-
Posts
5,764 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Kevin Biestra
-
Dan Cloutier is the only goalie in NHL history born after the 1960s to have a playoff save percentage below .900, save for one other person, Sergei Bobrovsky, who is at .899. That's with 20 games or more. Everyone else with a sub-.900 SPCT in the playoffs was playing in the 80s and before with the thin leather pads, or else the very early 90s.
-
I think the Sedins are ahead of those guys except for Fleury and Mogilny where it's getting close. I'd also have Bernie Nicholls ahead of Tkachuk or Roenick. I think Sundin not only got in but was first ballot, but I also agree that he is pretty much on par with Turgeon if not a little behind even. That was some Toronto home cooking. I'd probably have him in the Hall but I wouldn't be in a hurry. Honestly I'd probably look at Brian Propp, Dave Taylor, Rick Martin, Charlie Simmer, etc. before Alfredsson and I have no problem with Brind'Amour getting in under the longevity + accumulated scoring + captained a Cup team formula (Dave Andreychuk style). We're seeing Selke trophies finally get some appreciation for people not named Bob Gainey. The very next tier is Bobby Smith, Kirk Muller, Dale Hunter, Steve Larmer, Rick Middleton, Rick Tocchet, Neal Broten and probably Trevor Linden so everyone saying that even having a discussion about Linden is ridiculous is themselves being at least somewhat ignorant.
-
Sorry but this post is nonsense and it just seems like you didn't witness any of it. Linden had 70 points the season before Bure even arrived in the NHL. And Linden's PPG didn't really go up much from there when Bure was around. Linden generated his own offense and had since his rookie year where he was a Calder finalist. He was also a point per game or higher in both of his playoffs before Bure was even on the team. As to Linden better than the Sedins, in the playoffs he was absolutely unquestionably better than both Sedins. There is really no argument about it if someone actually watched both sets of careers. With respect to Linden after he was traded, all of that happened after he blew his knee out and his points per game was never the same after the injury. This is evident in Linden's two seasons after blowing his knee out, before being traded and with Bure on the team, where his points per game is lower than it was with either the Islanders or Canadiens. His points per game pre-injury and post-injury is night and day. If you link Linden's scoring to Bure this directly you simply weren't watching before Bure arrived and perhaps not even while they were playing together.
-
Again, you are arguing dishonestly here. I only needed to provide one piece of successful evidence the first place to make my point in the original post. I went above and beyond that and provided several. You are now engaging in a dishonest tactic and a logical fallacy, pretending that if there are two good pieces of evidence and one that you don't find compelling, the latter piece of evidence means the others don't exist and aren't valid. And you know you're doing it. On top of which, I stand by the Pelosi quote and clip as effective evidence anyway.
-
I stand by the quote I provided as tacit support of the activities of those people, especially in the context of the question and answer. And even if you don't agree, it has no bearing on the validity of the other examples. You're harping on one piece of evidence when I told you discard it if you wish. I have more than met my duty here.
-
If you don't find that example compelling, just discard it then and go with the other ones I provided.
-
I don't think you and the other person are arguing honestly in this case. Celebrities like Seth Rogen, Steve Carell, Chrissy Teigen etc. bailing out rioters sounds like support to me. The other poster said nobody legitimate would support rioting for any reason. Okay... Nancy Pelosi on people destroying statues... "People will do what they do" (shrug) The other poster said nobody legitimate would support rioting... Okay, is he/she saying this BLM leader is not legitimate? Like I said, you don't have to agree with Donnelly about anything at all. I don't even necessarily agree with him about anything. But pretending that nobody has supported riots over the last year is just dishonest.
-
We just saw all kinds of public figures supporting riots. You can't have forgotten this already. You don't have to agree with Donnelly about masks or anything else to know that.
-
I never said free speech is without consequences. As to whether it's absolute, it's as absolute as a given set of laws allows it to be. It's very easy for all of us to say the line should be drawn exactly where we want it to be at a given time. You might prefer that person X be silenced and person Y might prefer to silence you. Of course speech has consequences. But a lot of people are pretending there aren't any potential consequences to some of the things that the people they don't like are protesting about.
-
Well here's the author's own summary of the article. "A system that tolerates "hate speech" is probably superior to the alternatives, but defenders of an absolute right can't pretend no one gets hurt." For one thing, I don't think anything Donnelly did comes close to hate speech. For another, I never said such speech isn't hurtful. In fact, I don't even think I've stated any position at all on hate speech.
-
Those administering the purity tests today often fail it themselves tomorrow when the standard goes up.
-
I don't have any argument that you shouldn't wear one. And I don't hear that argument much from anyone. Some others may have an easier time making arguments that you should choose for yourself whether you want to wear one. Maybe they'll convince you or someone else, maybe they won't. But the argument could come from several other places than the motives you ascribed to everyone making it.
-
No they don't. They just have to view the risks associated with COVID and the actual reduction in that risk that masks provide as X, and then view either civil liberties or the effect of setting a precedent of reducing those liberties or anything else as Y and then come to some determination where Y > X. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong but there are other ways for someone to develop an opposing philosophy to yours on this or any other issue. And if you group them all together, project one singular motive onto them and then shame them, all you really do is stifle discussion and galvanize them in their position. Their side is not the only one that would benefit from the Socratic method and critical thinking.
-
Every policy decision, every allocation of resources, every right is issued, ordered or protected in a system with moving parts against all other funding, demands, resources, scarcity of those resources and other rights. What do you think the survival and mortality rate of this particular virus actually is? Now you can take all resources and rights and redistribute and curtail them or do anything else you want in order to address that mortality rate. Or I should say, you can campaign and lobby for whatever you think the proper allocation is to combat it. But as I said, all of these rights, all of these resources, and all of these other priorities come at the cost of something else. You don't fight covid with funds from the money tree, and you don't curtail other activities with privileges that grow on the freedoms tree. Where you want to draw the various lines is up to you. But people will die from one cause or another and one death from anything is too many. But deaths from everything are going to happen, and indeed, various COVID related measures do have fallout elsewhere in the system as increased deaths elsewhere and lower quality of life or more poverty in other areas and so on.
-
And there you go, logic out the window and pure emotional appeal. That tactic makes reasonable discussion about anything impossible.
-
Based on the actual mortality rate and statistics he would need an extremely large family to kill one member of it.
-
Now I bet you're gonna try to force Mark Donnelly to wear underwear.
-
I don't think all politicians are trying their best to help people. I think you'll have to look substantially harder to find unethical corrupt doctors. The latter do exist, but they have their licenses revoked for stuff that politicians can do before breakfast.
-
You seem to have some very lofty ideas about politicians.
-
Also that analogy's diagram opted to leave out the frame where if the peeing guy is wearing pants, you won't get his pee on you whether you're wearing them or not. So...if you're gonna go out in public and start peeing randomly, definitely wear pants.
-
Fauci was not new to either masks or viruses of this nature. He didn't come into the job not knowing how either worked at the start and then only got up to speed with a crash course in the last few months. The guy wasn't a layman brought out of the Ozarks and told to start book learning about masks and viruses right quick. So he didn't know if cloth and homemade masks were as effective as surgical supply store masks but thank goodness now he does?
-
I'm not so sure the people who would either go to war or take a stand like Muhammad Ali vs. the ones that would run to Canada would be on the same side of the mask stuff as you think.
-
You don't want celebrity epidemiologists and Emmy awards for governors giving press conferences? What's the matter with you?
-
Well anyway, I guess wait until the first time you have a similar different opinion from more powerful people about something that has nothing to do with your job performance and see how it goes for your livelihood and if you feel the same then.
- 843 replies
-
- 12
-
-
-
-
-
-
Then how about say nothing instead of giving an actual contradiction of what the apparent correct policy is supposed to be.