Tangent Thread - September 2017 Edition

[StPaulHusker]

4 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Bulls***. It isn't either/or, and this type of black/white thinking is extremely juvenile. 

It is either/or.  They are both good causes.  Why does one suck and the other is "glorious"?

[StPaulHusker]

6 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

I'd suggest you calm down. Comparing Team Jack picking to do something with this to the Hyvee Heroes trophy is hilarious.

I would suggest you calm down as well.  Your love affair for a gag trophy is pretty silly.

[Huskerzoo]

Take it to PMs you two. @saunders45 @StPaulHusker

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Huskerzoo said:

Take it to PMs you two. @saunders45 @StPaulHusker

VS THREAD!!!

[VectorVictor]

3 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

It is either/or.  They are both good causes.  Why does one suck and the other is "glorious"?

 

Because at the root of this discussion are the rivalry trophies and games, and one was foisted upon us with lavish corporate sponsorship, whereas the other came about organically, like how just about all of the successful rivalry game trophies have occurred throughout the ages.

 

The former is very artificial and the corporate sponsorship, while great for the charities involved, is more about getting good publicity and advertising at the expense of a legitimate rivalry game/trophy occurring. It's too forced, too artificial, too contrived, too sterile. 

 

The latter is originally the result of people finding humor in our previous coaches' locker room antics. That carried over into a fun, silly trophy whose frivolity was only matched by the snark and humor used to create it. The fact that this trophy came about organically and honestly and couldn't be attached to a corporate sponsorship and ad rights sold is why our AD made it verboten. That it's getting a legitimate charity near and dear to our hearts to help sponsor it is just icing on the cake.

 

Contrast that with the Heroes Trophy, where if there were no corporate sponsors, it would cease to exist.

 

 

 

 

[Landlord]

@StPaulHusker you're being insanely curmudgeonly about this. Agreed upon by everyone, I think. Lighten up dude.

 

 

 

In other news, it's great that the chair is coming back, but of course the only way it could exist is with a corporate sponsor. That's unfathomably lame.

[StPaulHusker]

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

@StPaulHusker you're being insanely curmudgeonly about this. Agreed upon by everyone, I think. Lighten up dude.

 

 

 

In other news, it's great that the chair is coming back, but of course the only way it could exist is with a corporate sponsor. That's unfathomably lame.

I'm not the one calling people a douche for not getting behind a gag trophy between a mascot and an Twitter parody account.  

 

That's a Mod doing that. 

[Landlord]

No, you're not the one doing that. Regardless of that seemingly being said tongue in cheek, and nobody actually being called a douche, you're right - that wasn't you.

 

 

You're the one being hyperbolic and looking for something to bitch about and disagree with in every single post. 

[StPaulHusker]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

No, you're not the one doing that. Regardless of that seemingly being said tongue in cheek, and nobody actually being called a douche, you're right - that wasn't you.

 

 

You're the one being hyperbolic and looking for something to bitch about and disagree with in every single post. 

There was nothing tongue in cheek about that.  He knew exactly how he was directing that comment.  Anyone else would have had that comment moved or deleted and likely received a message from a mod.  But since he's a mod, oh well.

 

Sorry that i had to disagree with you there.

[Saunders]

23 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

I'm not the one calling people a douche for not getting behind a gag trophy between a mascot and an Twitter parody account.  

 

That's a Mod doing that. 

Actually, I'm an admin.

 

 My comment was directed to the administration for hiding the trophy and giving the fans BS answers. And you're taking this entirely too personal. It has nothing to do with you.

[knapplc]

I didn't in any way see saunders' comment to be directed at anyone other than the douches in the Administration(s) who tried to kill the original Chair trophy.

[Landlord]

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I didn't in any way see saunders' comment to be directed at anyone other than the douches in the Administration(s) who tried to kill the original Chair trophy.

 

 

That's what I read it as too. 

[StPaulHusker]

1 hour ago, saunders45 said:

Actually, I'm an admin.

This is so sad you felt the need to correct me.

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

That's what I read it as too. 

Really?  You read this---"Who's gonna be a douche and oppose it now?"-- as referring to the Athletic Administration and not an ambiguous call out to anyone who did oppose the "trophy"

 

Pretty weak.

[Saunders]

43 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

This is so sad you felt the need to correct me.

 

 

Well since you're gonna base your entire attack on strawman arguments and feel victimized by something that had nothing to do with you, I thought it was prudent to at least set the stage for you to do it correctly.