Bourque out MacDermid in

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque out MacDermid in

    I guess we're sure to see Bourque get put back in the lineup then now that Boston lost without him. Surely CJ must be as smart as Stanley, Heyoo and Chowdah and realizes that's why they didn't win. Let's take your "logic" a step further then and have you admit that Nash isn't as good as Anisimov because the Rangers won more with Anisimov in the lineup instead. No other factors to consider at all right?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque out MacDermid in

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:


    Yes, Macdermid must've been the reason why the Bruins lost. Bourque would've turned that game around for sure. Let's totally ignore the fact the 3rd line was finally solid again and that the Bruins played a man short on the bench all night. All hail Chris Bourque. He's (apparently) the difference maker.

     
    All of the above was never said, implied or even thought of by me.

    Great ideas though. It solidifies why with Bourque in the lineup they are worse. Nothing beats losing. 

     



    Do you know what "implied" means? It seems like you don't. On another note, your new ability to answer direct questions is astonishing. Bravo! Very impressive!

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Bourque out MacDermid in

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:


    Yes, Macdermid must've been the reason why the Bruins lost. Bourque would've turned that game around for sure. Let's totally ignore the fact the 3rd line was finally solid again and that the Bruins played a man short on the bench all night. All hail Chris Bourque. He's (apparently) the difference maker.

     
    All of the above was never said, implied or even thought of by me.

    Great ideas though. It solidifies why with Bourque in the lineup they are worse. Nothing beats losing. 

     



    Do you know what "implied" means? It seems like you don't. On another note, your new ability to answer direct questions is astonishing. Bravo! Very impressive!

     


      

    im·plied

    1. To involve by logical necessity; entail:  Life i 2.  To express or indicate indirectly:




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bourque out MacDermid in

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:


    Yes, Macdermid must've been the reason why the Bruins lost. Bourque would've turned that game around for sure. Let's totally ignore the fact the 3rd line was finally solid again and that the Bruins played a man short on the bench all night. All hail Chris Bourque. He's (apparently) the difference maker.

     
    All of the above was never said, implied or even thought of by me.

    Great ideas though. It solidifies why with Bourque in the lineup they are worse. Nothing beats losing. 

     



    Do you know what "implied" means? It seems like you don't. On another note, your new ability to answer direct questions is astonishing. Bravo! Very impressive!

     

     


      

    im·plied

     

    1. To involve by logical necessity; entail:  Life i 2.  To express or indicate indirectly:






    Copying and pasting the definition doesn't over rule the fact you just implied something and then denied it. This is a clear case of actions speaking louder than words.

     

    met·a·phor   /ˈmetəˌfôr/ Noun
    1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
    2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Bourque out MacDermid in

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:


    Yes, Macdermid must've been the reason why the Bruins lost. Bourque would've turned that game around for sure. Let's totally ignore the fact the 3rd line was finally solid again and that the Bruins played a man short on the bench all night. All hail Chris Bourque. He's (apparently) the difference maker.

     
    All of the above was never said, implied or even thought of by me.

    Great ideas though. It solidifies why with Bourque in the lineup they are worse. Nothing beats losing. 

     



    Do you know what "implied" means? It seems like you don't. On another note, your new ability to answer direct questions is astonishing. Bravo! Very impressive!

     

     


      

    im·plied

     

    1. To involve by logical necessity; entail:  Life i 2.  To express or indicate indirectly:






    Copying and pasting the definition doesn't over rule the fact you just implied something and then denied it. This is a clear case of actions speaking louder than words.

     

     

    met·a·phor   /ˈmetəˌfôr/ Noun

    1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
    2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.



    Can we have the old dez back ? 

    Argumentative, miserable and angry over the stupidest, simplest things. 

    Goodbye.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share