Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


    Your opinion used to hold some weight around here, but I agree, this is nothing more than a player getting dinged.

    He should have gotten right back up and tried to get to the crease. Greg Campbell hobbled around on a broken leg to kill a penalty.  Bishop gets dinged in the head while wearing a helmet and he's DOA.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There you go again. 

    Saying you agree he got dinged, having no idea the severity of pain/discomfort he felt.........but saying he should have gotten up.

    Very easy for an armchair QB to say that..........but you're not the one who just took a knee to the back of the head.


    P.S. Your thoughts of what kind of weight my opinion holds means nothing to me.

    They are just opinions. I'm not competing in any popularity contest.......... as you are. 

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And all that gear you're speaking of...irrelevant, off topic, exageration.

    As you well know, the point of contact was the back of the head.  Very little in the form of protection there.

    [/QUOTE]


    The impact was so slight that his head barely moved.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Hmmm..now this is starting to sound like a certain guy in Pittsburg who's head barely moved! But, you had the opposite feeling about that. Strange.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking that too.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'm not competing in any popularity contest.......... as you are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not competing.  There is no competition.  I'm #1.  Of course you wouldn't want to take me on.  It would be like Chick Stick-n-Puck USA vs. China.  I'm USA.

    Anyway, you see, this was a decent conversation with many different points of view.  Then you show up and start making comments about people instead of the subject.

    So go eat a dick.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'm not competing in any popularity contest.......... as you are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not competing.  There is no competition.  I'm #1.  Of course you wouldn't want to take me on.  It would be like Chick Stick-n-Puck USA vs. China.  I'm USA.

    Anyway, you see, this was a decent conversation with many different points of view.  Then you show up and start making comments about people instead of the subject.

    So go eat a dick.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you feel you're #1, you must be keeping some kind of score.  The style you seem to hate so much here, is eerily similar to yours.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Anyway, regarding the point about his "head barely moving".  At the point of impact, Bishop is sprawled, face down.  A piano, dropped from the ninth floor wouldn't make his head move much either, cuz his face is already virtually "on the ice".  Is there some kind of "bounce" effect that should have happenned?

    I understand how someone could come to the quick conclusion that this is all theatrics, but when looked at a little deeper, considering everything reasonable, all the pertinent points, it's just absolutely inarguable, that there's a much, much, much higher probability that Bishop was dazed on the play, as opposed to faking the whole thing.  Any of the reasons given for the dive, can easily be explained, while those suggesting otherwise can't.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'm not competing in any popularity contest.......... as you are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not competing.  There is no competition.  I'm #1.  

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Loser.  Who's voting? shupe?

    I think the trainer could have played a bigger role in this.  Like I said, I think (don't know), that Bishop tried to sell the call a little.

    Then the trainer comes and considers that A. he got hit in the head, B. he stayed down and seems to be a little dazed, and C. he's become the 'franchise' goalie.  At that point it doesn't matter too much what Bishop says or wants to do.  Get him off the ice so you can check him out.  Gotta be cautious there.

    I think it starts with embellishment and then becomes a hyper-cautious trainer situation.  I still don't think he was "injured".

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Anyway, regarding the point about his "head barely moving".  At the point of impact, Bishop is sprawled, face down.  A piano, dropped from the ninth floor wouldn't make his head move much either, cuz his face is already virtually "on the ice".  Is there some kind of "bounce" effect that should have happenned?

    I understand how someone could come to the quick conclusion that this is all theatrics, but when looked at a little deeper, considering everything reasonable, all the pertinent points, it's just absolutely inarguable, that there's a much, much, much higher probability that Bishop was dazed on the play, as opposed to faking the whole thing.  Any of the reasons given for the dive, can easily be explained, while those suggesting otherwise can't.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's another possibility steve. Since it's in T-Bay & their media coverage isn't as high as they are in other markets. Could it be that Bishop took a hit previous to this incident, at practice that not every1 knows about? Maybe he already was sent to the quiet room before & this was like 2 smacks to the skull in 24hrs or less? I don't necessarily agree with NAS, but I do see both sides as being "possible". 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Yeah, 2 sides are possible Nite, but the whole purpose of discussion, and debate on a subject like this, is to establish the "most probable possibility", and move on to the next subject, rather than argue into infinity without intrducing more compelling logic.  There are just too many factors suggesting otherwise, to come to the conclusion that Bishop faked the whole thing.  Your thought about the "second smack" is just another example, why the "faking theory" is much more unlikely.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

      I still don't think he was "injured".

    [/QUOTE]

    That's where wer're going a little sideways on this one Fletch.  You're right, he wasn't injured.  That point can't really be debated.  He came back the next game(which isn't an irregular occurance in the NHL)so it's a stretch to call something like that, an injury.

    The point is not whether he was injured.  Or whether he was even dazed.  It's not even whether Bishop might have "somewhat embellished his pain".  Rather, it is whether or not the whole event is the epitomy of "faking"(see title), and whether his actions were an attempt to draw a penalty, and/or get the rest of the night off.

    If you list all the rational reasons "for", then all the reasons "against", you'll end up with a wildly disproportionate list.  When you start getting into the nuts and bolts of each list, not only are there "more" nuggets in the against list, they're also stronger, and more logical.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    Loser.  Who's voting? shupe?

    I think the trainer could have played a bigger role in this.  Like I said, I think (don't know), that Bishop tried to sell the call a little.

    Then the trainer comes and considers that A. he got hit in the head, B. he stayed down and seems to be a little dazed, and C. he's become the 'franchise' goalie.  At that point it doesn't matter too much what Bishop says or wants to do.  Get him off the ice so you can check him out.  Gotta be cautious there.

    I think it starts with embellishment and then becomes a hyper-cautious trainer situation.  I still don't think he was "injured".

    [/QUOTE]

     This makes sense to me except for the embellishment part. How does one know that ? Like I pointed out earlier with my injury.............they all thought I was putting on a show.

    Being diagnosed with whiplash and neck issues years later was the end result..........and a little pissed at the amateur doctors in the arena that day.


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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    So go eat a dick.

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear that's the substitute they use for sausage at Pannini's Pizzeria in Danvers. 

    Eat there much ?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


     This makes sense to me except for the embellishment part. How does one know that ? Like I pointed out earlier with my injury.............they all thought I was putting on a show.

    Being diagnosed with whiplash and neck issues years later was the end result..........and a little pissed at the amateur doctors in the arena that day.


    [/QUOTE]

    Well, I don't blame you.  And I don't "know" anything about Bishop's situation.  I can only guess.

    But when prompted to give my opinion, and after watching the tape fairly carefully, it is my suspicion that he stayed down primarily to sell the contact and cover for a very poorly executed attempt to him to play the puck.  A type of faking...to my eyes.

    After that, who knows?  I float the theory that the trainer may have taken matters over and pulled him to the bench, but I'm not exactly adamant about it one way or another.  

    Maybe he was hurt.  To steve's point about the nuts and bolts of the argument, I think those are pretty limited since the debate here is based on a videotape and a bunch of hearsay.  We don't really have much evidence to consider and we're destined to end up in the land of opinions and interpretations, somewhat equally unsubstantiated.  I think the debate has run it's course.

    Back to dickeating, and who's most likely to be doing it...

    Cheers, and a virtual punch to the groin for all of you,

    -Fletch

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'm not competing in any popularity contest.......... as you are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not competing.  There is no competition.  I'm #1.  

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Loser.  Who's voting? shupe?

    I think the trainer could have played a bigger role in this.  Like I said, I think (don't know), that Bishop tried to sell the call a little.

    Then the trainer comes and considers that A. he got hit in the head, B. he stayed down and seems to be a little dazed, and C. he's become the 'franchise' goalie.  At that point it doesn't matter too much what Bishop says or wants to do.  Get him off the ice so you can check him out.  Gotta be cautious there.

    I think it starts with embellishment and then becomes a hyper-cautious trainer situation.  I still don't think he was "injured".

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats probably exactly how it went, but I do think if the shot went wide of the net, he would have had no problem rushing back to the net. Thats my medical opinion.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But when prompted to give my opinion...

    [/QUOTE]

    Which all of this is anyway, but people have to get all personal about it.

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But when prompted to give my opinion...



    Which all of this is anyway, but people have to get all personal about it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just trying to remember ............who was it that suggested that others ( who didn't like it ) should go to the Martha Stewart fan forum for a similar type of personal posting that was involved on this thread ?

    Pot meet kettle.




     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Bishop may have given himself wipe lash from that move.  Looked like Elaine dancing on Seinfeld.  The contact from the player approaching him i would hope wouldnt cause injury bc he likely hurt himself trying to avoid him.   Could he be hurt from that spasm move he did? Sure, i slept on my pillow wrong and my neck hurts today.   

    NAS Fletch vs Steve and NAS2 was a classic.  Hulk Hogan Mr T vs Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff.  

    "Its not being the man-its staying the man" Ric Flair.   Whooooooooooooooooo

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bishop may have given himself wipe lash from that move.  Looked like Elaine dancing on Seinfeld.  The contact from the player approaching him i would hope wouldnt cause injury bc he likely hurt himself trying to avoid him.   Could he be hurt from that spasm move he did? Sure, i slept on my pillow wrong and my neck hurts today.   

    NAS Fletch vs Steve and NAS2 was a classic.  Hulk Hogan Mr T vs Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff.  

    "Its not being the man-its staying the man" Ric Flair.   Whooooooooooooooooo

    [/QUOTE]

    Our new " voice of reason ? ^^^^^^^

    Shupe trying to make sense of the situation ? A scary thought.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bishop may have given himself wipe lash from that move.  Looked like Elaine dancing on Seinfeld.  The contact from the player approaching him i would hope wouldnt cause injury bc he likely hurt himself trying to avoid him.   Could he be hurt from that spasm move he did? Sure, i slept on my pillow wrong and my neck hurts today.   

    NAS Fletch vs Steve and NAS2 was a classic.  Hulk Hogan Mr T vs Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff.  

    "Its not being the man-its staying the man" Ric Flair.   Whooooooooooooooooo

    [/QUOTE]

    Our new " voice of reason ? ^^^^^^^

    Shupe trying to make sense of the situation ? A scary thought.

    [/QUOTE]

    I cant even convince myself most of the time chowda.   Cheers

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    I cant even convince myself most of the time chowda.   Cheers

    [/QUOTE]

    NAS 2 is just wondering..........the real NAS ( he's the one with the enormous head ) has proclaimed himself to be the undisputed #1 on bdc. ( of course, who else would want this ? )

    Have you been stuffing the imaginary ballot box ?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Its not being the man-its staying the man" Ric Flair.   Whooooooooooooooooo

    [/QUOTE]

    "If you wanna be the man,you have to beat the man" !!!!!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    I cant even convince myself most of the time chowda.   Cheers

    [/QUOTE]

    NAS 2 is just wondering..........the real NAS ( he's the one with the enormous head ) has proclaimed himself to be the undisputed #1 on bdc. ( of course, who else would want this ? )

    Have you been stuffing the imaginary ballot box ?

    [/QUOTE]

    The only thing i stuff is the turkey and my face on wing night.   Chowda you know NAS is my favorite on here.  When i first came here i read his stuff and thought what a tool.  But he had a lot of the same views as i do.  NAS and i have had debates on stuff.  But i think the reason(and you can ask him) why he liked my posts is bc i spoke my mind all the time, ive dropped my gloves with everyone in here and usually 2 or 3 times a game.  To the point Fletch thought i was the best troll alive.  I dont think that is someone who follows a bdc code...heck i even had you ignore my garbage posts.  I dont claim to be the smartest in terms of knowledge...im pretty passionate and i do say stuff on emotion sometimes.  I dont mind calling BsL a homer bc he knows it.  I dont mind challenging guys like book and fletch(who i would classify as real good hockey smarts guys- id put you in there along with a slew of others).  I have fun posting here, throwing sand in a face or two.  I will admit to spending way too much time in here....but its entertainment.  

    i dont mind you as NWO Hogan.   Believe it or not you have people chasing you like they did with me.  I was just nicer and polite about it, which ticked them off more.   

    Gotta get my buckleys cold pills.  Things are magic.  

    Stay Classy San Diego.  

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    But he had a lot of the same views as i do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I really don't know how to respond to this. 

    Other then ...... better you then me.

    You just made me feel like I've won the lottery.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    But he had a lot of the same views as i do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I really don't know how to respond to this. 

    Other then ...... better you then me.

    You just made me feel like I've won the lottery.

    [/QUOTE]

    See we do play good together.  

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    shupe's full of carp, by the way.  He always agrees with me on everything, and is always kissing my azz around here.  I could say the sky is red and shupe would come running along saying "yeah, it's red!"  He never takes overly contrarian positions just to be a pain in my butt.  Never does that.  God love him.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:


    Wuss

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for your concern !

    This wuss still has a messed up neck to this day.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're quite welcome.

    So your pain in the neck is the reason you're a pain in the enck to the rest of this board lately?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share