Stanley Cup Final Predictions... - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-01-2003, 07:26 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 11:19 PM
What, no one left to respond to my point? As soon as I make a very decent point, there's no response. You were all buzzing when you *thought* I was in the wrong. Funny how that works.

Silence does speak louder than words.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:30 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 06:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Silence does speak louder than words.
I think the lovely images put in our minds by the velvet-one have silenced all.
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:50 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Yes, Zoni, I think you're right. That was a stupid argument anyway. I honestly think people get even more annoyed when their teams are out of the playoffs. Jealousy is the worst disease.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:52 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 06:19 PM
famous last words........














__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:01 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Well, it's been a while since the Blues, the Redwings, and the Leafs were knocked out. Sure I'd be upset for a while if the Canucks were knocked out, but I wouldn't take it out on others by putting them down for having "delusions of grandeur". I mean, if a team makes it to the final 8, it certainly has a shot of going all the way. If a team makes it to the final 4, you won't be seeing me telling people to "wipe their sheets from their wet dreams" and such. That would be a sign of bitterness.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:47 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Ah, changing the subject. I already addressed that. The point is, Cujo was using regular season stats (playoff seeding based on regular season standings) to justify his claims. Hey, I've got no problem with that, but I do have a problem with him saying I can't use "regular season performance" if he does it himself. Make sense?
I don't really see how I was being contradictory... I know I'm stubborn, but I'm pretty sure that my arguments are consistent. When I said stop focusing on regular season stats, I meant the entire year team records. If you weren't near-sighted about the Canucks, you would realize that they did not have the best record in the last quarter of the season... which is a good PLAYOFF indicator. Those types of stats may not always translate into postseason success, but OFTEN the better teams are those who are hot in the last few months. So, when you make statements like "oh yeah, well we beat Dallas in two periods of hockey one time"... that really has no value for comparison. Just because your team beat Dallas ONCE, doesn't mean you can beat Anaheim FOUR times in a playoff format. Does this make sense?

Quote:
What, no one left to respond to my point? As soon as I make a very decent point, there's no response. You were all buzzing when you *thought* I was in the wrong. Funny how that works.
As far as that goes, I'm sorry if I can't sit here all day and make the same arguments to people who have already collected an opinion. I don't mind having a friendly debate about hockey, but when you dismiss mine and other's comments to be folly if they challenge the stature of the Canucks, then I don't see the point in a continued response.

PS- I didn't see this until a few minutes ago... I had baseball practice.

NOW, WHERE'S THE FREAKIN' BEER MIKEY?

HOW ABOUT A SAM ADAMS LIGHT woooo yeah... not!

__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:51 AM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 06:19 PM
game, set, match to CUJO!!!!!!

OUUUUUUCH

CHECKMATE!!!!

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

CONVERSION IS GOOD!!!!




yes i like being a jackass
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:55 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 05:19 PM
i also liked it when the blues lost to the canucks after leading the series three games to one.

yes, i too like to be an ass.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:56 AM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
If a team makes it to the final 4, you won't be seeing me telling people to "wipe their sheets from their wet dreams" and such. That would be a sign of bitterness.
We'll see soon enough

Haven't I made it clear that I'm cheering for the Canucks... is it not ok to have a difference of opinion? Do you have such a shallow degree of loyalty towards your team that any disparaging remarks about them shatters your faith? I think that I'm past being bitter, but I will admit that there are some residual hard feelings. However, if I was bitter, would I be praising the very team that "we" lost to? Would I write a five-stanza poem about how they are the best? I do value what you have to say Mike, but I take offense when you take offense to comments that I make jestingly... lighten up buddy.

brewskie?
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:04 AM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Retraction:

I stand corrected... it was an eight stanza poem.

Also, I am an ass... I wouldn't say I enjoy it though... it's just a natural expression of being.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:22 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Alright, Cujo (and Chizip), I really don't care that much. Yes, I shouldn't get so worked up over the Canucks. Yes, your opinion shouldn't bother me. And yes, I need a beer. Badly. But since you've posted some more, I'll go back and debate some of it with you...

Quote:
Originally posted by cujo
When I said stop focusing on regular season stats, I meant the entire year team records.
But this is exactly what *you* used to determine the "top teams" (Dallas and Detroit) in the conference. You used point totals based on an entire year to show how great the Ducks are for beating the 1 and 2 "top teams" How is this not obvious?
Quote:
If you weren't near-sighted about the Canucks, you would realize that they did not have the best record in the last quarter of the season... which is a good PLAYOFF indicator.
Uhm, read my posts again. I actually went out of my way to point out that the Canucks played much better for *most* of the season than they did at the end. I fully indicated this exact point, saying they slumped at the end.
Quote:
Those types of stats may not always translate into postseason success, but OFTEN the better teams are those who are hot in the last few months. So, when you make statements like "oh yeah, well we beat Dallas in two periods of hockey one time"... that really has no value for comparison. Just because your team beat Dallas ONCE, doesn't mean you can beat Anaheim FOUR times in a playoff format. Does this make sense?
Yes, this completely makes sense, and I have not once disagreed with this thinking by anything I've said. My point is that the Canucks are once again playing like they were when they beat Dallas 4-2 on March 17th--and let's not forget when they beat Detroit several times, once by a 5-2 margin. So, I disagree that these scores have little relevance. They show what Vancouver can do when playing well. They are playing well right now. Therefore, they have relevance. That's my point. Hopefully you won't ignore it this time
Quote:
I don't mind having a friendly debate about hockey, but when you dismiss mine and other's comments to be folly if they challenge the stature of the Canucks, then I don't see the point in a continued response.
That's just it, though, it wasn't very friendly. You guys basically jumped all over me (get your mind out of the gutter, Chizip ) for saying you contradicted yourself, and you didn't even realize what I was actually saying to top it off. Yeah, maybe I should lighten up, but maybe you should realize I'm not the only one who needs to do that. Also, maybe I would have responded better to your criticisms if you didn't respond to my criticisms as being so folly -- ie, saying I'm dreaming, must be drunk, etc.

Also, when did I dismiss your comments? I simply argued one main point, which I still haven't seen you defend.

Ps. Okanagan Spring Pale Ale would suite me just fine right about now.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:38 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
But this is exactly what *you* used to determine the "top teams" (Dallas and Detroit) in the conference. You used point totals based on an entire year to show how great the Ducks are for beating the 1 and 2 "top teams" How is this not obvious?
Ps. Okanagan Spring Pale Ale would suite me just fine right about now.
Ok, we've both said stupid things... I will concede that. But, Detroit, Dallas, Colorado, and Anaheim were the four best teams towards the end, in terms of last quarter record if I'm not mistaken. So if you apply that logic about Dallas and Detroit being the best teams in the West, then it isn't such a stretch.

PS- I prefer a Rob Roy, or Shirley Temple served in a man's hat with a plum
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:44 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Yes, now that you've elaborated, I understand more. Before, I thought you were going by regular season standings alone in determining #1 and #2 in the West while at the same time telling me not to use such standards. That's where I got confused. Now, I realize you were simply saying you can use those standards if you first understand how the teams were playing at the end of the season, and if they're consistent to those standards. Makes sense now. Cool.

You like your hard alcohol, hey? Ever since my ex girlfriend forced a couple dirty martines down my throat, I've veered away from hard liqour...and my ex.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 03:07 AM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 06:19 PM
cujo likes everything hard, if ya know what i mean
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 03:09 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
You like your hard alcohol, hey? Ever since my ex girlfriend forced a couple dirty martines down my throat, I've veered away from hard liqour...and my ex.
I like my alcohol like I like my cars... fast, reliable, and cheap.

Glad we've settled this... I don't think any of us knew what each other was talking about... sounds like a good hockey argument to me.
__________________

__________________
cujo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com