Hamilton Saint

"There would be another song for me; For I will sing it; There would be another dream for me; Someone will bring it ..."

You've been following these Olympics closely, I see!

You're just sore that the Canadians' curling team trounced the Brits in the final, eh?

So quick with the put-down that you can't even read what he actually wrote. He didn't say that the "women's sport was on a par with the men's"; he said that the women's win was as good as the men's team winning. Different point, eh? And it was a really memorable win. The women's team is not packed with millionaire NHL players - it's more like an old-fashioned amateur team. And they've won four gold medals in a row. Not bad, eh?

You, too? Really? Still twelve games left. Does this mean you'll be taking a break from this site for a few months?

Really? Still twelve games left. Does this mean you'll be taking a break from this site for a few months?

Awesome, wasn't it?! In the first couple of minutes of OT it really looked like the US was going to score!

Now we're getting into semantics!! I used parochial to mean "having a limited or narrow view" - which is not the same in my opinion, as being narrow-minded. The latter phrase has a more negative connotation. Put it this way: if ice hockey, for example, is considered your country's national sport, then the Winter Olympics would be of great interest to you; if you go curling regularly at a local arena, you would be interested in the fate of your national team at the Winter Olympics. If you've never seen a live hockey game, or never participated in a curling match, then - of course - you're less likely to find either sport of interest. That's what I mean by parochial - lack of exposure or experience.

I didn't say "small-minded" - you're putting words in my mouth. I said parochial. You're not interested in them; well, that's fine - each to his own. But that doesn't make them "fake Olympics", or of no interest to people outside of Scandinavia - which was the opinion you said you strongly agreed with.

What you say is reasonable. My annoyance is for people who know nothing about the Winter Olympics (thinking, for example, that only Scandinavian countries care about them) and who then call it a "fake Olympics". It's like Brits putting down baseball as "glorified rounders"; or Yanks putting down cricket because of all the strange terminology and arcane rituals. If you participate in the sport, or if you understand how it's played, you'll find it of interest. Pretty basic concept.

Jamaica? Dominica? Bermuda? Virgin Islands? India? Philippines? Thailand? Greece? Cyprus? Togo? Zimbabwe? Etc?

"A good laugh" ...? Why? It doesn't have to be at the same "scale" as the "proper Olympics". It's different. But it is of immense interest to those who participate passionately in those sports: ice hockey, curling, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, free-style skating, ice dancing, etc. As usual [and the point I made before], one's interest is often prompted by one's familiarity or participation in the sport - and a difference in culture and climate!

I agree with you. It's not just that they invariably adopt a knee-jerk negative attitude to so many things about the Club, but that they feel it's OK to dominate most of the threads. On and on and on. Back and forth. On and on and on. The same handful of posters. All day; every day. Let the forum breathe. Let others have more of a say. Stop trying to dominate. Consider why these complaints keep coming up again and again.

For you, it's a "total non event". Do you realize how parochial you sound? "Does anyone really care much for it outside of Scandinavia"? Err ... Canadians, Americans, French, Italians, Czechs, Austrians, Swiss, Germans, etc., etc.

Note to self: avoid this place like the plague - for at least 48 hours - when Saints suffer a bad loss. OTT melodrama at its best.

"... bigger than a bread box; smaller than an elephant ..."

Fake Olympics?! They seem to care for it quite a lot over here. Fancy that! General rule for sport appreciation: if you've ever played or participated in a sport, you find it interesting to watch. When I was a kid I played football and cricket every day (during their repsective seasons) - so I found them both fascinating to watch onTV. When I first came to Canada I thought that baseball was the most ridiculous, overrated sport ever (like a glorified game of rounders). But I started to play it when I got to university ("softball"), and the nuances and intricacies of the game began to be revealed. Watching it on TV suddenly became a lot more interesting. And so it goes.

Thanks a lot for these!

revelatory

Lots of technical problems with this article. Beginning the whole thing with an apology is very weak stylistically. Most journalism (unless it's supposed to be an opinion piece, like the work of a columnist) avoids personal asides like "I was reminded", "I was extremely interested", "I'm sure you'll all agree", etc. It would sound more emphatic and authoritative, if you avoided that sort of self-referential thing. The second paragraph is a complete mess. The punctuation is all over the place. You need to review the proper use of the semi-colon and the comma. There are some redundancies: "speculation of transfer rumours", and "to quote the man himself" (no need to announce it - just do it), for example. The fourth paragraph begins with a mixed metaphor; and the second part of it ("which blew the poker table right open"), doesn't sound right anyway. Avoid using cliches like "cool, calm and collected". With names of people, avoid nicknames and chummy references. Give the manager's name in full at the first mention - Mauricio Pochettino - after that call him Mr. Pochettino, or Pochettino (depending on the outlet's style manual). Your use of "Pochettinos responses' " contains two errors (errors which illustrate two of my pet peeves): there should be an apostrophe between the o and s at the end of "Pochettinos" (to show possession); and there should not be an apostrophe at the end of "responses" (the plural form just takes an s at the end - no apostrophes needed anywhere). The gist of your article is good, but the delivery of it is undermined by lots of technical flaws. When you submit a piece of journalism to a paper, magazine, etc. (especially if it is done freelance), it should be virtually free of errors. Certain grammatical or punctuation issues might be debatable, but spelling people's names incorrectly (easily checked via the internet) is inexcusable. You shouldn't expect an editor, or sub-editor, to go through it and fix all the mistakes. They don't have the time or inclination. I would recommend reading and studying several good books about style, grammar and punctuation. The Lynn Truss book, Eats, Shoot and Leaves, is a good example. Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is excellent. And William Zinnser's On Writing Well is especially good for aspiring journalists - it is focused on non-fiction writing. Reading works such as this - written by highly-experienced writers and journalists - is a wonderful shortcut. You don't have to be in the business for decades in order to pick up a lot of this basic stuff. Good luck!

In an incredibly long career Pete Seeger made just ONE music video. At the age of 92 (in 2012) he recorded a video of Dylan's song "Forever Young". Since Pete's recent death, the video has gone viral. No wonder - it is inspiring.

Indeed! Should keep the negativity at bay.

Lambert! That'll shut a few people up, eh?!

Thanks for posting that!!!!!

You beauty!