HAKSTOL 9 MONTHS and change LEFT ON CONTRACT!

[THETRIOUXPER]

Apples and oranges.

Well, they are both smear campaigns and character assasinations, are they not? They are both based upon people's perception's (or opinion's,) of someone's performance. The difference is, one is an athlete while the other an administrator, but still, both are expected to "perform at a certain level." Or am I way off base here? Keep in mind, a message board is what it is, a compilation of many people's "opinion's," and some fact's sprinkled in there every now and then.

[LeftyZL]

Thanks for the insightful rebuttal. But I'm not sure that "completely" answered THETRIOUXPER's question....just a hunch. But thanks for the attempt.

Ok, here's another attempt at trying to explain the "Apples and Oranges" rebuttal. The Brian Lee situation dealt with people from all different areas of expertise who provided insight into the situation. You weren't required to have inside information on the situation since Brian Lee played his game in a public arena. If you went to a game, you had an opinion of Brian Lee. Whether it was right or wrong, that's not for debate here. The situation you keep harping on is one that is being done behind closed doors, not being made available to the public. You have to "insiders", as you say, to understand the situation. Otherwise you wouldn't have a clue what was going on with the situation. There's the difference.

As for my opinion, I loved Brian Lee as a player of our hockey team when he was here. I believe he took way too much grief when it wasn't warranted at all. Period. The situation with Mr. Buning and Mr. Hakstol is completely different than the first. I have no inside knowledge, nor do I pretend to have any, but it's a private situation that will be made public when necessary. If you feel there's as big of an issue as you and others on here claim, I'd suggest writing the Herald(or any news publication) with your facts and having them investigate further. Spouting off on a board anonymously is not a great way to get this issue resolved.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Ok, here's another attempt at trying to explain the "Apples and Oranges" rebuttal. The Brian Lee situation dealt with people from all different areas of expertise who provided insight into the situation. You weren't required to have inside information on the situation since Brian Lee played his game in a public arena. If you went to a game, you had an opinion of Brian Lee. Whether it was right or wrong, that's not for debate here. The situation you keep harping on is one that is being done behind closed doors, not being made available to the public. You have to "insiders", as you say, to understand the situation. Otherwise you wouldn't have a clue what was going on with the situation. There's the difference.

As for my opinion, I loved Brian Lee as a player of our hockey team when he was here. I believe he took way too much grief when it wasn't warranted at all. Period. The situation with Mr. Buning and Mr. Hakstol is completely different than the first. I have no inside knowledge, nor do I pretend to have any, but it's a private situation that will be made public when necessary. If you feel there's as big of an issue as you and others on here claim, I'd suggest writing the Herald(or any news publication) with your facts and having them investigate further. Spouting off on a board anonymously is not a great way to get this issue resolved.

In the end it all come's down to what I think versus what you think. My opinion versus your's, based on the fact's that each of us have available to us, but still two seperate opinion's. I'm sorry so many people take these opinion's so seriously. I also have a hard time understanding why one character assasination is justifiable in people's mind's (brian Lee), while another is not (buning.) They are/were both public figures and therefore subject public to scrutiny, right? However, I understand that this is how I (or someone else) may feel versus how other's may feel, and I am OK with that. I'm not here to change people's perception's or opinion's, only to add mine to the discussion.

[Air Force One]

This all sounds sorta Graham Krackerish, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you.

[Goon]

What I don't get, and haven't read (unless I missed something) is why all of the animosity towards Buning?

Wow, all hell is breaking lose. I believe the reason some don't like Bunning is that he isn't from UND. I personally have only met him a few times and don't really have enough on him to make a judgement. I will leave that to yall who have more info of the situation...

[AZSIOUX]

drop the puck , drop the puck, drop the puck

[siouxnami]

This all sounds sorta Graham Krackerish, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you.

ugh, *chill goes down spine*

[Goon]

This all sounds sorta Graham Krackerish, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you.

Didn't they boot him off the board?

[PCM]

Thanks for the insightful rebuttal. But I'm not sure that "completely" answered THETRIOUXPER's question....just a hunch. But thanks for the attempt.

Okay.

As I recall, most of the criticism of Lee was about his on-ice play. There were thousands of spectators at arenas watching him play. Thousands more watched him play on TV or heard his play described on the radio. Everyone was free to render an opinion based on what they saw or heard. When Brian coughed up the puck in front of UND's net or made a bad decision with the puck or wasn't physical enough, everyone saw it. It wasn't a question of whether those things actually occurred. It was a question of Lee's value to the team and whether his presence on the ice helped more than it hurt. It was a topic open for debate, and a wide range of opinions were expressed.

I agree with THETRIOUXPER that some of the views expressed were far more nasty, mean-spirited and vitriolic than they needed to be, but I don't question anyone's right to express an opinion about Lee's play. However, what I found truly disgusting was when a few on this board attempted to call Lee's character into question by anonymously posting information about his family members. I truly feel sorry for anyone who can't see the difference between discussing how a player performs on the ice (as witnessed by thousands) and posting unsubstantiated innuendo, rumor and gossip for the express purpose of smearing a player's reputation.

Now, with the Buning situation, people are, of course, free to criticize and express opinions about the decisions he makes, the policies he implements, the way he conducts himself and the statements he makes. For example, some on this board expressed the opinion that Buning shouldn't have overruled Lennon and scheduled a game last season against Northern Iowa. From my perspective, Buning's call was correct and he deserves credit for scheduling a game that can only help UND meet its long-term goals in the transition to the next level. That's my opinion about a factual event. Not everyone agrees with me, and that

[THETRIOUXPER]

It would seem to me that proving something is rumor, gossip or innuendo is just as hard as proving something to be true on an OPINION based message board. That goes for any subject, not just the one currently being debated. Just wanted to clarify that.

[redwing77]

It would seem to me that proving something is rumor, gossip or innuendo is just as hard as proving something to be true on an OPINION based message board. That goes for any subject, not just the one currently being debated. Just wanted to clarify that.

I agree.

This is getting "Graham Kracker-ish" in a way.

And the likeness to Brian Lee is scary. Only Lee was 18-19 years old whereas Buning was much older.

Hakstol hasn't walked yet. Things are still in the works. No one has the real info. Only Buning and Hakstol would, though there MIGHT be a few others. Highly doubtful that Buning would do anything harmful to UND. Highly doubtful that Hakstol would do anything to undermine his employer. What is left is opinion.

What's happening is that those who didn't like Buning when he was hired are now arming up with "weapons" to say "See? I told you so." While others aren't having any of it to various degrees.

I find it interesting that posters are now condescending towards other posters, and that's what is GrahamKracher-ish about it. Everyone is like "Everyone who agrees with me is my friend. Everyone who has a different opinion is wrong and stupid for it."

This thread should be closed if all that's going to happen is mudslinging.

[PCM]

It would seem to me that proving something is rumor, gossip or innuendo is just as hard as proving something to be true on an OPINION based message board. That goes for any subject, not just the one currently being debated. Just wanted to clarify that.

For any subject? Okay, I'll play along.

If I say that T.J. Oshie only scored two goals last season, you might respond by saying that you personally witnessed him scoring each of his 17 goals and that the official NCAA college hockey stats back you up.

And yet, using your logic, I could claim to be right by saying that in my opinion, Oshie only scored two goals. After all, my opinion's just as valid as anyone else's, right? Who are you to dispute my opinion as long as I can provide some justification or rationalization for it?

For example, I could say that in my opinion, only two of Oshie's goals should count because Duncan or Toews or someone else actually set him up for easy goals 15 times. He doesn't deserve credit for any goal that my blind grandmother could score in her sleep.

Or I could say I heard a rumor that the NCAA was considering disallowing all but two of Oshie's goals last season. Because the rumor came from a trusted inside source (who I conveniently decline to identify) and nobody can disprove it, I am free to assume it's true and continue repeating my claim that Oshie scored only two goals last season.

Fact. Fiction. Truth. Lies. Rumors. Speculation. Innuendo. Gossip. They're all the same thing, right? Apparently truth and facts are whatever I say they are. Cool.

[7NationalTitles]

For any subject? Okay, I'll play along.

If I say that T.J. Oshie only scored two goals last season, you might respond by saying that you personally witnessed him scoring each of his 17 goals and that the official NCAA college hockey stats back you up.

And yet, using your logic, I could claim to be right by saying that in my opinion, Oshie only scored two goals. After all, my opinion's just as valid as anyone else's, right? Who are you to dispute my opinion as long as I can provide some justification or rationalization for it?

For example, I could say that in my opinion, only two of Oshie's goals should count because Duncan or Toews or someone else actually set him up for easy goals 15 times. He doesn't deserve credit for any goal that my blind grandmother could score in her sleep.

Or I could say I heard a rumor that the NCAA was considering disallowing all but two of Oshie's goals last season. Because the rumor came from a trusted inside source (who I conveniently decline to identify) and nobody can disprove it, I am free to assume it's true and continue repeating my claim that Oshie scored only two goals last season.

Fact. Fiction. Truth. Lies. Rumors. Speculation. Innuendo. Gossip. They're all the same thing, right? Apparently truth and facts are whatever I say they are. Cool.

Wow....we're really starting to grasp at straws here.

For one thing, as has been mentioned previously, many people are aware of the Buning situation. Some are in the camp that nothing is wrong and others are in the camp that there is something wrong. Either way, there are many other people to back up one claim or the other.

The straw that you are desperately trying to grasp includes your own statement and no one else backing it up in the example which is entirely different than the Buning situation. Again, there are people in both Buning camps and they seem to have others than can back up one side or the other.

Your example is what it is........just a statement you would be making with no one else coming to your defense.

I'm sure you can come up with a better example than the one you tried to make above. Now let me use a term you might be familiar with.......apples and oranges.

[AZSIOUX]

Wow....we're really starting to grasp at straws here.

For one thing, as has been mentioned previously, many people are aware of the Buning situation. Some are in the camp that nothing is wrong and others are in the camp that there is something wrong. Either way, there are many other people to back up one claim or the other.

The straw that you are desperately trying to grasp includes your own statement and no one else backing it up in the example which is entirely different than the Buning situation. Again, there are people in both Buning camps and they seem to have others than can back up one side or the other.

Your example is what it is........just a statement you would be making with no one else coming to your defense.

I'm sure you can come up with a better example than the one you tried to make above. Now let me use a term you might be familiar with.......apples and oranges.

OH SNAP, here comes the counter.............this is getting real good, just like a daytime soap opera

[THETRIOUXPER]

For any subject? Okay, I'll play along.

If I say that T.J. Oshie only scored two goals last season, you might respond by saying that you personally witnessed him scoring each of his 17 goals and that the official NCAA college hockey stats back you up.

And yet, using your logic, I could claim to be right by saying that in my opinion, Oshie only scored two goals. After all, my opinion's just as valid as anyone else's, right? Who are you to dispute my opinion as long as I can provide some justification or rationalization for it?

For example, I could say that in my opinion, only two of Oshie's goals should count because Duncan or Toews or someone else actually set him up for easy goals 15 times. He doesn't deserve credit for any goal that my blind grandmother could score in her sleep.

Or I could say I heard a rumor that the NCAA was considering disallowing all but two of Oshie's goals last season. Because the rumor came from a trusted inside source (who I conveniently decline to identify) and nobody can disprove it, I am free to assume it's true and continue repeating my claim that Oshie scored only two goals last season.

Fact. Fiction. Truth. Lies. Rumors. Speculation. Innuendo. Gossip. They're all the same thing, right? Apparently truth and facts are whatever I say they are. Cool.

You're overanalyzing. All I'm saying is that in a setting like this (ie, internet message board), it is sometimes hard to prove or disprove anything. Time will usually tell who is full of s&!t and who isn't. There's no need for long drawn out analogies to explain your position, we've already done that. I'm only saying the line between truth and innuedo, ect. gets blurred on a forum like this.

[nodak hockey fanatic]

I'm just getting settled in waiting for the next snide jab... why is it still a month and a half until the puck drops?? Then we can all dissagree on who should be playing over who, who is overrated/underachieving, and who's head is on the chopping block .

[PCM]

Wow....we're really starting to grasp at straws here.

I was just following THETRIOUXPER's argument to its logical conclusion. He said "any subject," so I picked one near and dear to his heart. And it's just my opinion that Oshie only scored two goals last season, so lighten up.

[PCM]

You're overanalyzing.

I didn't anyalyze anything. I merely used an absurd illlustration to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument.

[Snake]

It would seem to me that proving something is rumor, gossip or innuendo is just as hard as proving something to be true on an OPINION based message board. That goes for any subject, not just the one currently being debated. Just wanted to clarify that.

Whadda ya mean? I thought all it took to prove the truth on this board was a LINK!

[THETRIOUXPER]

I didn't anyalyze anything. I merely used an absurd illlustration to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument.

I don't see anything absurd about saying that it is sometimes hard to distinguish truth and non-truth on an opinion based message board. Maybe the argument is absurd to you based on the fact that we may have differing opinions on certain subjects.

[PCM]

I don't see anything absurd about saying that it is sometimes hard to distinguish truth and non-truth on an opinion based message board. Maybe the argument is absurd to you based on the fact that we may have differing opinions on certain subjects.

As I see it, you're saying it doesn't matter whether something posted here is true or not as long as long as the poster can fall back on the "it's just my opinion" defense. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

To use your own analogy and restate my earlier point, there's a huge difference between people stating their opinions about Brian Lee's play on the ice and using rumor and innuendo to smear his character.

[THETRIOUXPER]

As I see it, you're saying it doesn't matter whether something posted here is true or not as long as long as the poster can fall back on the "it's just my opinion" defense. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

To use your own analogy and restate my earlier point, there's a huge difference between people stating their opinions about Brian Lee's play on the ice and using rumor and innuendo to smear his character.

Yes, but either or can be based on truth or non-truth, what someone chooses to believe in that is not for me to say.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Ok, quick question has anyone asked Hak or Buning for information on this? They would be the most insider information that you can get on this subject since it is about them. Somebody (sorry I don't remember who, it was like 2 pages ago) posted that Hak said not to worry. I BELIEVE and TRUST Hak, if he says not to worry then I am not going to worry. End of Story. Continue with your discussion.

and yes, the puck does need to drop already.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Ok, quick question has anyone asked Hak or Buning for information on this? They would be the most insider information that you can get on this subject since it is about them. Somebody (sorry I don't remember who, it was like 2 pages ago) posted that Hak said not to worry. I BELIEVE and TRUST Hak, if he says not to worry then I am not going to worry. End of Story. Continue with your discussion.

and yes, the puck does need to drop already.

Since you brought it up, you get my vote for the person who gets to go ask one of them.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

This thread is starting to remind me of a certain Simpsons episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPYo7TNMPCs&NR=1