Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Is it not a manatory NHL response for Tampa & the trainers to pull him off the ice & into the "15 minute room"? Which at conclusion of that, Im doubting he would return to the net feeling better or not. Look at Bergerons last concuss & really it looked like nothing....was he embellishing? It doesnt take much.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Thanks pucman, for steering a couple pages of virtual arsse kissing back to topic.  Hopefully that  has "run it's course too".

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:


    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pain in the neck to the rest of the board ?

    What is this a group thing ? 

    Respond to another poster and it becomes a pain in the neck to others.

    I think you have something there.

    Indivisionalism is frowned upon here by the conga line followers.






     
  4. 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:


    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pain in the neck to the rest of the board ?

    What is this a group thing ? 

    Respond to another poster and it becomes a pain in the neck to others.

    I think you have something there.

    Indivisionalism is frowned upon here by the conga line followers.

    [/QUOTE]

    Responding is one thing, how you respond is another.

    Individualism is not frowned on here. But d-bagism sure is.

    Don't make me slew foot you again. :P

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    When WTL sees it the same way as the rest of us, you really have to take a look in the mirror.

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But when prompted to give my opinion........  

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    C'mon Fletch.  Rather than admitting the obvious, you carefully craft several posts which soften the stance of your original, then suggest the whole discussion should go to the trash heap.  You're better'n that

    There are many "nuts and bolts" to consider, you've just chosen to ignore them.  The 'penalty' theory is nuts.  The argument that the fact he played the next game proves faking something...is nuts.  The assumption that his employer and his teamates would reward something so stupid, damaging and selfish with a start the following game...is nuts.  The score, and time of the game suggests "throwing in the towel" is nuts.  The "equipment" logic is nuts, and so is the "head barely moved" argument.  None are compelling...all are tertiary.  In order to substantiate the spirit of this thread, you need at least a few really strong points.  

    If there's an "embellishment" anywhere, it's that this particular play is deserving of it's own thread.  Again, this thread isn't about whether he maybe sold his pain a bit....that's entirely possible.  This thread is about whether this particular play is the "epitomy" of faking.  An Academy Award  example of taking a dive.

    Plain and simple it's not.  It's 'not'... because there's nothing there to logically support that notion(at least so far).  The only "reasonable" position  one can have supporting any kind of embellisment theory....is that there possibly..., maybe....coulda been a bit of selling going on there.

    And basically that's what you're saying now.  Which equates to almost total disagreement with the overall spirit of the OP.

    Again, sticking to topic.  Is this Hall of Fame, Hi-Lite reel, bogus for the ages...or is it substantially less.

    The answer is clear.  It is far, far less. 

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!


    love it. people to claiming to know about something it's impossible for them to know, then defending their claim like it really means something. great entertainment. i used to come here and comment/participate in hockey dialogue, until i realized scores are kept, and it's just a pizzing match that usually results in insults being hurled at one another. this thread is a shining example of that. bravo

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    love it. people to claiming to know about something it's impossible for them to know, then defending their claim like it really means something. great entertainment. i used to come here and comment/participate in hockey dialogue, until i realized scores are kept, and it's just a pizzing match that usually results in insults being hurled at one another. this thread is a shining example of that. bravo

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the above is hurling insults toward those that do participate/comment don't you?

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're a good guy.  You crack me up.  You aren't a deeeeebag for the sake of it.  Honorable, knowledgeable, quality.

    That list is very short here, but it's a hell of a list.

     

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    love it. people to claiming to know about something it's impossible for them to know, then defending their claim like it really means something. great entertainment. i used to come here and comment/participate in hockey dialogue, until i realized scores are kept, and it's just a pizzing match that usually results in insults being hurled at one another. this thread is a shining example of that. bravo

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the above is hurling insults toward those that do participate/comment don't you?

    [/QUOTE]

    ????????? what?????????

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    love it. people to claiming to know about something it's impossible for them to know, then defending their claim like it really means something. great entertainment. i used to come here and comment/participate in hockey dialogue, until i realized scores are kept, and it's just a pizzing match that usually results in insults being hurled at one another. this thread is a shining example of that. bravo

    [/QUOTE]


    You're a good guy adk.  There's plenty of hockey talk going on.  Come back more often and add to it, will ya?

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Lets all just settle down and go out for some beers and pizza. For some weird reason I have a hankering for sausage pizza...Freckeled sausage.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]

    ...snipped for brevity...  

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    Why does it have to be virtual?
    You could start at Pannini's Pizzeria in Danvers...apparently somebody hangs out there.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    What a thread here.  Mostly people just ripping on each other and then at the same time other people complaining that all the regulars agree with each other so well that others aren't welcome.  An utter contradition.  Nobody gets along here.  Show me the guy who gets the free pass??  It ain't me.

    Then all of the tired cliches about some conga line and a bunch of victim mentality nonsense by people who perceive some conspiracy.  Then long winded claims and arguments about something we know nothing about (no nuts, no bolts, just guess work).  Then all time most used cliche "you're better than that", just because we don't all pretend to be certain about a hypothetical argumeent.  Such silliness.

    shupe, kelv, Davinator...thanks for at least keeping this fun amid the nonsense.  Oops, did I just compliment someone who's a regular.

    Cha cha cha cha chaaa cha, turn...

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What a thread here.  Mostly people just ripping on each other and then at the same time other people complaining that all the regulars agree with each other so well that others aren't welcome.  An utter contradition.  Nobody gets along here.  Show me the guy who gets the free pass??  It ain't me.

    Then all of the tired cliches about some conga line and a bunch of victim mentality nonsense by people who perceive some conspiracy.  Then long winded claims and arguments about something we know nothing about (no nuts, no bolts, just guess work).  Then all time most used cliche "you're better than that", just because we don't all pretend to be certain about a hypothetical argumeent.  Such silliness.

    shupe, kelv, Davinator...thanks for at least keeping this fun amid the nonsense.  Oops, did I just compliment someone who's a regular.

    Cha cha cha cha chaaa cha, turn...

    [/QUOTE]


    Good points by you. Too much sniping in here at times.  Now shaddup! :P

    Cheers

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What a thread here.  Mostly people just ripping on each other and then at the same time other people complaining that all the regulars agree with each other so well that others aren't welcome.  An utter contradition.  Nobody gets along here.  Show me the guy who gets the free pass??  It ain't me.

    Then all of the tired cliches about some conga line and a bunch of victim mentality nonsense by people who perceive some conspiracy.  Then long winded claims and arguments about something we know nothing about (no nuts, no bolts, just guess work).  Then all time most used cliche "you're better than that", just because we don't all pretend to be certain about a hypothetical argumeent.  Such silliness.

    shupe, kelv, Davinator...thanks for at least keeping this fun amid the nonsense.  Oops, did I just compliment someone who's a regular.

    Cha cha cha cha chaaa cha, turn...

    [/QUOTE]


    Good points by you. Too much sniping in here at times.  Now shaddup! :P

    Cheers

    [/QUOTE]

    You shad up WALK! Fletch is one of the untouchables here you dumb basta rd! Geez what the fawk is wrong with you! Wink

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    When WTL sees it the same way as the rest of us, you really have to take a look in the mirror.

     



    Well, I just looked in the mirror.

    You know what I saw ? Someone who hasn't had about a dozen threads dedicated to him about how much of an idiot he is.

    When they talked ............that poster never listened either.

    Sounds like a plan. 

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Tongue OutCoolIn response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What a thread here.  Mostly people just ripping on each other and then at the same time other people complaining that all the regulars agree with each other so well that others aren't welcome.  An utter contradition.  Nobody gets along here.  Show me the guy who gets the free pass??  It ain't me.

    Then all of the tired cliches about some conga line and a bunch of victim mentality nonsense by people who perceive some conspiracy.  Then long winded claims and arguments about something we know nothing about (no nuts, no bolts, just guess work).  Then all time most used cliche "you're better than that", just because we don't all pretend to be certain about a hypothetical argumeent.  Such silliness.

    shupe, kelv, Davinator...thanks for at least keeping this fun amid the nonsense.  Oops, did I just compliment someone who's a regular.

    Cha cha cha cha chaaa cha, turn...

    [/QUOTE]


    Why more spirited attempts at deflection?  No long winded claims in this thread, just detailed explanations that haven't been trumped by better, more logical ones.  If this thread is dedicated to "something we know nothing about", then shouldn't common sense dictate the guy who has actually been struck on the punkin gets the "benefit of doubt" over some BDC posters theory?  In a nutshell, that's all we're sayin.  Plain and simple, there are more signs suggesting he got dinged...than he didn't.  That should have been enough, but we also backed it up with solid rationale.    That's the polar opposite of "pretending to be certain of a hypothetical argument".  You're 180 degrees in the wrong direction there.  

    And besides getting your panties all in a knot, you're now even accusing some of us(or maybe just me) of taking away all the "fun".

    That really hurts.  I won't disagree so hard from now on.    

    Go get a couple beer, watch a little porn then come back and enjoy.

    Love

    Steve

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why more spirited attempts at deflection?  No long winded claims in this thread, just detailed explanations that haven't been trumped by better, more logical ones.  If this thread is dedicated to "something we know nothing about", then shouldn't common sense dictate the guy who has actually been struck on the punkin gets the "benefit of doubt" over some BDC posters theory?  In a nutshell, that's all we're sayin.  Plain and simple, there are more signs suggesting he got dinged...than he didn't.  That should have been enough, but we also backed it up with solid rationale.    That's the polar opposite of "pretending to be certain of a hypothetical argument".  You're 180 degrees in the wrong direction there.  

    And besides getting your panties all in a knot, you're now even accusing some of us(or maybe just me) of taking away all the "fun".

    That really hurts.  I won't disagree so hard from now on.    

    Go get a couple beer, watch a little porn then come back and enjoy.

    Love

    Steve

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You know I love ya, but some arguments here are about real topics that I kind of care about and feature a lot of real logic, and then some topics are just kind 'what-do-you-think-of-this? nonsense.  

    The question was whether we though Bishop was faking.  I watched the video and offered an opinion (lightly).  I even backed it up a little, or tried to, but I really don't care about this one way or the other.  I think Bishop faked a little, stayed down, and then was probably pulled by the trainer.  I have no idea how you can say 100% wrong when we can't possibly know the facts (what the injury was, what the trainer said, etc.).

    I'm not even that confident that I'm right.  You can call it deflecting or backtracking or whatever, but I'm being 100% sincere when I say that I just don't care about this one very much.  I really did think the debate had run it's course.  I'm not 'better than that' (just ask around).

    I'll take your suggestion on the beer and porn...

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Love

    Steve

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That cracked me up.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why more spirited attempts at deflection?  No long winded claims in this thread, just detailed explanations that haven't been trumped by better, more logical ones.  If this thread is dedicated to "something we know nothing about", then shouldn't common sense dictate the guy who has actually been struck on the punkin gets the "benefit of doubt" over some BDC posters theory?  In a nutshell, that's all we're sayin.  Plain and simple, there are more signs suggesting he got dinged...than he didn't.  That should have been enough, but we also backed it up with solid rationale.    That's the polar opposite of "pretending to be certain of a hypothetical argument".  You're 180 degrees in the wrong direction there.  

    And besides getting your panties all in a knot, you're now even accusing some of us(or maybe just me) of taking away all the "fun".

    That really hurts.  I won't disagree so hard from now on.    

    Go get a couple beer, watch a little porn then come back and enjoy.

    Love

    Steve

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You know I love ya, but some arguments here are about real topics that I kind of care about and feature a lot of real logic, and then some topics are just kind 'what-do-you-think-of-this? nonsense.  

    The question was whether we though Bishop was faking.  I watched the video and offered an opinion (lightly).  I even backed it up a little, or tried to, but I really don't care about this one way or the other.  I think Bishop faked a little, stayed down, and then was probably pulled by the trainer.  I have no idea how you can say 100% wrong when we can't possibly know the facts (what the injury was, what the trainer said, etc.).

    I'm not even that confident that I'm right.  You can call it deflecting or backtracking or whatever, but I'm being 100% sincere when I say that I just don't care about this one very much.  I really did think the debate had run it's course.  I'm not 'better than that' (just ask around).

    I'll take your suggestion on the beer and porn...

    [/QUOTE]

    BTW, it probably seems cliche, but I was sincere. I always enjoy reading your posts, and respect your intellect.

    Up til this moment, I was sure you understood perfectly what's been inferred, but were just too stubborn to give any credence to.

    The hi-lited above could be the miscommunication.  If you go back and read my last few posts, you'll see I'm not making any suggestion you are 100% wrong.  Far from that.  Yes, I am making some very pointed, definitive statements, but they're not suggesting you are 100% wrong, or I am 100% right.  All I'm suggesting as virtual fact, is that the "logic" suggesting Bishop took a "dive of gargantuan proportions"....is weak.

    That's it.

    This is a fundamental excercise in critical thinking.  The OP is the bombastic conspiracy theory here.  That is the theory that floats a more subjective alternative.  Surprisingly to me...there's mass confusion on that point.  Dramatic alternatives can be great, but they're supposed to seduce us with highly persuasive logic before we hitch our wagon to them.  I've already gone through those.  The penalty, the head, the night off etc.  None of them are high percentage.  They are easily, logically countered. 

    And I'm not taking a run at the OP.  Bombastic, strong  statements get people engaged more than boring vanilla ones, but that doesn't change the fact their more about drama.  Had that OP been a more reasonable "is there a chance there was some embellishment?", we'd of had 3 posts, all saying "sure there is"and the thread would have quickly, quietly died. 

    Some swallowed the OP as fact, and gleefully followed the noise without much thought   Some of us merely pointed out, the logic behind that proclamation was weak.  Very weak, and that was done in detail.  

    Even a candy thread should go somewhere, and that's done by choosing to discuss points that are most objective.  A society where everyone is entitled to stand up on a soap box, and expect nothing but agreement and applause, is a society that will soon become one of shitheads.

    Any debating authority would suggest that after 4 pages,  virtually nothing was penned to further the cause of the OP.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    I've played goal for 30 plus years and seen every episode of House. I've even stayed at a Holdiday Inn. Those tidbits on my resume make me more qualified than any of you losers. If Fletch wants to talk about hijjack attempts on planes, I will defer to him, other than that please shut your uneducated mouths.

    I hate you all,

    Kelvana

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    It's lupus.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    You're a good guy.  You crack me up.  You aren't a deeeeebag for the sake of it.  Honorable, knowledgeable, quality.

    That list is very short here, but it's a hell of a list.

     

     

    WOW  does this wrap up this stupid BS in a nutshell.......the pope has spoken your on the "list"

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    Tampa vs. Ottawa last week

    Race for the puck.  Bishop comes out to play it.  Gets barely touched.  I mean, if a priest touched a kid like this, it probably wouldn't get a holy rise.

    Lays there like a lump, skates off so slowly.  Out for the game.

    Back in fine form next game.

    My guess:  Tried to draw the call, then got scored on.  Had to stay down to sell it.

    Failed.

    Here it is.  What say you?

    [/QUOTE]


    I disagree.  

    He was trying to poke check the puck off of Z's stick so I believe he had to know it was his own defenseman who ran over him so no way he was trying to get a call.

    I've had 2 serious concussions and I can tell you that sometimes I get knocked woozy when it doesn't seem like a serious hit and other times you take a big hit and nothing happens.

     

    Was Lindros faking it?  This didn't seem like a bad hit at all, in fact there was no contact to his head whatsoever.  And this was back in the old days of year 2000 when they didn't make as much of a big deal as they they do now.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPWRhyTWxyw

     

     

Share