Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:



    I disagree.  

     


    ------------


    No disagreeing allowed.

    Go back and watch the video..........you'll find that your explanation is 100% accurate. And more importantly..........it makes sense.

    But still..........no disagreeing allowed. 

















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


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

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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


    Ever since his return from hiatus, he's just been full of garbage.

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering you won't address the question I asked you on the other thread..........I'll bring it to your attention here. 

    Before this comment by you on this thread......

    1) where did I make a personal attack on another poster ?

    2) not follow along with the topic in some sort of way ?

    Based on this post and what proceeds it on this thread .........*cough*........I'd say your comments about me coming along and ruining the thread ( making personal attacks, off topic) are inaccurate.

    It was actually you.

    Apology please.  







     

     
  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]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

    Two guys come through together while Bishop has his head down.  He wouldn't know which one clipped him.  

    Watch the video. Can the attitude.

    [/QUOTE]

    What are you seeing ? That's not even close to what happened. Zibanijed was ahead of the Sen and angled away from Bishop.

    Why else would Bishop try to dive for the puck ? Because he couldn't see it was a Senator ? Incredibly stupid.

    Forget watch the video for you . Just have some common sense on what unfolded on the play. Your reasoning doesn't make sense. 

    P.S. If attitude and sarcasm is what it takes to convey what I want to express and you don't like it..............oh well . F.... it. Cry me a river.
     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is you being a dick.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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


    This is you being a dick.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have a hard time following along. 

    My "before your comment" means prior ................not after ...........your personal attack post that had nothing to do with the topic.

    It also came after being told to "can the attitude" after a scenario was given that showed how ridiculous the "he didn't know who was there" thinking was.

    Two players chasing after the puck together are normally not from the same team. If they are............they're dumbbells.

    Apology please. 

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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

     


    It also came after being told to "can the attitude" after a scenario was given that showed how ridiculous the "he didn't know who was there" thinking was.

    Two players chasing after the puck together are normally not from the same team. If they are............they're dumbbells.


    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not gonna get into all of this, but this^ still makes absolutey no sense.

    Why on earth would you even imagine a scenario where they're on the same team?  Two players chasing the puck.  The goalie has his head down (eg. not looking at them).  The goalie gets clipped as the players pass by.  Therefore, he doesn't know who clipped him.  Could've been the defensmen, could've been the forward.  Unbelievebly simple concept here.  

    Which is exactly why the tough guy attitude was so misplaced and forced.  The F-bomb, cry-me-a-river routine doesn't make any sense there.  It's silly.  You seem paranoid that people are challenging you when they aren't..

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:


    I'm not gonna get into all of this, but this^ still makes absolutey no sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly..........the reason it was posted..........as a sarcastic scenario in conjunction with the thinking Bishop didn't know it was his own teammate who kneed him in the back of the head........thus faking injury to draw a penalty.

    The play was in front of Bishop..........with two players in front of him chasing the puck.........he had to been blind to not see that..........he dove for the puck. Why ? Because of Zibanijed was the leading man. He wouldn't have dove for the puck if it was his own man leading. 

    After that....... the conspiracy theory of him faking an injury to draw a penalty.........

    would have to be based on Bishop thinking another Senator was chasing the puck with Zibanijed. He wouldn't get a call if it was his own man.

    Stupid, huh ?

    Do you get it now ?

    And do you get why the "can the attitude" comment was out-of-line considering the call (mainly by you two )for being courteous and polite to some of the ridiculous thoughts ( and it was ) conveyed.

    I was in line with that request........up until then. Screw that idea from now on.

    Hypocrites preaching the "do as I say not as I do" thing.


    "Can the attitude" and "his posts are garbage" .
     


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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    And for NAS, I'll take your non-response as a tap-out to realizing that it wasn't me who started the crap on this thread.

    Apology please.

     
  8. 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]

    This might be true if he was thinking there were two Sens players there.....................one chasing the other.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do apologize.  I made an error when finding the beginning of the BS. 

    This is it.

    Notice the name? 

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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


    You'll have to do better then that.

    It was neither a personal attack on anyone or an off topic comment as you stated I started. It was a sarcastic response ( which everyone uses....even you ) to a ridiculous idea that had to do with Bishop faking injury.

    As expected, you don't have the nuts to apologize. Not surprising considering you and your ego live by this motto..........

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

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

    P.S. Notice the name ?


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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    Clearly, very clearly Bishop is attempting to poke check the puck off of Z's stick.

    Who else could possibly clip him other than his own player?

    Explain to me any scenario in which he would not be aware it was his own defenseman?

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Clearly, very clearly Bishop is attempting to poke check the puck off of Z's stick.

    Who else could possibly clip him other than his own player?

    Explain to me any scenario in which he would not be aware it was his own defenseman?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I questioned also. 

    I was told to go back and watch the video....................numerous times..........rather then getting any reasonable explanation otherwise.

    No sugar coating what I think of the conspiracy theory for me. I'm done with that. I think it's totally ridiculous..........of course in conjunction with using the freedom of speech act.  


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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    As he dives, face down, for the puck, both Zibinajad's skate and defensmen's skate come past his head within a split second, which made me think that he might not be sure which guy got him.  Watch the video.

    Then Chowdah snapped into his new badazz mode.  No big deal, no reason to come unglued.  Nothing personal, just a different take on what might have happened on this play.

    'freedom of speech'... that cracked me up...c'mon let's tone down the drama just a tad.  We're not debating the constitution here.

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    I love this thread.

    It's sooooo very typical of how threads often go south here.

    Pig-headdedness, and ego.

    I have no interest in "pumping anyones tires" here, but this one is really base line.....  fundamental. 

    The OP floated a really abstract, black and white theory, which was clearly stated it to be just an opinion.

    That is good.

    Several agreed, and even went a "step further" in their agreement.  Out of the blue, one dissenting voice appearred, and backed up his opinion with "stronger, more logical" points, and he did it "strongly", but from my perspective reasonably.  There was no appreciable level of disrespect.

    Rather than merely acknowledge the fact that chowda's logic was indeed, very solid and higher percentage than the OP...some dug their heels in.  That happenned on page 1, and that's why we're still going, on page 5.  We don't know the whole story here.  We never do, all we know is who has the best logic supporting their "opinion".  That basic rule applies to virtually everything we discuss and debate here.

    The next 4 pages go in every direction, but one thing remains constant.  Those that seem insulted that chowda challenged their initial dramatic conclusion, never once debate his logic, or insert more of their own, they instead try and "steer" things in another direction, or key in on inconsequential statements that really have no bearing on the spirit of the OP.

    It's been evident to me over the last couple years, that nas, fletch, and chowda, all have strong analytical skills, coupled with hockey acumen.  We're all wrong sometimes.  fletch...your voice of reason left the building on this one.  You're grasping at straws.  You've softened your stance to the point of full agreement, yet you're denying it, and skirting things.   nas, you've pulled out all of the time honored deflections you can think of, and you're just getting in deeper.  Screaming about a posting quality that has without any doubt been your trademark, validates the sheer emptiness of any strong arguments you've put forth.

    This ones been fun, but you both should know...bottom line...you made him drive it down your throat.  Lots of explanation you've simply ignored, yet you kept shouting.  Didn't have to be that way.  There was an easy exit strategy that not only would've saved face..it would have actually indeared you to the community.

    On this one?.....TKO, chowdah...2nd page.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    i'll clear this all up for everyone involved... give ben bishop a ringy-dingy and ask him yourself. he's THE ONLY ONE that has the answer to this question. everyone else is claiming to know the unknowable. this is not a "hockey conversation", this is an argument for the sake of argument- which is very old and tiresome and all too frequent on these boards. if that doesn't put this to bed then i'll try another tactic... you're all right and i'm wrong. be sure to add this "win" to your tallies.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As he dives, face down, for the puck, both Zibinajad's skate and defensmen's skate come past his head within a split second, which made me think that he might not be sure which guy got him.  Watch the video.

    Then Chowdah snapped into his new badazz mode.  No big deal, no reason to come unglued.  Nothing personal, just a different take on what might have happened on this play.

    'freedom of speech'... that cracked me up...c'mon let's tone down the drama just a tad.  We're not debating the constitution here.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He is absolutely NOT "face down".  Freeze frame at exactly 1.28 just an instant before contact - and blow it up.  His mask is up and appears to be focused on the puck and his defenseman is on top of him.  Zibenajad is a full goalie's stick extension away as Bishop was trying to poke check him.

    I see no plausible explanation of how Bishop wasn't aware that it was his own player that clipped him.

     

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    I love this thread.

    It's sooooo very typical of how threads often go south here.

    Pig-headdedness, and ego.

    I have no interest in "pumping anyones tires" here, but this one is really base line.....  fundamental. 

    The OP floated a really abstract, black and white theory, which was clearly stated it to be just an opinion.

    That is good.

    Several agreed, and even went a "step further" in their agreement.  Out of the blue, one dissenting voice appearred, and backed up his opinion with "stronger, more logical" points, and he did it "strongly", but from my perspective reasonably.  There was no appreciable level of disrespect.

    Rather than merely acknowledge the fact that chowda's logic was indeed, very solid and higher percentage than the OP...some dug their heels in.  That happenned on page 1, and that's why we're still going, on page 5.  We don't know the whole story here.  We never do, all we know is who has the best logic supporting their "opinion".  That basic rule applies to virtually everything we discuss and debate here.

    The next 4 pages go in every direction, but one thing remains constant.  Those that seem insulted that chowda challenged their initial dramatic conclusion, never once debate his logic, or insert more of their own, they instead try and "steer" things in another direction, or key in on inconsequential statements that really have no bearing on the spirit of the OP.

    It's been evident to me over the last couple years, that nas, fletch, and chowda, all have strong analytical skills, coupled with hockey acumen.  We're all wrong sometimes.  fletch...your voice of reason left the building on this one.  You're grasping at straws.  You've softened your stance to the point of full agreement, yet you're denying it, and skirting things.   nas, you've pulled out all of the time honored deflections you can think of, and you're just getting in deeper.  Screaming about a posting quality that has without any doubt been your trademark, validates the sheer emptiness of any strong arguments you've put forth.

    This ones been fun, but you both should know...bottom line...you made him drive it down your throat.  Lots of explanation you've simply ignored, yet you kept shouting.  Didn't have to be that way.  There was an easy exit strategy that not only would've saved face..it would have actually indeared you to the community.

    On this one?.....TKO, chowdah...2nd page.




    Thank you so much !  I came in late on this thread and really didn't want to read it all. 

    In the end , the summary of this thread , can be used for many more threads on here.  Just change the topic and insert new and keep same characters .

    Cheers Steve!

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i'll clear this all up for everyone involved... give ben bishop a ringy-dingy and ask him yourself. he's THE ONLY ONE that has the answer to this question. everyone else is claiming to know the unknowable. this is not a "hockey conversation", this is an argument for the sake of argument- which is very old and tiresome and all too frequent on these boards. if that doesn't put this to bed then i'll try another tactic... you're all right and i'm wrong. be sure to add this "win" to your tallies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  I've stated this several times and it has somehow been interpreted as "softening my stance" and "grasping at straws".

    We can't know the truth, and some people here are very offended by different interpretations, so let's put it to bed.  For those keeping score, give yourselves a check mark.  I'm not nearly confident enough in my intrepetation to carry on like this.

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He is absolutely NOT "face down".  

     

    [/QUOTE]

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i'll clear this all up for everyone involved... give ben bishop a ringy-dingy and ask him yourself. he's THE ONLY ONE that has the answer to this question. everyone else is claiming to know the unknowable. this is not a "hockey conversation", this is an argument for the sake of argument- which is very old and tiresome and all too frequent on these boards. if that doesn't put this to bed then i'll try another tactic... you're all right and i'm wrong. be sure to add this "win" to your tallies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  I've stated this several times and it has somehow been interpreted as "softening my stance" and "grasping at straws".

    We can't know the truth, and some people here are very offended by different interpretations, so let's put it to bed.  For those keeping score, give yourselves a check mark.  I'm not nearly confident enough in my intrepetation to carry on like this.

    [/QUOTE]

    and BAM!!! i grab victory from the jaws of defeat!!! that was close(thanks fletch), i really didn't want to lie down and take it for the team. it would have jeopardized my unblemished record here. suckers

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    I think that the moral of the story is that goalies should stay in the crease where they belong :)

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    I cant believe this thread is still going.  

     
  22. 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]

    I cant believe this thread is still going.  

    [/QUOTE]


    I can't believe Bishop faked an injury all the way to the dressing room!

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

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

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I cant believe this thread is still going.  




    I can't believe Bishop faked an injury all the way to the dressing room!

    [/QUOTE]

    And to the media.  Glad he took time to talk to the media.  Must have told the medical staff to take 5.  I think he was hurt.  It hurt me watching him try to make that fake shot move.   Stiff neck for sure. 

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to lambda13's comment:[QUOTE]

    I think that the moral of the story is that goalies should stay in the crease where they belong :) [/QUOTE]


    So true!

    Miller you hear that ?

    LoL

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

    Re: Speaking of Embellishing!

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i'll clear this all up for everyone involved... give ben bishop a ringy-dingy and ask him yourself. he's THE ONLY ONE that has the answer to this question. everyone else is claiming to know the unknowable. this is not a "hockey conversation", this is an argument for the sake of argument- which is very old and tiresome and all too frequent on these boards. if that doesn't put this to bed then i'll try another tactic... you're all right and i'm wrong. be sure to add this "win" to your tallies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  I've stated this several times and it has somehow been interpreted as "softening my stance" and "grasping at straws".

    We can't know the truth, and some people here are very offended by different interpretations, so let's put it to bed.  For those keeping score, give yourselves a check mark.  I'm not nearly confident enough in my intrepetation to carry on like this.

    [/QUOTE]

    and BAM!!! i grab victory from the jaws of defeat!!! that was close(thanks fletch), i really didn't want to lie down and take it for the team. it would have jeopardized my unblemished record here. suckers

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ....and around and around we go. 

    adkbeesfan, there are several posts clarifiying the reality of "no real evidence".  That's been done many, many times within this thread.  No one....is insisting they're the only one, "knowing the unknowable".  Maybe that's why you're missing the point on this "hockey conversation".

    To save you the time of re-reading, here's the debate.

    Based on the video supplied by the OP :

                 Bishop took the art of embellishment to another level.(which is a theory that        goes against everything "WE DO KNOW" at this point, which suggests he merely got his bell rung).  Do you agree or not????(basic comprehension would suggest an I don't know answer means you disagree)

    Those are the options.  

    After you ponder that, I have a question for you.

      Who's arguing for the sake of arguing?  Care to take a stab at that?

    And one more.  If a few people float an idea they feel they can see, that experts, as well as the masses can't see....aren't "they" the ones claiming to "know the unknowable"?  

     

Share