seeinred

Well that's gonna be a penalty every single time I think. Not a bad one to take I guess.

Sorry, like an idiot I forgot the link then left and didn't realize it until I got back to my computer http://www.myp2pforum.eu/nhl/17961-hockey-...-streaming.html

Go here, read the directions, do them and enjoy. http://www.myp2pforum.eu/nhl/17961-hockey-...-streaming.html Forgot the link and left my computer. Sorry

In most cases I agree. That one there is an example where I think it's fine to call both. Kopecky did interfere with him, buy Nichol also took a pretty good dive.

That is one of the worst dives I've ever seen I think.

Haha I was wondering if that was him or if a mic caught Gordie saying it. And did he not shake Arnott's hand or did I just miss that?

It's unbelievable how easy it was to score in Gordie's day. He makes it look that way, anyway. And wow, that's sweet. The original score sheet from his 1st game. I'm amazed they have that still.

My prediction remains the same. 14-2 Wings Datsyuk with 6 points to break 100. If I predict it forever, I might be right once before I die.

I need someone to hide this thread... Have a good Saturday night LGWers

Bare assertion fallacy. Until you get it, we won't get anywhere in this discussion. You keep proclaiming facts that are not, in fact, facts. I'm leaning more towards this position as well. I just meant that I think Babs will stick with him as he has continued to do, and that since I think he'll do that, I can only hope the Huddlebeast will be unleased during the playoffs.

Hmmm, tough question really. Hopefully this is my last look and post before I head out for the evening.

You keep insinuating or saying outright that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either blind or stupid. It's making you look nothing short of spectacularly ignorant considering I've shown more than once how that view is wrong. Now you're making another jump. You're now saying that if someone plays poorly in their own end, they automatically have a bad game. Again, this happens to be an opinion that you are stating as fact. HC3033 said that Huds played poorly in his own end. She did not say he had a bad game because of it. It is obviously her opinion, as well as other people's I'm sure, that a player can have a bad game defensively and not have a terrible game overall. Like I said, you've yet to state an actual fact in support of your argument. And now you're just repeating the same thing over and over, which in turn makes me have to try to explain why you're wrong over and over, and it's really getting less and less fun.

I don't have a problem with your point at all. You said what you meant to say and your reasons for your opinion, and I tend to agree with a fair amount of it. You also do it without the ad hominems, unlike Hank=FutureCaptain. Your thoughts show an understandable thought process, which makes it easier to take your opinion seriously for the other side. You aren't just asserting that you're right and expecting us to believe it. But for the record, I haven't given up on Hudler. I'm hoping that if he gets ice time during the playoffs he can really turn it. I do agree he didn't play well last night, but I'm not saying he needs to be cut or anything.

I'm worried now. I went through a phase like this with a similar game-type thread on another message board. Maybe I'll make a version of it here...

Wow. You really are missing the most simple part of my assertion there. Let me attempt to explain it again: There is no standard for terrible play. If there were a chart we could look at and compare it to everything a player did during the game and it was accepted by everyone, then terrible and good would be objective terms that can be measured. Instead, they are quite the opposite. They are subjective terms by which different people have different standards of evaluation. Like I said, you are making a bare assertion fallacy, which means you expect us to believe what you say is correct for the sole reason that you say it is. I said it before, but it doesn't work that way. I don't know if you know anything about logical fallacies or not, but it's a formal fallacy and renders your argument invalid.

You quoted my post that was in response to MrSandMan's argument that Hudler sucked because he caused a goal for the Blues and didn't show up on the scoresheet. That is what he said, plainly and simply. And for the record, that was my point this whole time, that a player can perform well without being on the score sheet. If anyone's not reading posts, it's you.

You have yet to come up with a single fact or concrete example in your argument. You're stating opinions that you have without backing them up, and you're trying to make other people feel stupid for disagreeing with you. It's how a 3rd grader argues.

Let me make a simple analogy here. Say you like the movie Goodfellas. Say HC3033 doesn't. You have an opinion. She has an opinion. The movie is on film, yet there can still be opinions about it. You can't just declare your opinion to be the correct one. It is your OPINION that Hudler sucked last night. Other people believe that he didn't. This is very different than your example regarding the Winged Wheel. It is, in fact, red because it absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects others. It is a FACT that it is red. Anyone who argues otherwise can be shown, with concrete, indisputable evidence that they are wrong. You're making what's known as a bare assertion fallacy. Something isn't true because you say it is. You have to prove it.

Ugh, this is frustrating. 1st, no, it was not a "WEAK" argument. It was incredibly relevant and disproved one element of what MrSandMan had said, that one of the reasons Huddles sucked was because he wasn't on the score sheet. 2nd, you contradicted yourself and proved what I was pointing out in my previous post: that just because a player doesn't register a point doesn't mean they played poorly. 3rd, you're right, it's not rocket science. Rocket science is about facts and scientific theories. Hudler's performance is completely subjective and based on opinions. 4th, I brought up the ad hominems before. They make you look like a child. Bottom line is that if you call someone an idiot in a discussion, people aren't likely to take you very seriously and it greatly damages any credibility that you may have had.

Oh God, I can't stop opening the thread now.

Oops, I opened it again. This game is hard.

Well, it wasn't my 1st post, but it was my 1st in a looooooong time in this thread. And Taco Bell is good, but a spicy chicken from Wendy's beats it every time.

No, no. I was just saying that your stat sheet argument isn't terribly relevant. I told you before that I agree with a lot of what you've been saying, and one of those is that Hudler did not play very well at all last night. I don't know about cutting him, but he definitely needs to step up big time.

Well I wouldn't want to push my luck

3 D ANDREAS LILJA 5 D NICKLAS LIDSTROM © 11 R DANIEL CLEARY 17 R DALLAS DRAKE 18 L KIRK MALTBY 22 D BRETT LEBDA 24 D CHRIS CHELIOS 25 R DARREN MCCARTY 26 C JIRI HUDLER 33 C KRIS DRAPER 44 C MARK HARTIGAN 51 C VALTTERI FILPPULA 55 D NIKLAS KRONVALL 82 R TOMAS KOPECKY 30 G CHRIS OSGOOD 35 G JAMES HOWARD So since none of these guys were on the scoresheet last night, they all sucked? Are you saying a player needs a point to play well?