils when that happened? And even if he hadn't, so what? Are you saying that nobody in the NHL would have noticed after his championship season in 2000? Seems unlikely.

CSTV's Elliot Olshansky weighs in on Gary LaPoint's decision in his column this week.

From the St. Cloud State University Chronicle: Controversy surrounds UND The University of North Dakota nickname continues to draw both support and criticism This is actually a reasonably fair and balanced article. I'm not sure how Leigh Jeanotte will feel about being transformed into a female, however.

Funny, I don't remember you being that well built.

You don't think college hockey would be more popular if the NHL were more popular? I think it would. My point is that college hockey is hurt by the image of professional hockey because most people don't understand the difference. To the average sports fan, hockey is hockey and fighting is a part of hockey. I'm not saying that minimizing fighting in the NHL would instantly elevate it to the status of the NFL, NBA or MLB. I do think that more people would watch it, however, and I don't think that any fewer people would.

It's probably boob-related research.

I meant to respond to this earlier, but missed including it in my post. So why can't hockey do that instead of relying on the false claim that on-ice enforcers limit cheap shots? If it works for the NFL, certainly it will work for the NHL. That's my whole point. Pro football is a physical, violent sport. The NFL has outlawed hits that cause serious injuries, hits that were legal at one time. The NFL has improved equipment for player safety. The NFL levies fines against and hands out suspensions to players who engage in excessively violent acts on the field. And after doing all that, pro football is as popular as ever. NFL fans aren't saying, "We sure miss the days when guys like Jack Tatum could use his helmet as a weapon to turn a wide receiver into paraplegic with a single hit. Those were fun times." And the NFL isn't saying, "Gee, player enforcement of the rules works so well in the NHL and increases fan interest so much that we're going to implement the same wonderful concept in our game." If I were a professional athlete, I'd feel much safer playing a sport in which the league itself and the officials who enforce the rules of the game looked out for my safety rather than depending on unwritten codes and player-enforced rules that can be ignored or interpreted in any manner that fits the heat of the moment.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm 308.