October 2008 Archives

In all fairness, Simmons' article this morning was much better than yesterday's, in the sense that nobody got called names. The link, although I've found Canoe links don't last forever and you don't want to read it if you don't have a stomach for adults abusing children.

Sounds like David Frost behaved as I'd thought though, not that I'm ever happy for predicting/guessing poor behaviour and having even those low expectations surpassed. Whatever else, it's pretty obvious no parents are going to let this man anywhere near their kids again, and that's a good thing. I have lots of respect for Jennifer Hicks, Kristy Boyer, and whoever else winds up testifying. It can't be easy, particularly given they were promised their names would not be published.

Steve Simmons shows us how it's done in the highly respectable mainstream media.

Highlighted in green we see what Mr. Simmons, who presumably has a journalism degree and therefore also possesses the highest possible level of ethics seen in writing, thought was the most important thing about the case. She was 16, had a threesome, and liked hockey players; ergo, she's a puck bunny.

Highlighted in red we see what Mr. Patterson (that's me in this case, not my father) thought was probably the most important thing about her testimony. I'm a scumbag blogger who writes the word "shit" because he can, and I possess no ethics whatsoever.

Contemplate this with me for a moment, if you will. We have a 16 year old girl; she can get married (with permission) and drive a car (with an adult licensed driver present), but that's pretty much it. She's not old enough to drink, smoke, serve her country, or even get a good job, because she's not mature enough to understand what signing a contract means. We also have a 16 year old boy, same deal, perfectly normal except he also happens to be a hockey player.

And we have that boy's 29 year old coach, having a threesome with this boy and this girl. A coach we know has control issues. Do you suppose it's outside the realm of possibility that he might have said, "Gee, playername, I like your girlfriend, she's hot. Do you like your ice time?" Indulge me and suppose with me a bit further; maybe he doesn't even need to say that last. Everything we know about this man - which, yes, is inadmissible in court, but I'm not a judge and neither are you - says it's pretty likely.

She's a puck bunny, David Frost is merely disgraced. And we wonder why women won't testify at rape trials, or why this no-longer young woman didn't want her name to be published. "What does she have to fear?" If you didn't already know, now you do.

If writing shit like that is what makes somebody a respected professional journalist, I'll stick at home with my couch and decent paycheque, thank you very much. Fortunately, we have Gare Joyce's ESPN column from a few weeks ago to provide a much better story about what went on.

This was one of those fairly exciting 0-0 games, with lots of rushes either way. More going towards Edmonton's end, although I'd say a greater percentage of the Oilers rushes wound up with good scoring chances than those of the Bruins. Everybody played fairly well tonight, with Cole doubleshifting in MacIntyre's spot and Penner bouncing around a bit too. Honestly, there wasn't a big difference between most of the On a personal note, I'm disappointed that apparently I now get the opposing team's feed instead of the PPV. C'est la vie. On with the scoring.

Horcoff, 7: 50% on the dot, 3 shots, 3 takeaways but 3 giveaways. He was in the box on the game-winner, but the penalty wasn't his fault (more to follow on that). 7 despite being pointless because his PK was good, PP was ok, and he made things happen at the right side of the rink. I had at least a couple of "10 nice stick on the backcheck" comments.

Nilsson, 7: no points, but two hits and both his shots were great chances. He was a pest for the Bruins D all night, going in hard on the forecheck and hustling back for the backcheck. He's clearly been listening to MacTavish and was rewarded with 20 minutes of icetime. Any points at all and he'd have had an 8.

Moreau, 7: feisty, did what he needed to. Good penalty killing, two shots and three hits. He had some good rushes and great cycles.

Staios, 7: monster on the PK, he had one shot and another blocked. Tried to sneak in for the backdoor late in the game but a great play by a Bruin blocked him out. 4 shot blocks, including one that looked like it hurt - Steady Steve the Puck Magnet was at it again, Bob Gainey hates this guy. Credited with a giveaway but I didn't notice so I don't think it was too egregious.

Cole, 7: Only 15:16 of icetime, but he looked like he was out there a lot more. Things were happening most times he was out, he was always physical. Only one shot, three blocked though and while he only had one hit credited, he was chippy and gave the Bruins D considerable trouble, and was always there on the backcheck.

Souray, 7: only got the cannon fired once, but it was a doozy. Two other blocked shots hurt Bruins, and he even got one through. Blocked two himself, had a takeaway, and while he had no credited hits he was certainly physical. Good stick on the backcheck a few times, add that up and you get 26:28 of icetime, including over 4 minutes shorthanded. It would have been nice if he'd gotten a few more shots through. Teams are cheating to his side on the PP and when the Oilers get set up.

Hemksy, 7: like his linemate Nilsson. Five shots led the team, and several of them were doozies. He was dangling all night, moving his feet, and was unfortunate not to get a goal. He soaked up a couple of nasty hits from Aaron Ward (a guy I always wished the Oilers had picked up after the 06 Finals). Surprisingly little PP time probably due to the fact he was the one drawing the penalties.

Roloson, 7: he's giving MacTavish a difficult decision each time he plays, just what you want to see from your backup goalie. He made several outstanding saves. If he'd made that last save, an 8 for sure. He was soaking up rebounds like mad and was very good all game when his team needed him.

Smid, 6: Another quiet game for Smid. Not quite 15 minutes of icetime, he was mistake-free with no giveaways, one hit, and two shot blocks. He didn't see any special teams time and played his position well, holding the line when required. He did make some good breakout passes as well, with no giveaways at his own blueline.

Cogliano, 6: Didn't make much happen on the PP and that's partially what hurt the team tonight, so with 2:10 of PP time and 1/6 on faceoffs gives him a strong 6. He didn't hurt the team outright and did manage 2 shots.

Penner, 6: quiet night for the big man. He played pissed off a couple of shifts, couldn't quite get anybody lined up for a big hit though. 0 shots isn't getting it done though, especially on the PP. He did have some nice rushes but if you can't get a shot away, it doesn't matter. He cycles well with whomever he plays though. He played very well defensively and saw a bit of PK time, although somehow he got outmuscled by Kessel one Boston rush.

MacIntyre, 6: it's hard to do much in 2:16 of icetime, and while he had a big hit, it was pretty clear the Bruins didn't want much to do with him. Stortini should have had this game, but that's not Big Mac's fault. He looked pretty good backchecking on Kessel when he got caught out against the shifty one. Sat on the bench for every second of the game after the first period.

Pisani, 6: very strong 6, his defensive play was good and he cycled well, but he had a couple of brainfarts and I noticed him pulling up one backcheck, not sure why but it let his man get to the net. I think he must have thought somebody else had him. 3 minutes of PK time and 50% on the faceoffs.

Grebeshkov, 6: have I ever mentioned before that he's a high event player? He kept the puck in at the line, made some nice breakout passes, and didn't back down from the hard play, winding up with three blocked shots. He also looked shaky sometimes with his partner Gilbert, bobbled some passes and made some weak ones of his own, and had two giveaways. He doesn't really belong on a power play.

Brodziak, 6: fairly quiet game, linemate changes likely didn't help him much. I have no notes on him at all. He did win 8/10 faceoffs though.

Visnovsky, 6: he was actually a fairly strong 6, although I dinged him for his penalties. One was a righteous pull down, the other not so much. With teams cheating to his partner Souray, he had a few chances to get some good shots away, although none got on net between two blocks and three misses. He needs to get that going on the PP. 24:33 of icetime with some very good defensive plays combined with some trouble handling the Bruins down low.

Gilbert, 6: chewing up even strength ice time for Huddy, he had one shot and a couple blocked. He doesn't look good with Grebeshkov though, maybe they could try him out with Visnovsky? He looks a little tentative, and combine that with a lack of physicality and he looks more like Tom Poti than Paul Coffey. Still, he does more good than harm in his own end.

Pouliot, 6: he made some great breakout passes and played ok in his own end otherwise. He didn't do much in the other end though, nor was he particularly physical. He needs to use his size more than he did tonight, he's not a small man.

Gagner, 6: he'd have had a 7 if he hadn't made the giveaway leading to Horcoff's penalty in OT. Bad pass inside his own blueline = -1, although I'm sure he felt bad. Otherwise he was a forechecking demon, 3 shots on goal and one more blocked. He drove the net when he could and was strong along the boards. Aside from a goal and one less brain fart, couldn't have asked for much more. Either he had a great game in the circle or he's been taking lessons from MacT, since he won four of his five faceoffs.

Oilers vs Hawks, on the Chicago broadcast for those of us who are non-PPV-enabled. Overall, the Oilers didn't play exceptionally poorly, but they didn't play well, and the Hawks played much better. The score reflected it: 3-0. I actually found it fairly hard to mark, although I took two (9x7") pages of notes. The powerplay was horrible, getting only 1 shot in 5 chances, almost 10 minutes of PP time and getting scored on to boot. The penalty kill was actually pretty good, it gave up a goal in 3 chances but the goal was a quick one right off the faceoff. The lineups seemed to reflect the game; no surprises at first, but at various points I saw Stortini with Pouliot and Penner, and Hemsky with Brodziak and Penner. The worst sins were too many offsides (particularly from Hemsky and Horcoff) and too many ill-advised cross ice passes. The top line generated some shots, 11 of 23 total, but only a few good scoring chances, and that's just not enough.

Smid, 6: with Staios out, Smid gets another start. He showed fairly well, playing with a bit of an edge and I didn't see any blatant giveaways. When Fraser hammered Visnovsky in the corner, Smid knuckled on, threw him to the ice, and just kept punching. He didn't do a lot in the other end either; didn't have any tremendous keepins, but no egregious giveaways either. I noted a couple of smart passes.

Nilsson, 6: he didn't score, but generated a few chances and gave the Chicago D fits on occasion. Cycled well with Cogs and Gagner.

Cogliano, 6: see Nilsson.

Gagner, 6: see Cogliano. The Little Knight That Could got some short handed time and looked decent doing it, although he just doesn't have the size to handle guys like Andrew Ladd. The best he can do with power forwards is use good body position and hope to slow them down, which probably is not compatible with a long career for a guy his size. He made some great passes and had 3 shots.

Moreau, 6: 11:24 of icetime, a small scrap, and not much else. He was skating well and making defensive plays and wound up with 4 hits, none of which were memorable - led the team, apparently. I wonder if the Chicago hit-counter remembered he was a Hawk at the start of his career.

Cole, 6: he got scored on while on the PP, but also at least generated some offense. He had a couple of decent chances, self-generated using his speed and size down the wing and behind the net. He came back nicely too, again using his size to force opposing players off the puck. His chances were the best the Oilers came up with.

Grebeshkov, 6: took the body well, made some smart passes and made a couple of mistakes. 22:17 of icetime was second on the team, albeit only one more second than Gilbert.

Strudwick, 6: just the game a stay at home dman wants to play. No mistakes and he made a great play near the end of the game to keep Versteeg from going in alone. It wouldn't have mattered, but it was a nice play anyway.

Brodziak, 6: No bad passes, but no good rushes either. He's most effective when he's cycling, and there wasn't much of that. Only Oiler who did very well at faceoffs, 7 of 12 for 58%, and he did some good work on the PK.

Pouliot, 6: 13 minutes of icetime, including a titch shorthanded. I'm not sure why MacTavish had him playing the wing, but there it is. He played fairly physically, didn't give the puck away, and made smart passes. He didn't show much offensively though, only 2 shots and no real scoring chances for his line.

Roloson, 6: the 3-0 goal was a gimmie, a 35 footer or so from a defenceman not known for his offensive prowess. Nevertheless, he made 27 stops, including a spectacular diving block after a bad giveaway that had the whole building buzzing.

Souray, 5: led the team in icetime with 23:30, he didn't play poorly but there was that small matter of the shortie and Burrish walking around him, so a strong 5. He got his nose dirty plenty and made simple passes.

Horcoff, 5: he was -1, took a hooking penalty (at least it was in his own end), didn't help at all on the power play and was on the ice for the SHG against. And to top it off, he was 8-18 on the faceoffs. He played 19 minutes, down a lot from last game - less than Gagner, in fact. Overall, a forgettable game.

Penner, 5: also -1, he started the night on the checking line but got juggled around; at one point he was out with Brodziak and Hemsky. Gagner actually took his spot on the PK, just to add insult to injury, and he barely saw any PP time (21s as it wound down), so only 11:10 of icetime in total. He showed some flashes with his usual work in tight on the boards and down low, protecting the puck well, but ultimately didn't accomplish much. He did muscle guys off the puck and didn't get credited with a hit when he had an attacker lined up. Likely because he held off from totally creaming him as the puck was dished off. Penner would be much more effective with a bit of a mean streak, but I repeat myself.

Pisani, 5: frustrating night for Pies. He also didn't play a lot (11:36) and didn't do a lot while he was on the ice. Some nice defensive play, a couple of good cycles with Moreau, but that was it.

Stortini, 5: with MacIntyre out, he saw more ice time, 8:36. It would have been nice to see him do more with it though. He did have a scrap, which he didn't lose despite being punched repeatedly even after pulling his opponent's jersey over his head. He had one hit and one missed one that would have been good but... wasn't.

Visnovsky, 5: one shot and 3 shot blocks is good for a defenceman, but 0 credited hits (thought he had one) and a muffed one-timer leading directly to a SHG against hurt his score. He did make some very nice passes, but that doesn't help if they don't wind up in the back of Khabibulin's net. Also had some very bad passes in the neutral zone. High-event player, lucky to not be -2 on the night and wasn't exactly robbed of any points himself.

Gilbert, 5: Two hits, two blocked shots, was in on some nice cycling with 12-13-89, but he also had some ill-advised cross-ice passes get picked off.

Hemsky, 5: no points, some bad giveaways at the attacking blueline, and went offside when he wasn't coughing the puck up. He also zoomed around and made some nice plays, one or two seeing-eye passes. High-event, fruitless when you can't score and doubly bad when you're scored on twice. He did lead the team in shots with 4 (tied with Horcoff) but none were Grade A chances. His best hit of the night was on Grebeshkov, who was behind Chicago's net for some reason, chasing Seabrook.

Commenter Sheldon brought up a point I've been struggling with in the comments on a Staples piece, where he quotes my grades from the last Calgary game. Sheldon's comment, to save you the bother of clicking the link and reading through, was "I don't know how you can't have it based on ability and expectations." He'd also like to see things like injuries factored in, and an effort grade.

Off the top, it is stipulated and hopefully obvious that these are subjective grades. I try to be objective, and I'm sure David and others who are pitching in are as well, but ultimately, there's a value judgement made.

The nice guy in me wants to say yeah, if a guy is playing hurt, it's not fair to mark him down for not playing as well as he might otherwise have done. If a guy is trying hard, that's what counts, so maybe Shawn Horcoff did deserve a 7 or even an 8 last game.

I try to make the decisions based on whether or not I would want to see that performance again from that player. Injury reports make it difficult to judge how hurt a guy really is. Not all cases are as clear cut as Pitkanen's tendency towards 'thoroughbred' behaviour vs Smyth's 'I took a slapshot in the mouth and missed one shift.' Grading effort is nice, but it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between Chris Pronger's effortless stride and Nilsson The Elder's floating.

So it necessarily comes down to exactly this: how many contributions for our team, and how many contributions for their team? While a player who works his butt off every game is a nice feel-good story, if the effort isn't eventually reflected positively on the scoreboard, that player has no place on an NHL roster. Similarly, if a player's battling through injuries is constantly dragging his play down, +10 points for taking a bullet for the team, but -1000 for not knowing when to quit.

If you hadn't heard, webloggers are in the news again, this time after one got kicked out of the press box at an Oilers game.

Some would say this is not a journalist vs blogger pissing match, but journos and PR reps alike are pulling out the same tired old tropes. There's definitely some serious antagonism and holier than thou 'tude floating around.

Elliotte Friedman:

You can write whatever you want from your couch. If you never have to show your face, there are no repercussions. No one is going to call you on something face-to-face.

JJ Hebert of the Oilers, being the professional that is, wished Zack Stortini on David: "I'd like him (Berry) to go talk to Zack after. There might not be much talking!" (Staples piece.) It's telling that Hebert is behaving exactly as he would say us "non-professionals" do.

Friedman and Hebert represent polar opposites; most, of course, fall somewhere in the middle.

One thing that bugs me and I've yet to see is: what. on. earth. does going to journalism school and "earning your stripes" have to do with whether or not somebody should (or should not) be in a press box? In other words, what makes journalists so special?

What's different about journalists? I can think of three arguments, only one of which makes any degree of sense. The first is that you are, by definition, a "professional." I'm happy to say that you don't need a degree in something to be a professional in that field. I make a decent living as a system administrator with a Bachelor of Arts in history. You're a professional because you get paid to do something you're good at, and no degree automatically grants either the paycheque or the ability.

The second argument is that you need to "put the time in." Sounds like something journalists say to make themselves feel better over having had to do the same crappy work they're wishing on everybody else. Don't buy it. Sure, you've got to walk before you can run, but some people catch on to running more quickly than others. The reaction from some people is to try to help those run faster. The reaction from others is to tie irons to the runner's ankles and say whoah, you need to do the same crap I did first, sonny boy!

The third argument builds a bit on the first two, and it's that if David Berry had gone to the same schools as everybody else and put in the time at the same crappy jobs everybody else had, he'd have automatically known The Rules about a press pass. Sit down, shut up, and only ask questions when the people who got you the pass told the organisation you would. Indulge me for a moment. My profession takes a lot of flak for assuming that people know things, and for sneering at those who don't live up to our high standards of computing knowledge. A lot of that flak is well-deserved. See where I'm going? Maybe David could have been told The Rules up front. "You're a new guy, here's your pass, by the way, all you're allowed to do is to watch the game and get quotes," is probably all it would have taken.

When I'm looking for a good sportswriter, I care about what they write, and how they write it.

All I ask is that you write well. Write poorly, and you don't deserve to be read. I don't care where your degree is from or what obscure rituals you had to go through at your gig with Birdcage Liner Daily or who on the team will talk to you. I *do* read mc79 because he's got some interesting ways of looking at games and the players who play them. I *do* read James Mirtle, David Staples, and Lowetide because they can write coherently. There are a lot of people I *do not* read, both webloggers and mainstream "been there done that" types that Kevin Lowe has on his speed dial, because they can do neither. Either they never had the abilities in the first place, or they have long forgotten them.

I don't begrudge the Edmonton Oilers to make a profit from their endeavours. But if the Oilers want me, or anybody else, to go to their website first for "e-news" (or whatever that execrable term Watt used was), they need to make it worth my time. I'm not saying David Berry or anybody else in particular could do a better job of that than they are right now. I am saying that right now, they're halfway through the season, 13 points out of the playoffs, and they can't decide who should start in goal.

They could do much better. Yes, it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff in the blog world. Somehow Ted Leonsis does it. Do the Oilers want to admit that they are, at best, second-best? At anything?

Jason Gregor is correct, of course: most blogs are horrible. What he left out is that most sports columns are equally horrible. The accountability he and most others talk about only means that the reporters are unlikely to relieve themselves in the same place they lay their heads at night; it's no guarantee of quality, intelligence, logic, or even all but a veneer of rational civilization. Somebody who willingly co-writes with a fella calling himself "Wanye Gretz" and posts Googled drunken party pictures, and another fella who may not actually "drop the F bomb" but is willing to all but hold up a sign saying it ought to remember that, and JJ Hebert and his ilk should look in the mirror while making accusations of attacking those who cannot defend themselves.

(That's a Hawker Tempest in the first photo, by the way. See what I did there? Yeah, I'm not above a little wordplay either.)

David Staples has a little scoring project going on, I thought I'd add in my two cents tonight as sort of a practise run.

Overall a good game for the good guys, although that first period was an execrable effort by everybody in blue. When Shawn Horcoff is coughing up the puck at his own blueline, you know they weren't really into things. They all sucked, so pretty much everybody gets a -1 for that.

Fernando Pisani, 8: a goal and an assist, the goal was a bit of a gimmie but you have to be good to be in the right spot. He also absorbed a pretty nice hit from Moreau after the captain scored. He was everywhere tonight. First star in my books.

Mathieu Garon, 7: no real softies, he made some great saves and kept the team in it. Wasn't really a game-stealer though.

Andrew Cogliano, 7: chalk up another game-winner for Cherry's fav. He was buzzing around all night.

Ethan Moreau, 7: goal and an assist, he was physical and tough - he did everything he's supposed to, and then some.

Marc Pouliot, 7: 2 assists is what he needs to keep putting up to stick around. He got juggled around a bit, but was at his best playing with Moreau. He protected the puck well, and used his size too.

Denis Grebeshkov, 7: pointless but +2, 22 minutes of icetime. This is not at all the Grebs from this time last year. Even in the first period when the Oilers couldn't give the puck away fast enough, he wasn't bad.

Steve MacIntyre, 6: 2:31 of icetime and he still got in 2 hits, including a crusher on Dustin Boyd. His subsequent fight with Prust was ok, I'd give the decision to Big Mac but he didn't dominate as he should be able to with his size and practise. Still, a yeoman's effort, and his hit helped to turn the game around.

Shawn Horcoff, 6: his whopping 23 minutes of icetime led all Oilers forwards (and most defencemen on either side). Go-to man for everything, he had 5 shots but couldn't convert. Should have been a 7 despite no points, but the first period pulled him down.

Robert Nilsson, 6: he deserved better with at least three or four golden chances. Wasn't really noticeable on the backcheck, which isn't necessarily bad. Would have been a 7 if he'd scored on one of those chances.

Steve Staios, 6: he played 21 minutes and I didn't notice him a lot. When you're a defensive dman, that's good news. He was brutal in the first but settled down. Overall a competent game.

Erik Cole, 6: didn't get on the scoresheet, but he was very physical with as many credited hits as the entire Flames team. Bad penalty in the third after some missed chances pulled him down, I thought the diving call was marginal though. That and going pointless held him down. He had a couple of good chances, but totally flubbed a cross-crease pass - he obviously wasn't expecting it, but it would have been a golden opportunity.

Ales Hemsky, 6: very quiet game for him. No shots, and he made some good passes that unfortunately wound up nowhere near the back of the net. He also didn't get smoked by Regehr and was his usual dangly self on several occasions, and while he gave the puck away a couple of times, it didn't wind up behind Garon so all's well. Would have been a 7 with a point or with a better first period.

Jason Strudwick, 6: he did exactly what he needs to do to keep dressing, although Garon's GAA would probably be better without the own-goal. That wasn't really Strudwick's fault though. He played fairly well against Bertuzzi when they were on the ice together, and was one of the few Oilers big enough to handle Big Bert.

Dustin Penner, 6: he got some PP time with Gagner out. He was assertive in the second, but faded a bit in the third. He had a few chances down low, but he was shotless. He played fairly well defensively and I don't recall his first period being as bad as everybody else's. Kind of a weak 6.

Kyle Brodziak, 6: Honestly, I barely noticed him, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He had some shot blocks and played as well as anybody on the penalty kill. Like Penner though, kind of a weak 6 - he had a couple of shots but neither were dangerous (I don't think). He had a decent night in the faceoff circle.

Lubomir Visnovsky, 6: high-risk led to no reward, but he wasn't bad either. Moved the puck well on the power plays, moved it not quite so well in his own end, especially in the first.

Tom Gilbert, 6: a few brutal giveaways, but an assist and tons of half-decent icetime helped his score.

Ladislav Smid, 6: kid does ok in his first game of the season with Souray out. 12:38 of icetime, had a couple of good hits and didn't handle the puck like a grenade after the first 20 minutes. He also didn't do much offensively.

Zack Stortini, 5: playing with Big Mac is hurting Stortini's ice time, he would up with an extra minute over MacIntyre but didn't do much with it. 0 credited hits, although he was fairly physical and was definitely jawing things up.

Dwayne Roloson: kudos to him for sitting down and shutting up. It can't be easy making 3.6 million dollars to open the bench door and to take notes, especially when you were Marc-Andre Bergeron + Andrew Ladd away from maybe winning a Stanley Cup and the Conn Smythe. Didn't play so no rating, but I wanted to mention him anyway.

I don't have too many thoughts beyond agreeing with most of what Staples said. That being said, I disagreed with several of the grades he assigned players, and said so in the comments. (Maybe I should have saved my comments for this post.) The second period was a total dog's breakfast, but in general the Oilers were schooled in their own end, couldn't get much of a cycle going in the attacking zone, and would generally have been lucky to come out with even a single point, never mind the two they did get. Colorado got cheated.

The plus is Penner's got 2 even strength goals already (on track for 164!), and if he keeps up his play, MacTavish is going to have a hard time justifying keeping him off the power play. It was good to see he can do well killing penalties, something I suggested last year; if he could somehow eke out a bit more speed or figure out how to better use his size, he'd be good. Garon played well, even if it did take a couple of posts to keep the score even, and the team looks ready to take care of itself physically.

This picture (Zack mauling some poor Flame) exemplifies the minus. Their defensive dmen are too slow to break cycles against the likes of Hejduk and Stastny. They got dominated on the faceoffs, which is going to burn them at some point, and their hitters weren't really hitting. Ethan Moreau in particular looked a bit out of whack, and Stortini's usually good for a thunderous hit but was pretty quiet all game. The game reminded me a lot of the Garon wallpaper the Oilers have available on their website: the goalie and a bunch of faded guys.

In other words, they played an ugly game but held on long enough and did enough things well enough that the final score was respectable. Still, 2 points is 2 points, and they count the same in October as they do in April. They'll need to be better next game though, that's for sure.

Oh, and a 150ish foot tall Sam Gagner on the ice? Comedy gold.

I love October. I love the fall weather, the fresh start (some would say that's spring, but I've been around academia my entire life), the relative quiet as everybody buckles down for winter.

As I write this, I've caught up on weblogs. I've done some dishes, cleaned off my bedside table, neatened up my desk, written three blawg posts, commented on some others, played with my cat, mocked my wife's hamster, talked to some friends, answered some emails... in other words, a normal Sunday afternoon.

But there's something else I love about fall.

In addition to my normal Sunday chores, I've ordered and verified functionality of Centre Ice. Game 1 for the only team that counts starts in 2.5 hours. I did watch most of both Vancouver/Calgary games, and the last half of Montreal kicking the crap out of Toronto, so I've had dessert already. I'm hoping that the Oil can provide some nice stick-to-your-ribs buffet dining, as the only thing I love more than Toronto and Calgary getting embarrassed is an Edmonton win. With any luck, there'll be plenty of the above this season.

Like most Oilers fans seem to be, I'm cautiously optimistic this season. Chopper should be around 82 games to blindside Phaneuf. Souray should be putting the fear into opposing goalies. Cogliano, Gagner and Nilsson should be slicker than (pick your favourite metaphor). Hemsky and Horcoff should threaten the point a game barrier. Newcomers Cole and Visnovsky should be fired up. Garon should be eager to replicate his performance last year while wily vet Roloson champs at the bit to prove he's still the man and JDD revs up to steal both their jobs. Penner should be ready to try to reclaim his spot on the power play and prove his detractors wrong.

In other words, the team has a lot to prove and finding motivation should not be difficult. The Silver Fox Craig MacTavish is around to help if things start going bad, as they're sure to do.

Whatever happens, Dr. Randy Gregg promises good times and can fix you up after the game. I can't wait.

Since I'm always forgetting, some useful commands to run semi-regularly:

sudo port clean --all inactive

sudo port -f uninstall inactive

That's assuming, of course, you don't want to keep the old packages or distfiles around in case the new version goes crazy.

I do find that a good "sudo rm -rf /opt" followed by reinstalling everything I still care about is required; MacPorts occasionally loses its mind and it's less work reinstalling than trying to clean it up.

Maybe now this will be cemented in my brane, like the bash foreach post finally worked. Incidentally, that is hands down the most-often hit post on this site, just going to prove that you never know what people will want.

A few weeks or a month ago, I got into a conversation about politicians that looked something like this:

Me: I'm not voting for them because they're not like me and they say they are. They don't share some opinions I have.

Other: Of course they're not like you, and nobody will share all your opinions.

He was correct, of course, but that wasn't my point. My complaint was two-fold; I'll address the second half first.

I don't expect any other human being to share my opinion on everything. That would be boring, even if it did make my election-day decision easier. Besides, I don't even know what my opinion *is* on many subjects. While it would be nice if there was at least some congruency, not everything is important, and I still respect people with whom I strongly disagree. For instance, while I'm anti-organised religion, I still think Augustine was a pretty cool guy. I'm very much not a pacifist, but I'm friends with (at least) two practising Quakers.

That being said, there are some opinions I have that are non-negotiable. I don't think of our military as peacekeepers, for instance, and would have difficulty voting for anybody who would neuter our armed forces in such a way. I think our poor and middle-class already pay their fair share of taxes, so if the government needs more revenue, take it from the 150k+ annual set. I don't mind at all if gasoline hits European price points, and I really don't mind if the government takes better than half that in taxes. The first opinion puts me in strong opposition to many in my demographic, and the latter two would actually put a fair crimp in the lives of many more of those, but c'est la vie.

I don't actually care if a politician is like me. In fact, it's difficult to find anybody at all even close to me, never mind precisely like me. How many former soldiers do you know who have a BA, are earning another, and work as a system administrator in a school of computer science while paying for their disabled common-law wife to go to university? Thought so.

What I care about though, is politicians who claim to be like... well, anybody else at all. How many times have you heard "I'm like Joe Sixpack, I like beer and hockey and I know what it's like to be lower to middle class"?

Stephen Harper does still actually sit in the stands at hockey games, but he does so with a retinue, unobtrusive as it is, and he can't pick a favourite because whatever he picks, it's wrong. Sarah Palin may indeed once have been the moose-hunting hockey mom she professes to be, but she isn't any more. She's a state governor turned VP candidate. Even Liz May, who tipped a few pints back at the Grad House on campus here, is not much like you or I. She's the leader of a national political party and when she speaks, leaders of other parties listen. Andrew Telegdi was once an undergraduate student at the University of Waterloo, but he hasn't been for as long as I've been alive.

Tyler Durden says: "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!"

Politicians are nothing like me or you (unless you're a politician too), and it's insulting when they pretend to be. Even if Stephen Harper's favourite NHL team really is the Oilers, that just means that he and I both happen to like the same team, nothing more. If Liz May favours the same Grad House beer I do, that just means she has good taste. If Peter Braid runs a business like I used to, that just means we were both once small businessmen.

That being said, I found James Bow's writeups of the local candidates valuable in helping to understand where the local politicians come from. And to their credit, I don't think any of them pretended to be like me beyond the most superficial qualities: well-educated well-off white folk living in Southwestern Ontario. I didn't change my mind based on what I saw, and the candidate for whom I will vote Tuesday is not at all like me, but I'm cool with that. So should you be.

This was something I could have used a few years ago, but maybe next time I'll remember where it is: MSN Shadow is a utility for examining MSN Messenger traffic in realtime or from pcap files.

All my professional career, I've been a member of service organizations. Granted, by some standards, that has not been for very long, but since I graduated from university, I've been a technician for a small business that sold and repaired PCs, I've been an owner of a business doing exactly the same thing, I've been a sysadmin type in an academic support department, and I'm now a system administrator in an academic unit.

A faculty member once said to me, "It's a relief to hear that you consider yourself to be in a service organization." I took that to mean that he didn't feel we (always) behaved as such. But how could it be organized any other way? We all report, ultimately, to a faculty member, and in our organization, it's faculty members who make the requests and drive the agenda. He could have been remarking that my own behaviour contraindicated this belief, but I don't think so. I will avoid false modesty and say that I know most faculty members and grad students for whom I do work are extremely happy with my work, as is my manager.

So why the statement? Has a clear mandate not been given to us, and if not, why not? (The fact that I ask this question gives a pretty clear answer: not really.) How do IT organizations perceive themselves? I used to think that mission statements were foolish, but I've changed my mind over the last several years. They allow an organization to not only publish a self-perception, but to ensure that staff members either are aware of this perception, or at least to not give them an excuse for being unaware of such. They allow people dealing with that organization to know what they're getting into and what to expect.

Ultimately, a service organization needs to define itself in terms of the person or group of people to whom it is giving service. I'm not entirely sure that's been done - not for our own group in particular, and not for most other service groups on campus. Even if statements of mission have been made, it's not clear that they have been promulgated or are under regular review to ensure they're still applicable.

Are you in a service organization? If not, how do you know that?

On my walk in to work this morning, I listened to a rebroadcast of the 30 September 2006 Quirks and Quarks show. Aside from some small disappointment that Ted Bundy made their list of serial killers, but not Alan Legere, there was a question raised in my mind by the conclusion.

One of the researchers interviewed posited that psychopathy is a mental disorder, just like chronic depression and others, and as such ought to be fairly understandable - and treatable. Well, we can tell when treatment for chronic depression is working; the person is no longer so severely depressed, or indeed, is "cured".

How can we tell when a psychopath is made better? It's not actually in the best interests of a psychopath to cooperate with treatment or the law, except insofar as it might get them released. Reliance on self-reporting is foolish in this case.

The tone of the podcast reminded me of the conclusion of a movie about another psychopath: "I was cured, all right!"

(From the archives of "posts I intended to publish a year ago." First written 2007-07-17, published 2008-10-04.)

An oldie but a goodie to bookmark: Microsoft on investigating a Windows PC.

It's pretty standard stuff, but they have some links to Windows tools scattered here and there through the text, some of which I hadn't heard of before.

(I started this post last summer, I'm just now getting around to posting it.)

Hack A Day had a post on how to get better service from "service representatives".

As commenter "joey y" says, how sad is it that we need a book to tell us that being nice to people from whom we want something is a good way to get that?

I make no secret of it that people who are nice to me are likely to get faster service than those who aren't. My time is a zero-sum game: I only have so much of it to give out, and frequently my time is entirely consumed by stuff I'm *supposed* to do. I always work extra hours (much to my wife's frustration), so given that my mere presence is entirely at my discretion, I feel no guilt in rewarding the good and punishing the poor. Thankfully, most of the people I work with seem to understand that making my life miserable isn't likely to get them what they want any faster.

Anybody who is bored enough to look at my weekly roundup posts out of more than mere duty (hi boss) knows that I've always got plenty on my plate. At the risk of almost working on a Saturday afternoon, I've currently got 90 individual requests of varying complexity in my queue, ranging in scope and complexity from "can't print" to "rebuild this cluster installation including OS, batch queue, authentication/authorization, and add some new hardware too." So anybody walking into my office is automatically taking away from one of those items - some of which are a couple of years old - even before they ask me to lift a finger to do anything at all. That's ok, it's what I'm paid for, I really don't mind. Much.

Somebody who walks into my office saying "Hi, I have a problem, can you please help me?" is naturally going to get better attention than somebody who walks in saying "Here's my problem, you fix it now." I'd apologize, but I wouldn't be really sorry, and that's just human nature. There's a difference between "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "I'm going to bother you and get under your skin in order to get what I think I need."

Here's how lame I am. I started this in May by copying the questions into a new post, saving the draft, and then forgetting all about it. In honour of Pookie and Schnookie, here's a picture of Marty Brodeur to accompany my entry, instead of the usual vaguely-related Oilers pic. This is my entry for the IPB Blogging Questionnaire.

1. What was your motivation for starting blogging? Has that changed at all in the time you've been blogging?

My motivation is mostly to have an outlet for these thoughts that would otherwise rattle around in my head. I could just write them down in a paper journal (and I sometimes do) but I'd like to think that I can occasionally contribute something interesting enough that others would want to read it.

2. What do you think your blog contributes to the hockey conversation?

Tough question, given that my blog is as often not-about hockey as it is, but I'd say mostly some interpretation of the goings-on in the hockey world, particularly as concerns the Edmonton Oilers.

3. What do you want to get out of the blogs you read?

I want them to be worth the time I spent reading them. That can be simple entertainment - hockey aside, I don't watch much television or many movies - or it can be interpretations that hadn't occurred to me. Ideally they'll make me think while I laugh.

4. What determines which blogs you read and which you don't?

They need to be original, and they need to either be informational or entertaining. Ideally they're all three, although those sorts of blogs are rare.

5. How important is the issue of gaining press access to you as a blogger?

I really don't give a toss about this. I don't have an NHL team within 200km of my current location (the Leafs don't count), and while I casually follow junior hockey, I'm not very interested in writing about it. I suppose it might be nice to get some dosh for my time spent in writing, but I'd need to write a lot more and a lot better for that to happen. Since that would require a large chunk of my time, it's not likely to go.

6. To what extent do you feel accountable for the content of your blog? How concerned do you think readers should be about the authority and accountability of your blog?

If I write something factually incorrect, about hockey or anything else, I want to be told. Part of my accountability would be to give credit to the corrector as well. I'd like readers to know when I say something whether it's my opinion or fact, and that my opinions are backed by some set of facts.

7. How concerned are you about the authority and accountability of the blogs you read? Do you find it difficult to judge the authority and accountability of the blogs you read?

I hold other writers to the same standards I hold myself. If I see the authors continually making personal attacks on others, I stop reading them. If I see the authors continually making stuff up and presenting it as fact, I stop reading them. Sometimes authority can be difficult to judge; stats-wise, I took first year stats 17 years ago and passed, but I've forgotten a lot of it, and really, we're forging new territory. It's pretty easy to tell if somebody's passing off fiction as fact though, as far as "so and so could be traded" or "so and so is on the outs with the team." First case, if none of their predictions are true, they're guessing the same as 99.9% of everybody else. Second case, they're probably full of crap.

8. What value, if any, do you think blogging brings to the NHL?

It gives fans a voice that we otherwise would not have. Like anything else, when you give people a voice you sometimes wish they would exercise their right to shut up, but that's life. Even if only 0.1% of what's written is worth reading, that's still a valuable contribution.

In the spirit of Lowetide, this is a picture of the Puente de Aleconetar, a bridge in Spain built by the Romans. Unlike LT, I was not around when the bridge was built, so I can't tell you much more than I found it after a few minutes of browsing around at wikimedia.

I've not been posting much actual hockey recently, since my life has been busy and I've been out of the "sphere" for the last several weeks. I wondered why David Staples commented on a post that's over a year old, but now that I've done some catching up in my RSS reader, I guess I can see why. There's a lot of infighting and something I can only describe as penis-waving going on.

I'm also seeing a lot of whining about how the "sphere" ain't what it used to be in the long ago far away of The Great Exodus From HFBoards. Here's another older post of mine, similar in theme if not content.

All you guys who are whining about how things aren't like they used to be, and you want some other place that's more comfortable? Shut up and make your places the way you want them to be. The tubes change. They change every day. I've been around one hell of a lot longer than most of you all who are bitching and moaning and tearing at your hair, and I'm here to tell you, you can spend your time bitching about change, or you can adapt to it. One of those is productive, and the other isn't. I'm sure I don't need to hold up a sign to say which is what. In other words, build a bridge and get over yourself.

Would you rather bitch, or produce?

And with that, *I'm* off to be productive.

(Link to original photo, including Creative Commons 3.0 license under which it was distributed.)

I'm helping a faculty member and a grad student with classifying Google queries in various ways. One that keeps coming up over and over is queries for systems of playing the lottery. I'm hoping that this page will eventually come up, because guys, the only way to consistently win playing the lottery is to keep your money in your pocket. There's a reason governments like to run these things, and it isn't because they love you, it's because they make a boatload of money.

I'm not getting much out of helping out by making a fairly quick decision and clicking approximately 4,000 times, although the faculty member's going to spring for lunch at a fairly decent local restaurant (I've never been to it, but I hear it's good). Nevertheless, I'm getting more out of the repeated lottery queries than the people making them are likely to get. TANSTAAFL, but sometimes you can get one for not much more than an investment of time. The same can't be said of lottery tickets.

Oh, it's also kind of funny how many single-word searches like "erotica" and related terms there are. You don't need to look for that stuff; just open all your email attachments, you'll eventually get all the popups you need...