- I've reopen the list.
There are two threads I'd like to see killed:
NHL = horrible drivel
I think these two got beaten like a dead horse.
Also, somebody suggested to me that we have a daily posting limit. I have
thought about this in the past and think it would be a good idea. The
problem is that such a limit would have to be monitored manually, since
yahoogroups provides no such means to enforce such a limit. I have created a
poll to determine what everybody thinks the limit should be. Vote and let
your voice be heard.
For those who have tried to subscribe in the past week or two, sorry for the
delay. Both list mas were away from their computers for the holidays.
- I must say that this list does tend to bog down my email a bit. And I
find that I usually read the first few posts of a thread and then delete
everything else. A lot of topics seem to always revert to the same
arguments - arguments that always seem to arise every three or four
Am I in favour of limiting daily posts? Yes, to a degree. I think that
would make people think twice before simply posting a "ya, I agree with
you" message with nothing else except an excerpted section of a previous
As well, it may cut down on some of the repetition as people will be
forced to consider their posts more carefully.
I voted for 3 to 7 posts per day. I think that there are very few people
who exceed that limit currently and those that do could maybe combine
their arguments into one post. There were 1220 messages in November. I
think that with some limits in place (using an honour system for the
most part) we could keep many of the more casual members interested
rather than risk scaring them away with too many messages in their
Please don't get me wrong, there are a lot of very interesting topics on
this board. And while only some interest me personally, I think that,
for the most part, there is a lot of value here. If we can just cut down
a bit on some of the extraneous post we could encourage even more
members to join in.
Happy New Year all!!
- I was surprised that there was a perceived need to intervene on any of the
threads. I can only assume there were some significant difficulties before I
joined the list. There were a few things said that could have been said
better, but I didn't see anything I would consider really offensive.
Conflict is okay in my books.
> There are two threads I'd like to see killed:I would like to see this thread permanently killed. A variation on this
> NHL = horrible drivel
theme crops up in way too many topics and it dominates the listserv. I wish
we could all agree to disagree and never touch the subject again, but
whether one is a modernist or a traditionalist (or something in between)
seems to colour all opinions.
Almost all discussions eventually funnel into the same argument.
It is not the conflict that is troublesome - it is that the subject is
boring and frustrating. It is boring and frustrating even when I am one of
the participants. Everyone has heard everyone else's arguments. We are all
either preaching to the choir on this issue or trying to convert heathens
who are quite happy to wallow in heretical thoughts. It is a religious
argument, built around opposing articles of faith. It can never be settled.
I don't have any good suggestions. A Great Schism? Two lists?
> NHLPA/Union HahahohoheeheeFair enough, but this is a subject I'd really like to learn a lot more
about and illustrates the problem created by the Schism.
The NHL is a labour market and the labour market is one of my career
areas. I'd like to know more about the history of the NHLPA and how Eagleson
convinced the owners in 15 minutes to recognize the organization. How
Eagleson, Brewer and Pulford started out together and how Bobby ended up
being part of the hockey establishment, how Brewer became a pariah, and how
the Eagle ended up in jail.
I think there are great gaps in the history. What really happened is very
hazy. Who would not love to go through Carl Brewer's files? What happened to
the 55 page report about Eagleson's NHLPA, the one written by Ed Garvey?
How did the current collective agreement come into being? What kind of
reasoning went into the agreement? Where are the courts going with the
issue? There are a raft of subjects open to academic study, to labour market
The impact of the collective agreement on NHL hockey is a very
interesting topic. The impact on salaries of restricting free agency. The
impact of the rookie salary cap. A study of arbitration decisions. Has the
CBA impacted career length? Salaries have jumped. How much of that is
expansion, how much of that is increased revenue, and how much of that is
because of the CBA?
I think there are ways to figure real answers to these questions, answers
that go beyond mere opinion. How do we discuss this material while avoiding
the usual spiral into Bettman bashing and responses to the Bettman bashing?
I don't think it is possible.