Evidently you have a short memory as well. If you didn't think a Wings fan wrote it, why would you even post this?
Yea, you could say all that... but it still came down to a single goal in game 7. It doesn't take a genius to formulate that its a DAMN close series when one team wins game SEVEN by a final of 4-3. My point is that, when it is THAT close, a retarded, at best slightly humorous "eulogy" bashing the other team only makes you look like a moron. Whoever wrote that acted like the Wings swept the Ducks and it just makes you and your fans look retarded.
The Wings survived that series more than they won it.
Bottom line, you assumed the eulogy was written by a Wings fan and the point was to bash the ducks bc they lost the series. Then you just started popping off like a jackass without even bothering to read it. If you had, you would know that nothing you thought had any truth to it.
How did the author of the eulogy act like the Wings swept the Ducks? Neither the Red Wings nor the Red Wings-Ducks playoff series is ever mentioned in it.
Furthermore, how exactly does the eulogy reflect on Wings fans when it wasn't even written by a Wings fan?
did YOU read it? Here's what it says genius.
Gone but not forgotten, we've asked for these losers to be eulogized by the people who knew the teams best: The fans who hated them the most.
NOWHERE does it say who those fans are. On my first reading of it, with the intense rivalry in the past few years with the Ducks and Red Wings playing each other all the time, it's not a leap of normal reasoning to assume that that meant the Red Wings. I didn't sit there analyzing who the author was and digging up background information. I read and commented and upon reading, the impression is that it was written by a Wings fan- chill out.
It's not only not obvious who wrote it, but points at Red Wings fans. You disagree. Whatever. But you're acting like at the top of the article it reads "WRITTEN BY PACIFIC DIVISION FANS"
Regardless, you have yet to try and counter my main critique of your previous argument anyway.
If we're arguing about hockey and the best you can come up with is that I misunderstood who wrote a hockey article, you're in trouble