Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 It's the difference between believing something to be true and saying that something might possibly be true. I very clearly stated every time that he believed it "might" be a factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "quite possibly" is what Kerry Fraser said Kerry Fraser believes it "quite possibly" factored into their decision Kerry Fraser believes it might have been a factor where did I lose you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Just because we disagree on something doesn't mean I'm a troll. It's the word believe I'm having trouble with in your argument. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Perhaps I felt it was less that honest when you excluded part of his quote. Maybe I'm just being a sensitive old B though. It's a pretty subtle distinction. And yes, you are right in that people use "troll" far too much here. It's like "hater": simply a lazy way to discredit someone that you disagree with and either can't be bothered to come up with an argument, or actually don't have a valid argument but don't want to admit the other party has a point.. Very annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "quite possibly" is what Kerry Fraser said Kerry Fraser believes it "quite possibly" factored into their decision Kerry Fraser believes it might have been a factor where did I lose you? You didn't. It's just not the whole quote. The quote is two statements. Like I said though I'm probably just being over sensitive about it. I still don't believe a quote should be presented in it's entirety because for me the whole quote puts different weight to the two statements. Not every disagreement has to be a fight Xanlet. You don't need to get so worked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You didn't. It's just not the whole quote. The quote is two statements. Like I said though I'm probably just being over sensitive about it. I still don't believe a quote should be presented in it's entirety because for me the whole quote puts different weight to the two statements. The whole quote : "Given the entire circumstance and magnitude of the illegal hit, I have to believe that the absence of injury to Burrows, and quite possibly a tight playoff race that the defending Stanley Cup Champions are currently engaged in, had to play a part in the decision by the Player Safety Committee not to take further action against Tyler Toffoli." "I have to believe that the absence of injury to Burrows, and quite possibly a tight playoff race that the defending Stanley Cup Champions are currently engaged in" the only difference is that the second half is preceded by "quite possibly" you were framing it as though I had claimed Kerry Fraser firmly believes it was a factor. That is an outright lie. I said every time that he believed it might have been a factor. That was what led me to think you were a troll, Mongrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 It's a pretty subtle distinction. And yes, you are right in that people use "troll" far too much here. It's like "hater": simply a lazy way to discredit someone that you disagree with and either can't be bothered to come up with an argument, or actually don't have a valid argument but don't want to admit the other party has a point.. Very annoying. Absolutely it is and certainly not worth the energy that's put out for it. (I'm off work and a little bored today.) Although subtle though as I said to Xanlet I just don't think it's very honest to pick parts out of quotes to better serve an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Absolutely it is and certainly not worth the energy that's put out for it. (I'm off work and a little bored today.) Although subtle though as I said to Xanlet I just don't think it's very honest to pick parts out of quotes to better serve an argument. I take that as an insult. I very deliberately kept intact Fraser's meaning. He DOES believe that it MIGHT have been a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 The whole quote : "Given the entire circumstance and magnitude of the illegal hit, I have to believe that the absence of injury to Burrows, and quite possibly a tight playoff race that the defending Stanley Cup Champions are currently engaged in, had to play a part in the decision by the Player Safety Committee not to take further action against Tyler Toffoli." "I have to believe that the absence of injury to Burrows, and quite possibly a tight playoff race that the defending Stanley Cup Champions are currently engaged in" the only difference is that the second half is preceded by "quite possibly" you were framing it as though I had claimed Kerry Fraser firmly believes it was a factor. That is an outright lie. I said every time that he believed it might have been a factor. That was what led me to think you were a troll, Mongrel I think this might be a mix of me not being very clear and you getting a little worked up and loading for bear. That's not what I was going for at all. My problem was always that you excluded part of the quote. I've always thought of a belief and a possibility to be two separate things. I can not believe something to be true but admit that it might be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soshified Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 No matter what, it was a dangerous crosscheck that could have snapped Burrows' neck. The outcome of hits shouldn't be a factor in deciding the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I take that as an insult. I very deliberately kept intact Fraser's meaning. He DOES believe that it MIGHT have been a factor. Put down the double barrel Xan. Why keep the meaning by your interpretation rather than keep in the whole quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I think this might be a mix of me not being very clear and you getting a little worked up and loading for bear. That's not what I was going for at all. My problem was always that you excluded part of the quote. I've always though of a belief and a possibility to be two separate things. I can not believe something to be true but admit that it might be possible. Fraser states that he believes Burrows injury factored in, AND quite possibly the playoff race he literally uses the word believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanlet Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Put down the double barrel Xan. Why keep the meaning by your interpretation rather than keep in the whole quote. Its called reading comprehension, you read something, find the meaning, and then you can talk about the meaning. If there is then a dispute about an interpretation, you can then refer to the actual quote, which upholds what I said about it in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Is there anyone who doesn't think Toffoli should have been suspended? Other than the inept confused, and possibly corrupt Disciplinary department? I haven't heard anyone, even Kerry Fraser be contrary. Yet they refuse to answer for their decision. There is a clear double standard for the player that dared to call out a corrupt ref. #1. Burrows hit on Emelin....No penalty on the ice. (it looked like Emelin fell down a little dramatically too)...Yet the disciplinary committee handed Burrows, with no suspension history at all, three games. Hits on Burrows: 2. Burrows hit by Niederreiter. Clear shot to the head. Raised his body to deliberately target the head. No suspension. 3. Burrows hit by Toffoli. Called on the ice. Disciplinary committee ignores it...again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 This whole argument is Bigturk's fault for posting the article, nuts to that guy! Down with Bigturk! He's the worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gino#29 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 the l.a. freemasons.when did they change that crown on their jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gino#29 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 they get off scot-free,am i rite or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goal:thecup Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "Quoted" said, "I just can't extrapolate that to a specific anti-Cancucks conspiracy that's all." You want to extrapolate any mention of bias into "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy" because it is much easier to prove that there is not "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy. We mention a few (of many, over a very long period) instances of anti-Canucks bias and you climb on your high horse and extrapolate any point made into your specific definition so that you can generalize posters into your definition of conspiracy theorists for your spiteful purpose of ridiculing them. It may not be specifically "trolling", but it sure is against the spirit of the board rules about purposefully antagonizing the Canuck fans who wish to use these forums to discuss current events in context. Fraser's comments shed light on another instance where the Canucks have been treated unfairly and you resort to nit-picking shades of differences in meaning between believing and thinking. Most readers of this topic have left it and, extrapolating here, it is probably because of your boring yet agravating insistence on specific definitions instead of meaningful dialogue. Turn the arguments around, try and prove that each example given is proof that there is not "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy". Or, just bugger off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "Quoted" said, "I just can't extrapolate that to a specific anti-Cancucks conspiracy that's all." You want to extrapolate any mention of bias into "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy" because it is much easier to prove that there is not "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy. We mention a few (of many, over a very long period) instances of anti-Canucks bias and you climb on your high horse and extrapolate any point made into your specific definition so that you can generalize posters into your definition of conspiracy theorists for your spiteful purpose of ridiculing them. It may not be specifically "trolling", but it sure is against the spirit of the board rules about purposefully antagonizing the Canuck fans who wish to use these forums to discuss current events in context. Fraser's comments shed light on another instance where the Canucks have been treated unfairly and you resort to nit-picking shades of differences in meaning between believing and thinking. Most readers of this topic have left it and, extrapolating here, it is probably because of your boring yet agravating insistence on specific definitions instead of meaningful dialogue. Turn the arguments around, try and prove that each example given is proof that there is not "a specific anti-Cancucks(sic) conspiracy". Or, just (expletive deleted) off. Seriously? Thanks for the laugh if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Its called reading comprehension, you read something, find the meaning, and then you can talk about the meaning. If there is then a dispute about an interpretation, you can then refer to the actual quote, which upholds what I said about it in this case Was that really necessary? This isn't a problem of reading comprehension and stop being so rude. It's takes your excellent ability to debate and turns it into you sounding foolish. I'm pretty sure I've been pretty respectful of you and I would ask for the same in return. Of course it upholds because it's your interpretation. I believe his quotes proves my interpretation. We'll pretty much be stuck on that since neither of us is budging and it's a pretty minor point so might as well drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Is there anyone who doesn't think Toffoli should have been suspended? Other than the inept confused, and possibly corrupt Disciplinary department? I haven't heard anyone, even Kerry Fraser be contrary. Yet they refuse to answer for their decision. There is a clear double standard for the player that dared to call out a corrupt ref. #1. Burrows hit on Emelin....No penalty on the ice. (it looked like Emelin fell down a little dramatically too)...Yet the disciplinary committee handed Burrows, with no suspension history at all, three games. Hits on Burrows: 2. Burrows hit by Niederreiter. Clear shot to the head. Raised his body to deliberately target the head. No suspension. 3. Burrows hit by Toffoli. Called on the ice. Disciplinary committee ignores it...again. To be fair (and I do believe it should have been subject to further discipline without question) the league didn't ignore it they simply said the in game punishment was enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.