Americans Consider Ban on Fighting in Junior, Hope Canada Follows
Friday, January 27, 2012
USA Hockey is looking to ban fighting from its junior ranks and is hoping Canadian hockey does the same.
At its recent winter meetings, USA Hockey recommended that fighting be eliminated at the Tier I, II and III levels. The proposal, which will go to a formal vote in June and could be implemented for the 2012-13 season, calls for National Collegiate Athletic Association-style sanctions to penalize fights. (In the NCAA, a player who fights receives a game misconduct and must sit out the next game, too. There are increased suspensions for every additional fight a player has.)
USA Hockey also asked that Canada work to ban fighting, too. The rationale is that player safety is paramount and that blows to the head from fighting could cause brain injuries in young players and result in lawsuits.
Jim Johannson, USA Hockey's assistant executive director of hockey operations, said "everything that's been going on in the game - player safety, the number of injuries and where fighting fits into that" was the impetus for taking a tougher stand on fighting.
"Whatever we do there'll be a fight in junior hockey next season," Johannson said. "But if kids are in this level of hockey and fighting x amount of times, then what's going on? We have a responsibility to safeguard the game at the minor levels. This is not the NHL, and that's not a criticism of the NHL. These are kids under 20 playing hockey."
Canadian hockey officials are willing to discuss the fighting issue and do what's best for the players. Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson participated in a meeting with USA Hockey during the 2012 world junior tournament in Edmonton and said Thursday: "We want to remove fighting from the game, but we don't want to create other violent acts that may occur. We'll work hand in hand with USA Hockey."
Kirk Lamb, chairman of the Canadian Junior Hockey League, also took part in the world junior meeting with USA Hockey, and insisted it was important to make smart decisions, not ones with "unintended consequences."
"Player safety involves more than just fighting," Lamb said. "It's about attitudes of players and coaches and making sure we adopt rules that encourage change in those attitudes. If, after considering all the information available it's decided fighting needs to be removed, we just want to be sure that we do it in a way that doesn't trade one type of violence for another, such as head shots or dangerous hits."
The CJHL will soon formulate data collected from its leagues that allow a player to fight twice in the same game and compare it to leagues where only one fight is permitted. It's that sort of hard-core analysis Canadian hockey officials are willing to share with their American counterparts.
"We've done some pretty good things in junior A in the last 18 months," Lamb said of the CJHL's disciplinary efforts to reduce fighting and violence. "We put the offer out to [USA Hockey], 'Let's work together.'"
Getting the Canadian Hockey League to follow USA Hockey's no-fighting plan might not be easy. The Ontario, Quebec and Western major junior leagues are associate members of Hockey Canada and govern themselves. They're prime feeders for the NHL and, as such, allow on-ice fights as part of a player's professional development. Ron Robison, commissioner of the Western Hockey League, was at the world-junior meeting with USA Hockey, and Thursday he reiterated how the CHL is "partnered with the NHL and we have an understanding to mirror their rules."
"From a WHL/CHL perspective, we feel strongly our role is to prepare players for the next level and as long as fighting is an element of that, we need to prepare the players so they can protect themselves," Robison said, adding that fighting in the WHL is down 10 per cent compared to a year ago.
"We monitor [fighting] very closely," he added. "I think the game is evolving to a point where there are less one-dimensional players, if any. The focus today is on speed and skill."
USA Hockey concurred with that, but is still hoping for a significant show of support from its northern neighbours.
"They're important stakeholders," Johannson said of Hockey Canada, the CHL and the CJHL. "The hope for them is that all of us agree about the need to look out for the good of the sport and the players in it."
By Allan Maki
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This type of article and discussion drives me nuts. Fighting is already banned in minor hockey and all levels of Junior under the OHL. ( Aside from several Tier 2 leagues out west that still have the 2 fight rule)
According to Dropyourgloves.com there is an average of 0.25 fights per game in the OJHL . . . . so about 1 in 4 games have a fight. This is hardly like days of the past. When was the last time you have seen a linebrawl? I mean a real linebrawl? When was the last time you have seen 5-6 fights in a game?
FACT
Fighting is way down in the lower Jr ranks
example
http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Fights/LeagueSeason.aspx?League=70&Season=2012
Central Jr C is average 0.25 fights per game . . . . Harldy seems like the "jungle" C days of the past. And interesting to note that it is on par with the OJHL - not the goon hockey it sometimes gets branded.
FACT
because fighting is down - there are less and less 1 role guys in the league. Even guys like Leroux from Peterborough can play (when he wants too). The days of a 1-2 shift goon that takes his 45 seconds of ice -and fights are done.
FACT
Minor hockey already has harsh cumulative suspensions in place. IN the OMHA, GTHL and Alliance - if you fight your 1st one is 2 games, 2nd fight is 4 games and 3rd fight is indefinite pending a hearing. Plus an instigator is 3 games, an aggressor is 3 games. So if you fight and also pick up the instigator - you are sitting 5 games.
FACT
The OHA has suspensions in place to penalize fighting. If you fight in the last 10 min of the game you are suspended for 1 game. This has really cut down on "message sending" and pointless fights. From the OJHL games I have seen when there is a fight - they are fighting for a reason. The (and I hate the term) but 'staged fights' where the 2 goons fight for no reason does not happen anymore. Plus the OHA has cumulative suspensions for instigators and aggressors. Finally, the OHA has eliminated the fine option for the Gross misconduct for removing the helmet - now if you take your bucket off to fight it is an automatic 1 game suspension.
I am not trying to wade into the pro fighting - anti fighting debate. Whether we need fighting in the game or we dont need fighting IMO is not the issue here.
Fighting is way down . . . only 1 in 4 games actually has a fight. There are already harsh suspensions in place for fighting. So why are we wasting time and resources talking about changing the fighting rules?
YOu could make the suspension 100 games and you would still have a fight or two.
In conclusion, my opinion on the topic is " if it aint broke - dont fix it" I think we are at a happy medium here. The senseless goonery of the 80's and 90's is long behind us. Like I mentioned earlier - the fights that happen now are "hockey" fights - they are the result of tough physical hockey. There are acts of emotion - they are part of the game. Were not talking about Colton Orr dropping the gloves with Jody Shelly.
I would think that the overwhelming majority of people dont mind the odd scrap in a good intense game . .
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
We'll never go this route, because the bleeding hearts will prevent it, but we should be following Western Canada's lead and go to the two-fight rule.
I've been covering junior hockey for nearly 30 years now, and I long for the days of the good old Metro Junior Hockey League.
While touch icing was a lot of fun from a photographer's standpoint, especially in the old DukeDome, abolishing it has resulted in a lot fewer injuries. That's a good thing.
But the two-fight rule cuts cheap shots and stick infractions down dramatically. There has been far more nasty stick work in the OJHL than there ever was in the Metro loop, because lumberjacks found out quickly that if they were vicious with their sticks they may get beat up twice in the same game for their indiscretions. It also prevented a highly skilled player with an edge from having an opposing coach send a player out to goad him into a fight so he'd get tossed early. Instead, with the two-fight rule you could get the crap out of the way early and concentrate on playing hockey. It makes for a much better game for the players and the fans.
Another thing the two-fight rule does is shut-up all those chirpers who hide behind their bird cages. When you run your mouth you deserve a slap in the lips. A prime example occurred last Friday night in Trenton when a cage-wearing player from the Jr. Canadiens was running his mouth after a post-whistle scrum. When the Golden Hawks' Spencer MacCormack invited him to dance and motioned him to remove his bonnet, he suddenly stopped chirping and couldn't get to the bench quick enough. I hate that gutless crap.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The recent Harvard concussion study concluded that the force of punch is equal or greater to the hits that put out he big NHL guys with concussions...do we say the risk of concussions are ok in fights but not during play? Or is it ok to put tough guy careers at risk over superstars?
Aussie Rules, rugby, football are all violent sports where players can control themselves and protect themselves without the threat of fisticuffs
Chirping? How about ignoring them? Or better yet score a goal to shut them up
No there no good reason for fighting in today's game with what we know...but it's not going anywhere because it sells th game to he average fan and most hockey guys pine for te good ole days and don't like change ...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In response to Tim . . . I agree with you 100%. IMO the 2 fight rule produces a better game. Junior A and B lacrosse still uses the 2 fight rule and it has a much different effect on the game - much like you describe.
In response to highfader. I do not want to engage you in debate. As shown through past topics in fighting the anti-fighting people are stubborn and wont budge and the pro fighting people are just as stubborn. It is a polarizing topics and you are not going to change people opinions.
That being said . . I would simply like to comment on your post. I respect your viewpoint and would simply like to share my own view on the points you brought up.
- concussions. Hockey is a game of risk. Can we eliminate all concussions? Anyone can find a study to prove their own point. Not taking anything away from the Harvard study but look at the NHL study that found that the majority of concussions are caused by "non hockey plays" like accidental collisions, falling. No matter what rules we put in place there will still be that element of risk. An elite hockey player ( were not taking kids ) accepts the risk when he steps on the ice or decides to drop the gloves.
-Rugby, football, aussie rules football. First point - fighting has never been tolerated in their sport. So of course they can play without it. That being said - those sports are not immune from the occasional fight or frequent dirty play.
When you watch Hockey at the Olympics people always say " see hockey with no fighting - isnt it great" Forgetting that it is the best players in the world with only a handful of teams playing and in a single elimination tourament (after round robin)
Same goes for rugby - when you watch the world cup or similar tournament you see a fairly clean game. I have played rugby at the highschool and at the university level. I have seen cleats used a weapon, I have seen guys get kicked, stomped, hair pulled, punched, bitten even eye gouged No there might not be fighting in rugby where they can 'square off' and duke it out but thats ok - you can kick him in the balls with your cleats during a ruck.
Chirping - I agree with you here. This can be a silly reason to fight. Often scoring another goal is the best comeback to a mouthy player - What can the guy say when he is losing.
I agree with Tim. The 'bleeding hearts' are trying to do the politically correct thing and remove anything that is controverial from sport. The anti-fighting crowd has an awesome grasp upon propaganda - they make you believe the movement is gaining steam where in fact the anti-fighting crown is a small yet very loud minority.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Good points and i respect and really agree with them....in fact I like fighting in the game myself BUT if u started a league today from scratch with all the information we have on concussions and such a focus on development....nobody in good consience could allow fighting as part of the game...there are hundreds of good sound reasons against it, while a very few weak one for it....
But like I say it here to stay
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I also agree there have been some good points made here. I also would like to add a few points myself. Arbitrarily banning fighting from the game under the guise of protecting the player is about as sensible as replacing only the 2 rear tires on a rear drive car with 4 bald tires so you get better traction in the snow.
There are alot of supporting solutions that need serious addressing first before you just ban fighting. Helmets have expiry dates, enforce them, and if it has been involved in a serious injury to the head or spinal column make it manditory to replace it (confiscate it or have the officals sign it on the shell indullibly, along with a game sheet notation). Make it part of the officiating duties of a game.
Just about every report I have read on concussions in hockey concludes that the helmet and cage combination along with a properly fitted dental mouth guard is the best precaution against a concussion, and maybe bring back the fine for fighting if the buckets are removed, not too many guys will punch cages and helmets for long, enforce it.
Mandate all players south of the OHL or it's breathern where a full system just like the NCAA. Officiating must police the fit. Chin straps properly adjusted, cages properly installed, and any damage to the unit is an equipment infraction and a penalty noted on the game sheet.
Mandate baseline testing, the major Jr teams do it as does NCAA and the Pro ranks. The softwear is expensive, but the league could negotiate a program as was done in the OHL et all. The program is also available online so the test can be done immediately via a laptop (for best results they do recommend you wait 24hrs to test post incident)and the encrypted results emailed immediately to a supervising neuologist who will read it and reply by phone within 24 hrs.
I purchased the softwear personally and baseline all my players prior to them stepping on the ice. The baseline testing would and could be set up and done in the same fashion as they introduced the pointstreak, and website, etc program a few years ago. I would bet the money they save on dental work and facial injuries filed through the Hockey Canada insurance would come close to paying a large portion of each individual team's cost by year 2-3.
So,in my opinion lets replace all 4 tires not just the traction ones cause when you get traction it would be nice to steer it where you want to go. Just my 2 cents worth...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It's only an anecdote, as I don't have the data, but I do see far less stickwork and dirty play here in the AJHL - whether that's correlated with the two-fight rule, I can't say for sure.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Fighting not necessary in Jr. A hockey
View more by John Cudmore Cuddy Shark
Hockey Canadas desire to remove fighting from junior hockey and below is hardly new.
It is a punchy issue, though, probably with as many detractors as there are proponents.
But you wouldnt get an argument from either the Aurora Tigers James Richmond or the Newmarket Hurricanes Brian Perrin, general managers and coaches for their respective Ontario Junior Hockey League teams, if fighting was to vanish at the Canadian Junior Hockey League level.
Yes, fighting draws people out of their seats at NHL rinks, where guys are paid salaries to wail on each other. Agreed, there is a buzz when two guys drop the mitts at the junior level, too.
Were not the NHL, Perrin observed. I feel at this level, it should be banned. I dont see much point to it. Kids are watching the UFC and their ability to fight now is better than ever. My biggest fear is some kid banging his head on the ice and then is no longer with us.
Of course, precisely that scenario occurred a few years ago when Sr. A player Don Sanderson died shortly after striking his head on the ice during a fight.
As a strategic ploy, fighting accomplishes little in the Jr. A game. Teams no longer carry a player whose role is solely to tune up the opposition. Rare are fights beyond the end of the regular season, when playoff stakes are high.
In terms of practicality, whats the point? Is there really a call to fists in a developmental league where the bulk of the players are striving to move on to collegiate programs, which are even more stringent in dealing with fisticuffs?
At present, fighting in the OJHL is an automatic game misconduct. Fighting in the final 10 minutes of the third period carries an automatic one-game suspension. Aggressor and instigator penalties apply, adding to the list of suspendable offences. In the NCAA, fighting carries an additional game suspension for first-time offenders.
Theres not as much fighting as three years ago, Richmond said. It slows the game down. At our level, there is the risk of serious injury, because you have 16 and 17 year olds being grabbed by older players. Kids are trying to go the NCAA route and there is no fighting there.
Perrin agreed, pointing to the safety issue in an age when the focus is to reduce head injuries.
A lot of kids have their future ahead of them and are not looking to fight, Perrin said. Everybody is worrying about headshots and checking from behind, so the next logical step is to take out fighting. Its a blow to the head.
Richmond said the notion of eliminating fighting met a lot of pushback when it was presented for consideration by Hockey Canada last off-season.
Even at the CJHL level, there is no standard application for fighting.
In western Canada, for instance, a two-fight policy exists.
Im not against it, but Im not for staged fighting, Richmond said.
For the record, Richmond recalls the most recent fight by a Tigers player was Dec. 9 in a game against Newmarket. In that bout, forward Daniel Lisi went over on an ankle and was lost to the club for several games. That was the last game in which a Hurricanes player fought, too.
Both teams seem to be doing just fine without dropping a glove.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Were not the NHL, Perrin observed. I feel at this level, it should be banned. I dont see much point to it. Kids are watching the UFC and their ability to fight now is better than ever. My biggest fear is some kid banging his head on the ice and then is no longer with us.
Of course, precisely that scenario occurred a few years ago when Sr. A player Don Sanderson died shortly after striking his head on the ice during a fight. "
-------------
A few problems with this.
1. Fighting is already 'banned' in the OJHL - you are kicked out of the game and possibly suspended. If you increase the suspension like the NCAA where it is 1 game for your 1st, then 2 games for your 2nd, and 3 games for your third etc . . . . guess what . . there will still be fights. Plus, if such a policy goes in place imagine the backlash when a team loses one of its better players for a LONG time because of a fight.
Remember a few years ago where the OHA experimented with suspending guys after 3 fights, with 6 fights being an indefinite suspension? How long did that last? It created a whole barrage of problems. Start players were being goaded into fights. More aggressive players who already had 2 or 3 fights and did not want a suspension resorted to nasty stickwork as a GM for a slashing major for example is a 0 game suspension. (unless in last 10 min now)
2. Kids are watching the UFC - really? I watch the UFC. Do I think I am the next heavyweight champ? No. That is ridiculous to say that watching UFC on TV makes kids better fighting than ever before.
I have seen a few fights this year in the OJHL and I can saw that fighting is not what it used to be. Sure there are a handful of guys that can really throw them. But common, the average Joe in this league cannot fight. It is not like the days of the 80's and 90's where we might have 5 fights a game and every team carried at least 4-5 "FIGHTERS" . . . those guys knew how to fight because it was their single role on the team.
3. Sanderson - Yes the death of Sanderson was tragic. In now way to diminish what happened but how many other deaths have their been? In reality, Sanderson was a freak accident. When Zednik had his throat slashed by the skate of Joikenin, if Zednik had died on the ice - would we be playing hockey in rubber boots?
Sanderson hit his head on the ice - both players removed their helmets before the fight. The OHA has since changed its fighting policies. Players are no longer allowed to remove their helmets. Also, players are no longer allowed to "square off"
---------------------------
"Kids are trying to go the NCAA route and there is no fighting there. "
Do people really believe there is no fighting in the NCAA? Let's be honest here. Sure fighting is very uncommon in the NCAA. In terms of frequency it is nothing like the OHL or even the OJHL. Yet, fights do happen. Each team probably has 3-4 fights in a season. Go look through some boxscores. I get what their saying in terms of the OJHL does not need to train kids to fight when they are supplying them to a league that might have a few fights a season. . . i get that . . . . but is the OJHL really training kids to fight? Like in my previous post - fighting is not what it used to be . . remember 1 in 4 games have fights.
------------------------------
Im not against it, but Im not for staged fighting, Richmond said.
For the record, Richmond recalls the most recent fight by a Tigers player was Dec. 9 in a game against Newmarket. In that bout, forward Daniel Lisi went over on an ankle and was lost to the club for several games.
I think the general consensus of people is that "staged fighting" is not necessary int he game. First of all, I HATE . . HATE the term "staged fighting" to the outsider, the non hockey fan it sounds as if it is fake. While there may be no purpose to the fight, the players are still fighting for real. That being said - how many "staged fights" do we see now? The OHA has mandated a no "square off" rule where the linesman are supposed to stop guys from making a 'show' before a fight. IF they want to fight they have to drop them quick and get at it.
That is unfortunate that Lisi broke his ankle . . . . you can do that catching a rut in the corner too.
----------------------
The anti fighting crowd would love to brand me one of their typical insults such as neanderthal, or knuckle dragger, or meathead, or old school whatever the insult of the day is.
Yet I feel that the pro fighting crowd does not get the respect they deserve. Many of us are enlightened and progressive in our views.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Wow - whoever wrote that last article needs to check his facts
He wrote
"For the record, Richmond recalls the most recent fight by a Tigers player was Dec. 9 in a game against Newmarket. In that bout, forward Daniel Lisi went over on an ankle and was lost to the club for several games. That was the last game in which a Hurricanes player fought, too.
Both teams seem to be doing just fine without dropping a glove."
Ok lets have a look at the poinstreak,
Newmarket Since DEc9
Dec 15 - 1 fight and both were issued Gross misconducts for Removing helmet to fight
Dec 22 - 3 fights in 1 game
Aurora since Dec 9
Dec 23- 1 fight, 1 mini-brawl players got 2 +10 but the goalies left the crease to join in
Jan 3 - 1 fight
So it looks like they have dropped a glove since Dec 9. Not a lot of fights but this is on par with the rest of the league.
Check your facts before you spout off.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Newmarket Era and Aurora Banner sports reporter John Cudmore's column, Cuddy Shark, appears every Thursday.
Hockey fan 2 - you are definitely one of the Don Cherry disciples who keep the game in the dark ages with your neanderthal thinking - noone ever got hurt from a hockey fight - right ?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
People do get hurt in fights. Knuckles / hands can be broken. Orbital bones and noses can be broken. Players can be cut or concussed and worst case scenario someone hits their head on the ice.
I am not advocating in any way to return the goonery days of the past. I like the game just the way it is right now - and I wouldnt say the game right now is the "dark ages".
You don't know me. Using insults such as "don cherry's" disciples and "neanderthal" is precisely what I said the anti-fighting crowd will do. When the anti-fighting crowd runs out of good points to make (which there are more than a few good anti-fighting points) they result to name-calling to make themselves feel superior.
Duke - it would be the same if I insinuated that you are a granola crunching , tree hugging flower child who wishes everyone can just "play nice" . . . . .but I know better to assume something foolish.
I get it - you don't think fighting has any role in the game. I respect your opinion. Just like while I disagree with Cudmore, I respect his opinion. My main problem with his article was in the inaccurate facts he used to prove a point. That is lazy journalism - a simply poinstreak search proved him wrong.
What I don't understand why the anti-fighting crowd has the inability to respect the pro-fighting stance. (and I shouldnt really say pro -fighing . . . .how about status quo stance. )
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Call me a dinosaur or a Grapes clone if you want, but there still should be a code we play by. And I don't want to see crap after every whistle, I hate all that post-whistle machismo, but we all know there are players who cross the line and break the code. Hell, some flat out ignore it on a regular basis. Those players must be held accountable for their actions. Some players need a slap in the yap once in awhile. Maybe if their parents had done it when they stepped out of line and failed to show respect, we'd have less spoiled and coddled kids today.
But as for hockey, the do-gooders, bleeding hearts and alarmists amongst us will deny it like a Republican denies global warming, but fighting keeps sleazebags honest, cuts down on cheap shots and stick work. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin it otherwise, history has shown this to be fact.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
i like the rough stuff after whistles and fights but thats just me its part of the action its part of the game. but id like to see a system where its one fight 5 minutes in the sin bin then back on the 2nd fight would get you a game misconduct
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Way to blow an innocent comment way out of proportion, Chillyrink. Now you have me pegged as a child beater. Other than the odd slap on the hand when they were toddlers needing to be taught right from wrong, I never struck my children. However, I coached enough spoiled and coddled kids over the years to know more parents should have found way to keep their kids in line.
It's comments like that that prove too many people don't understand the code, and don't mind when mouthpieces and stick artists hide behind their bird cages.
You were probably one those clowns who wanted corporal punishment out of our schools, when in fact if the powers that be had left things alone we wouldn't need metal detectors in our high schools in order to attempt to keep our kids safe.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Just as running up scores or fighting or no fighting, the debate will go for the ages.
I can honestly say that though I am a proponent of taking fighting out the game, I can see the merit of both arguments.
This is the only team sport that condones and encourages it as an equalizer and a right of ritual.
But what I really like in this thread, is the obvious passion for each side of the fighting issue. The considerable eloquence is impressive when we put our collective minds to an issue.
I do not know who said this but it's appropriate for this thread;
"the best offence comes from getting off the fence."
Stay tuned.
Wayjoy
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
you just proved my point here - that many of the anti-fighting people result to name-calling and insults.
Why not take the opportunity when posting to write about what you actually think about the topic?
We know what Tim was saying. We have all seen it. The guys who runs around with boarder line dirty play, every stoppage in play the guy acts 'tough' till the linesman get in there. Those are the guys that need a 'smack' every now and then LOL. It is just a figure of speech.
At least when highfader was debating with me at the beginning of this thread he takes the time to make articulate arguments against fighting. That I can respect.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Duke2160 you have poor comprehension skills and miss the point entirely. But considering the nonsense I've read from you for years, I shouldn't be surprised. I've forgotten more about this game than you'll ever know.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Duke is what many refer to as a "troll" . He likely did not post his own opinion because he agrees with us.
Dukes past history on the forum indicates that he sits at home and waits to 'stir the pot' for no reason.
Look at how he pounced on Sharpie and takes advantage of every opportunity to trash the guy online yet in a reality is too chicken to say anything to his face.
And thanks Wayne - good points. I think most people can see the arguments for both sides. I think it is obvious where I stand on the issue yet I do understand why people are against it and I do understand the underlying risk of concussions or other injuries. Some people are so blinded by their own opinion that it takes away from their argument.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
