A) It is total BS and the people who run the sport know it. Team owners in the U.S. realize attendance would crater without it. B) I have sipped the Kool Aid and buy the argument that it is a necessary safety valve that reduces nasty and dangerous stick infractions. Yes, I realize this means I believe that the referees are incapable of controlling games. C) Why doesn't anyone ever note that there isn't fighting in Olympic hockey and college hockey? D) I don't mind the rare spontaneous bout. But these enforcer vs. enforcer charades are ludicrous. E) It's why I am not tempted to take the sport seriously. F) So players in other contact sports are able to control their emotions and hockey players aren't? G) I can live with it on the NHL level, where it is declining. But the spectacle of children striking each other in the face is why I don't go to Spokane Chiefs games. H) I'm sorry that it often defines the sport in the minds of non-fans and detracts from appreciation of what gifted athletes these players are. I) If you have ever been to a game in person and noticed how excited the crowd got during a fight, you probably have an idea why the people who run the sport are inclined to keep coming up with rationalizations for keeping it in the game. J) If it's not a farcical sideshow, how come it virtually disappears during the Stanley Cup playoffs? K) What's hockey? L) Other.