Troll Refresher Part 341

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    But, somehow Ken Holland's 1 Cup in the cap era of hockey is more impressive than a dynasty and 3 rings with a roster of 53?



    Holland won in 2009.

    Billy Boy has been choking since they started cracking down on all of his cheating.  I don't recall Holland video taping any opponent's practices.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    I played hockey growing up. I've been to easily over 50 games at the Garden , grew up around people who were drafted, played with and against a current NHL player. I've been to MULTIPLE playoff games on the road for this team in the last 15 years. I was at Bourqu'e career 1000th point game in 1992 vs the Caps. I was there for Neely's hat trick for 50 goals, also vs the Caps in 1994.

    And that's the other thing you do - you claim your superiority as a fan all the time, reciting the litany of how you've played and how many games you've gone to.  Guess what?  No one cares about that.  They care about what you say, what your words mean, and what logic and information you bring.

    You have your perception of how the play went.  People disagreed, because they saw it happening differently.  You then decided everyone was ganging up on you.

    Guess what?  You aren't special.  There's no group mind or clique here.  If a bunch of people gang up on you because of an opinion, it's because they all happen to disagree with you.  They fight amongst themselves all the time.  But all you see is when they respond to you together, therefore they are a group of geeks, or whatever.

    Okay, just as when NAS first started posting here, I've said my piece to try to keep every thread you post in from devolving into a sling-fest.  If your are going to be so sensitive that you continue to lash out every time more than one person disagrees with you, then so be it.  I'll just have to wade through all the junk to find the actual hockey talk.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    So basically, bassfishing wants into a non existant Bruins forum fan club. Just stop writing dude, you are coming off more than ridiculous, you are coming off as needy.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341


    We don't know any of the guys on the Pats board, yet we react to you exactly the same.  The problem isn't us.

     

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    Absolutely not. I only feel like I have to do that because when I do post here, it's a swarm of these dorky super fans all insecure coming down on my points or comments.

     There you go, insulting again.

    Do you realize NAS defends Jeremy Jacobs?  What real fan would ever dream of doing that? The guy was booed during the 2011 opening ceremony, and for very good reason. The guy is a crook and a phony.  So, it's not just about them "disagreeing". It's about them being combative for combative sake.

    People defend Jacobs when it is logical to do so.  You've attributed failures to him (see Orr) that cannot possible be made logically.  It took an agent lying to Orr to prevent the Bruins from resigning him.

    Others agree with me. They've said as much in this very thread above.

    They are geeks. Very geeky.  Say one critical thing about the Bruins, even with well founded evidence and logic and you go on their naughty list to the point they follow me around from thread to thread.

    You think the logic is well founded.  They do not.  Often I do not.  Argue your point.  Don't assume you can't possibly be wrong and resort to name calling, over and over again.




     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:


    So, you find his trolling and his little group's trolling less offensive than me calling him a name in reponse to point out that trolling? Umm, WOW.

    You don't call him a name.  You call everyone a name.

    Oh my. Our politcally correct world we live in has brainwashed logic out of your brain.

    Let me give you a hint: ALWAYS GO TO THE SOURCE.

    In other words "But he started it!"  Guess what - you escalate over and over.  You are as much to blame as anyone else.

    Please tell me you are aware he trolls and follows me around, correct? He's not genuine about discussing, nor are his minions.

     He discusses plenty.  He rags on you because you post as if you know everything, but you rarely respond to legitimate crituques of your points, then you fall back on name calling and citing your history.  It gets old fast.

    And no, they don't follow you around.  They post all the time.  They would be posting if you weren't here as well.  You just give them something to respond to.




     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    My bad. I totally misjudged you.  You're completely not getting it. I post as if "I know everything" or do I just have confidence in my opinion and analysis?  Really? How about just counter with reason, logic and homework done or don't post.

    People do that.  Then you throw up your hands and lament that you're being followed around by a bunch of dorks.  You state things like "it's obvious" and "there's not other way to look at it, period".  That's not confidence, that's arrogance.

    Why are some people here so senstive and insecure?

    Funny, you come across the same way in many of your responses.  You laugh off counters, fall back on your fan stats.  All you would need to do instead is address the arguments given you.  You don't do that often enough.

    Either counter my take or simply don't post. It's not hard. I don't follow rocket scientists around on a rocket scientist board babbling about things I may not know about.

    People counter your takes.  You don't handle it well.  And, of course, implicit in what you just typed is that people who are disagreeing with you don't know what they are talking about.

    If anything, it's people like him who thinks he knows everything, so when competition comes in, he gets insecure and resorts to this passive aggressive 5-7 word retorts.

    Prove you are competition by bringing information and logic to the discussion, or at least humor.  NAS has, on occasion, admitted to being wrong, and taken softer tones.  You seem to bring out the worst of him.

    I've showed you MANY examples of that today, alone.

    Then instead of turning everything into an epeed waving contest, refine your argument.  Make sure it's clear.  Turn the other cheek.  He'll stop harassing your.



    I think a lot of this is that you don't seem to take the time to understand people's responses to you.  You react and lash out.  Take some time to see if it comes from a misinterpretation of what you've said first, and address that rather than any of the other junk.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:


    Dude, you seem like a normal, good person in here:

     

    I played hockey growing up. I've been to easily over 50 games at the Garden , grew up around people who were drafted, played with and against a current NHL player. I've been to MULTIPLE playoff games on the road for this team in the last 15 years. I was at Bourqu'e career 1000th point game in 1992 vs the Caps. I was there for Neely's hat trick for 50 goals, also vs the Caps in 1994.

    It's beyond clear, BEYOND clear, I know the game and know it very well.

    Do you honestly think I would be posting in a game thread if I didn't know the rule of the delay of game?

    That was the game where the puck crawld up Jphnson's stick AFTER the Canadiens player contacted the puck. Johnson did not initiate contact.  It was the wrong the call and application of that rule.

    The nerd clique then decided to call me a whiner about the refs and it was literally one of 4 god awful calls in a row against the Bs. almost as if the refs were trying to give Montreal PPs to get them back in the game. Remember that game?

    Yeah. They just didn't like the fact I was complaining about what was, god awful officiating which got Montreal back into it and ended up having us losing it.

     




    LOL.  It just keeps getting better.  Two years ago you were claiming you had hockey knowledge because you went to a bunch of games at the old Garden.  A few months ago, you "proved" your hockey knowledge because you were playing pickup and a no name who was drafted jumped in on your game and stole the puck from you.  But now, you managed to top it off.  How could we ever doubt you if you grew up playing with a current NHL player.  You're freakin hillarious.

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

                                     "I couldn't be any more articulate"

     

    Ok now I know how Chief Inspector Dreyfus got the twitch and went mad LoL

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    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?

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to red75's comment:

    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.



    I agree Red.  It's like when you refer to women's hockey as relevant and I let you know that it's not, right?

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    Thanks for helping me demonstrate the difference between differing opinions and facts, NAS. :p

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    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).

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    Check out the phrase "Imperical evidence".

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

    Re: Troll Refresher Part 341

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:


    53 players is a lot harder to handle as a GM than putting a hockey team on the ic




    An NHL G.M's responsibilites are more than just that. They have a farm team, players who were drafted by the team playing all over the globe in college,juniors and Elite Leagues etc..




     

    Dude, please.  NFL coaches have scouts that report in and the NCAA works as juniors for NFL GMs.  That's not a very good argument.

    The point was and is it's hard to attach salary to which positions based on the market or market trends and how an NFL GM projects that with 53 players to pay, as opposed to the NHL.  The thing that catches up with GMs in the NFL the most, or the NHL, is if one player, maybe two is overpaid based on the market. 

    Like, for example, if Lucic somehow doesn't live up his deal, it's going to hurt this team going foreward because of him being overpaid and the fact there is a cap. 

    The NBA is the easiest.  You need 3 big time stars, a Center or PF or a SF and a a Guard.

    The rest is filling in the gaps then putting some of the budget to your bench. It's very, very deliberate.

    The NHL GM has it tougher than that for sure, but no way it's on par with an NFL GM. No way. It's also harder to find a legit QB than it would be, say, to find a legit starting playoff caliber goalie.

     



    Never argued whose job is tougher, I simply pointed out that there is more to and NHL general managers job than putting players on the ice.

    I'm sure their both tough.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share