Miscellaneous questions, thoughts, impressions, etc.

[wlaxphan20]

Haudenosaunee National Women's Lacrosse put this statement out on Friday:

https://twitter.com/HaudenosauneeLx/sta ... 74754?s=20

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Haudenosaunee National Women's Lacrosse put this statement out on Friday:

https://twitter.com/HaudenosauneeLx/sta ... 74754?s=20

That's a crying shame. The people who gave us lacrosse should be afforded double respect and treatment. Apparently not in reality.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

30 nations represented in the upcoming World Cup, but there are approximately 70 nations in the entire pool. Lacrosse is played on all 7 continents.

https://worldlacrosse.sport/world-lacrosse-members/

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I joined LaxPower, the old forum that eventually folded back in the summer of 2018, if I remember correctly. When I discovered the Party had moved, I jined up immediately. I remember looking through all the tabs in the User Control Panel and puzzling over the Friends & Foes tab.





I had no idea what the function did until the other day, when on a whim, I decided to try the Foes feature by adding a particular member whose posts toward your humble narrator have turned particularly nasty over the past few months, then I added another. Well Lo and Behold, no more posts from those users showed up--apart from a notification:





I'll tell you what--it changes the whole experience on here. After I saw how well the feature worked I added more users. Makes me wish I had utilized this game changing feature before. But better late than never. Why let a few users try to sabotage and ruin ones experience on here when a simple click of the "Add Foe" button hides all their comments--past, present and future.

SO--if you have a member or members who you are no longer interested in seeing/reading--one click banishes them from your view, apart from the notification that they posted something, (which you may override and read if you like).

[DMac]

Yes, ignorance is bliss. One can shut off those who call one out or find their play a little too rough for one's taste.
For example, one can ignore another (or a lot of anothers) who challenge and/or find their posts distasteful and annoying and just go on completely dominating the entire sight while driving all those away who have had enough of that poster's nonsense. One can single handedly destroy a sight while ignoring those who are telling him/her, he/she is doing so. Just bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and all is well in the world. Super nice function for those who can't take the heat in the kitchen, eh?

[Dr. Tact]

Yes, ignorance is bliss. One can shut off those who call one out or find their play a little too rough for one's taste.
For example, one can ignore another (or a lot of anothers) who challenge and/or find their posts distasteful and annoying and just go on completely dominating the entire sight while driving all those away who have had enough of that poster's nonsense. One can single handedly destroy a sight while ignoring those who are telling him/her, he/she is doing so. Just bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and all is well in the world. Super nice function for those who can't take the heat in the kitchen, eh?

I am wondering if your generalized/targeted post above fell into a foe bucket....Not for me. I love all. It's 'cause I have those obnoxious red dreads, yellow skin and goofy eyes...can't hate when you are me...although there was that time on the Simpsons when I went crazy....

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I am wondering if your generalized/targeted post above fell into a foe bucket....Not for me. I love all. It's 'cause I have those obnoxious red dreads, yellow skin and goofy eyes...can't hate when you are me...although there was that time on the Simpsons when I went crazy....

That would be fine with me if it did, Doc. Less conflict and strife that way. Some folks just don't see eye to eye as the old song goes. I don't hate them, I just don't want to read their hateful comments any longer. Sometimes after taking pains to explain oneself, one realizes that hearts and minds are closed and that any further effort to reach common ground is an exercise in futility. Which is fine--that's life. As one elder gentleman was heard to say once, "If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary."

I have nothing against you, Doc. Obviously I can still see your comments. I feel like you and I have made peace--at least that's how I feel. Your plea about being bombastic, with Matnum's endorsement, gave me a change of heart. I am endeavoring to continue in that vein, while being true to what I actually think and feel about all that is Women's D1 College Lacrosse.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I am wondering if your generalized/targeted post above fell into a foe bucket....Not for me. I love all. It's 'cause I have those obnoxious red dreads, yellow skin and goofy eyes...can't hate when you are me...although there was that time on the Simpsons when I went crazy....

That would be fine with me if it did, Doc. Less conflict and strife that way. Some folks just don't see eye to eye as the old song goes. I don't hate them, I just don't want to read their hateful comments any longer. Sometimes after taking pains to explain oneself, one realizes that hearts and minds are closed and that any further effort to reach common ground is an exercise in futility. Which is fine--that's life. As one elder gentleman was heard to say once, "If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary."

I have nothing against you, Doc. Obviously I can still see your comments. I feel like you and I have made peace--at least that's how I feel. Your plea about being bombastic, with Matnum's endorsement, gave me a change of heart. I am endeavoring to continue in that vein, while being true to what I actually think and feel about all that is Women's D1 College Lacrosse.

I also think it's a good use of what the founders and creators of FanLax intended. They probably figured disagreements would crop up between members. Better for members to be able to "block" other members than to have disputes spill out into the general populace, if you will. This is a way to keep it behind closed doors. There's even an old proverb that says, "Where there is no fuel a fire goes out." This built in feature insures that the fire will have less, if not no, fuel.

[DMac]

Oh no, the fire will still burn, you just won't feel heat in your fire proof little safe space.

[DMac]

As one elder gentleman was heard to say once, "If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary."

I've gotta wonder if this elder gentleman was an English teacher. Maybe the same one who taught his students that people saying "in my opinion" makes one mealy mouthed. If so, that makes him wrong on two counts.
Mr. & Mrs. Blissful agreed on everything, got married and had four children.
Which one wasn't necessary?

[Bart]

Oh no, the fire will still burn, you just won't feel heat in your fire proof little safe space.

I wanna be “provocative” but you can’t disagree. We are back to middle school.

[8meterPA]

I joined LaxPower, the old forum that eventually folded back in the summer of 2018, if I remember correctly. When I discovered the Party had moved, I jined up immediately. I remember looking through all the tabs in the User Control Panel and puzzling over the Friends & Foes tab.





I had no idea what the function did until the other day, when on a whim, I decided to try the Foes feature by adding a particular member whose posts toward your humble narrator have turned particularly nasty over the past few months, then I added another. Well Lo and Behold, no more posts from those users showed up--apart from a notification:





I'll tell you what--it changes the whole experience on here. After I saw how well the feature worked I added more users. Makes me wish I had utilized this game changing feature before. But better late than never. Why let a few users try to sabotage and ruin ones experience on here when a simple click of the "Add Foe" button hides all their comments--past, present and future.

SO--if you have a member or members who you are no longer interested in seeing/reading--one click banishes them from your view, apart from the notification that they posted something, (which you may override and read if you like).

sound of one hand clapping...

[Laxfan500]

I joined LaxPower, the old forum that eventually folded back in the summer of 2018, if I remember correctly. When I discovered the Party had moved, I jined up immediately. I remember looking through all the tabs in the User Control Panel and puzzling over the Friends & Foes tab.





I had no idea what the function did until the other day, when on a whim, I decided to try the Foes feature by adding a particular member whose posts toward your humble narrator have turned particularly nasty over the past few months, then I added another. Well Lo and Behold, no more posts from those users showed up--apart from a notification:





I'll tell you what--it changes the whole experience on here. After I saw how well the feature worked I added more users. Makes me wish I had utilized this game changing feature before. But better late than never. Why let a few users try to sabotage and ruin ones experience on here when a simple click of the "Add Foe" button hides all their comments--past, present and future.

SO--if you have a member or members who you are no longer interested in seeing/reading--one click banishes them from your view, apart from the notification that they posted something, (which you may override and read if you like).

What I have been doing the past few weeks is when I see a certain poster I just dont read his post. No fuss, no muss...straight ignore.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The WD1 boards are humming today! Love to see it.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Agreed. No "choke" nor "tendency to choke"... specious claim.

There were "better" teams as evidenced by their winning play on the day of the contests, but no "inferior" teams were involved.

Cletus, I think this sort of thing is what gets folks peeved.
It's gratuitously insulting. No real point other than to insult.

As far as the word “choke” is concerned—I’m honestly puzzled by the pushback the use of that word receives on this WD1 board. There can be debate over which games are chokes and which aren’t. But none can deny that choke is a common word used in sports.

Exhibit A:




Choking occurs in all sports—including women’s lacrosse. Cara Trombetta—a women’s lacrosse player—used the word to describe what the Florida Gators have done on more than one occasion. viewtopic.php?p=277240#p277240

Why is there another standard when it comes to this sport as opposed to all the other sports? I don’t think it’s a negative way to look at things as much as it is just a reality. Sometimes teams choke. There are moments/games that fit squarely into the category. I’ll focus on one to illustrate.

The 1986 World Series. (Some of you are cringing already.) The Boston Red Sox had a 5-3 lead on the New York Mets in the bottom of the 10th in game 6. The Sox quickly punched two out and even had two strikes on two batters with those two outs. One Strike Away from being World Champs and breaking the decades old curse. But one failed attempt at the final out after another made the big gag inevitable. Three straight singles followed by a Stanley Steamer Special wild pitch tied the game. Then Bill Buckner missed that famous “little roller up along first” and it was over. I don’t need to have played major league baseball to be qualified to acknowledge with millions of others that this was a colossal choke by the "Curse of the Bambino" Boston Red Sox.

Why is it such an offensive word to use about this sport--women's lacrosse--in particular? Again--there can be debate over which games are chokes and which aren’t. But none can deny that choke, choked and choking are commonly used words in sports--which includes the sport of women's lacrosse.

In closing, I am including two comments from a used-to-be regular by the name of Badlands.

I was interested that he seemed much more willing than SSB to call out players by name and criticize their play. He strongly criticized OF’s potential game winner but SSB explicitly stated that she’d rather compliment the goalie, and that was just one example. Even though he coaches the girls’ game, his bio says he’s a sports radio personality, which suggests to me that he usually discusses men’s sports. That contrast was interesting to me as I’ve often observed how much gentler announcers tend to be when discussing the play of female college players than male players (and how there seems to be some paternalistic protectionist tone on this board as compared to the men’s board). I think commentators should be fair, but if we are promoting women’s sports we should present them as tough and strong, which they are, and not undermine that message by treating them like little girls. If a guy makes a terrible play, we have no problem saying he did. Same should apply for his sister.

A related point is if you had asked the question about Gait would so many people have been offended or upset about the question? My guess is no. Why? Because he’s a man — a big, tough man. AWW is a woman (albeit an obviously tough woman), and I’ve observed a paternalistic sentiment that seems to pervade this wlax board. People ask similar questions— in fact just state the same type of question as fact — all the time on the men’s board about male coaches without the same offense taken. I’m not saying we should start being brutally harsh with female coaches and players. I’m just noting what I think is a clear difference in tone and attitude toward men and women in sports.

This is a point I’ve made before, but I’ll continue to make the observation as it occurs to me because I’m intrigued by gender issues in sports.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

On a whim--I searched the word "choke" on the Men's D1 Lacrosse board.

viewtopic.php?f=290&t=2442

There were 83 matches including a whole topic devoted to choke jobs. I also searched "choked" and "choking" and both returned multiple matches. Double standard, just like Badlands pointed out.

[TNLAX]

Agreed. No "choke" nor "tendency to choke"... specious claim.

There were "better" teams as evidenced by their winning play on the day of the contests, but no "inferior" teams were involved.

Cletus, I think this sort of thing is what gets folks peeved.
It's gratuitously insulting. No real point other than to insult.

As far as the word “choke” is concerned—I’m honestly puzzled by the pushback the use of that word receives on this WD1 board. There can be debate over which games are chokes and which aren’t. But none can deny that choke is a common word used in sports.

Exhibit A:




Choking occurs in all sports—including women’s lacrosse. Cara Trombetta—a women’s lacrosse player—used the word to describe what the Florida Gators have done on more than one occasion. viewtopic.php?p=277240#p277240

Why is there another standard when it comes to this sport as opposed to all the other sports? I don’t think it’s a negative way to look at things as much as it is just a reality. Sometimes teams choke. There are moments/games that fit squarely into the category. I’ll focus on one to illustrate.

The 1986 World Series. (Some of you are cringing already.) The Boston Red Sox had a 5-3 lead on the New York Mets in the bottom of the 10th in game 6. The Sox quickly punched two out and even had two strikes on two batters with those two outs. One Strike Away from being World Champs and breaking the decades old curse. But one failed attempt at the final out after another made the big gag inevitable. Three straight singles followed by a Stanley Steamer Special wild pitch tied the game. Then Bill Buckner missed that famous “little roller up along first” and it was over. I don’t need to have played major league baseball to be qualified to acknowledge with millions of others that this was a colossal choke by the "Curse of the Bambino" Boston Red Sox.

Why is it such an offensive word to use about this sport--women's lacrosse--in particular? Again--there can be debate over which games are chokes and which aren’t. But none can deny that choke, choked and choking are commonly used words in sports--which includes the sport of women's lacrosse.

In closing, I am including two comments from a used-to-be regular by the name of Badlands.

I was interested that he seemed much more willing than SSB to call out players by name and criticize their play. He strongly criticized OF’s potential game winner but SSB explicitly stated that she’d rather compliment the goalie, and that was just one example. Even though he coaches the girls’ game, his bio says he’s a sports radio personality, which suggests to me that he usually discusses men’s sports. That contrast was interesting to me as I’ve often observed how much gentler announcers tend to be when discussing the play of female college players than male players (and how there seems to be some paternalistic protectionist tone on this board as compared to the men’s board). I think commentators should be fair, but if we are promoting women’s sports we should present them as tough and strong, which they are, and not undermine that message by treating them like little girls. If a guy makes a terrible play, we have no problem saying he did. Same should apply for his sister.

A related point is if you had asked the question about Gait would so many people have been offended or upset about the question? My guess is no. Why? Because he’s a man — a big, tough man. AWW is a woman (albeit an obviously tough woman), and I’ve observed a paternalistic sentiment that seems to pervade this wlax board. People ask similar questions— in fact just state the same type of question as fact — all the time on the men’s board about male coaches without the same offense taken. I’m not saying we should start being brutally harsh with female coaches and players. I’m just noting what I think is a clear difference in tone and attitude toward men and women in sports.

This is a point I’ve made before, but I’ll continue to make the observation as it occurs to me because I’m intrigued by gender issues in sports.

We can disagree about 1986, Bill Buckner misplayed a ball that took a rather strange hop. Mookie Wilson fouled off 4 or 5 straight pitches with 2 strikes, great piece of hitting. Not a big fan of the word "choke".

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

We can disagree about 1986, Bill Buckner misplayed a ball that took a rather strange hop. Mookie Wilson fouled off 4 or 5 straight pitches with 2 strikes, great piece of hitting. Not a big fan of the word "choke".

Buckner was a defensive liability due to his age and gimpy knees. He should have never been out there. Sox manager McNamara got caught up in the moment or whatever and broke his yearlong strategy of putting Dave Stapleton in for defensive assurance in the late innings. He left Buckner in there and it cost them.

I understand some folks don't like the word--but it doesn't change the fact that it occurs in sports.

[MDlaxfan76]

Of course it's commonly used throughout sports...mostly by jerks trying to get eyeballs and clicks. Many who've never played at the top level...but also by some who simply mean that a team did not jell at the right moment to enjoy that magic that separates two great teams from one another. One wins, one loses...it's all too easy to say the losing team 'choked'.

Lost in that word is that the losing team had to do a whole lot of winning to even be there. And not every day do things jell...and sometimes the other team does in a truly magical way.

And lost in that word is the losing team is made up of lots of very dedicated, committed athletes who very badly would have wanted to be on the winning end of the outcome.

So, really the question is not whether it's commonly used, but for what purpose... as a commentator, a sports writer, or just on a sport specific discussion board with the fans, often family members, of active and former players.

[DMac]

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell, MDlax. This guy guy just doesn't get it, doesn't understand the disrespectful part, gives no consideration for what it takes to even be on the field (and maintain academic eligibility), everyone is just fodder for his tough talk entertainment. A number of long time posters have been driven away by his lack of understanding and continuation of this kind stuff but hey you that's who he wants to be and damn the several who have tried to point out that his style isn't appreciated. Doesn't matter the number of posters here who are personally involved with teams and players, respect for that is non existent. Imagine your son is in the cage at Dartmouth and one gets by him in 2OT and this guy comes on and tells everyone how he choked. Not at all far fetched, that's what you're dealing with here.