Re: Troll Refresher Part 341
posted at 5/21/2013 11:27 PM EDT
In response to BassFishingII's comment:
In response to red75's comment:
Bass, can I ask you a question?
If something is factually innacuate, is it not more than fair to point out the truth and say it is inaccurate?
Now I'm not talking about how we interpret the facts and how they inform our opinions - I mean the facts themselves - the provable truths. Varifiable truths are not subjective.
If someone says, as a fact, that you know is provably wrong, should you let the innaccuracy stand or should you correct them? For example, if someone told you that the Moon was made of cheese, would you not correct them? Would it be attacking them just to tell them they are factually incorrect?
Personally, when I have a fact wrong, I appreciate when some educates me on the right facts - for example, today I asked who was physically larger - Krug or Hawgood. I thought it may have been Krug, but I'm willing to learn something to the contradictory.
So my question is to you - do you just agree with this simple philosphy? I'm not asking about specifics and how they may be applied, but do you agree that when a statement is made as fact that is not a fact, it should be corrected?
Yes, I agree with your definition.
What I have an issue with is someone changing facts and history AFTER someone else comes in and makes a SUPERB series of points to possibly bring another angle to the table.
Like, when you tried to pretend the cap concepts BB created and then masteres pre Holland having a Cup contending team and winner in the cap era of the NHL, is somehow superior with less or a roster to work with, is a good example.
It makes no sense to pretend a budge for less people in a sport with less people to worry about under that budget somehow supersedes another sport with more people and more injuries.
The facts are, MORE injuries occur in the NFL than the NHL, the cap was in place at least 10 years before Jacobs tried to get his in the NHL and there are far more people to pay on an NFL roster as opposed to an NHL roster.
Those are facts.
For some reason, strangely so, you feel like you somehow made stronger points with facts than what I did because of your agenda, which is clearly about "protecting your board turf" here.
You didn't make stronger points. Jacobs sucks, Chiarelli, Ken Holland or whoever weren't applying these concepts before BB was.
That's a fact.
I may not have made stronger points - that is rhetorical argument, though I personally find arguments that are factually based are stronger -, but when I used facts (BB was my opinion) but when I used facts such as Eagleson/Orr, Chara's ATOI, when Jacobs bought the Bruins etc., well facts are facts, and in each of those cases you have refused to acknowledge actual FACTS - not rhetoric, or points, or opinions, or arguments, but facts that are as provable as the Moon not being made of cheese.
Truth is truth - what we make of those truths are opinion, interpretation, ideas, and arguments. I don't think you understand the difference (that's my opinion).