18 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessI am used to people being arrogant, but your position that you know no much more than everyone else that their knowledge makes them unable to watch a sporting event on TV and know what is going on (even if they had the benefit of a commentator explaining it to them) is utterly ridiculous.
explain the play then to back up your opinion. Let's talk facts.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyYes, of course I would understand it better than many players. This really is uncontroversial considering some players are between doorbells and doorknobs in the intelligence scale.
So, now you're setting up a hypothetical situation. IF i were to STUDY IT...Well that is what many of the commentators do especially from the U.S. and some do a great job, but others don't have a clue and get things mixed up on a routine basis.
( It is a good thing they have the colour guys, pros who have played the game to correct them)
You could s ...[text shortened]... an someone who played it, especially at a semi-pro or Pro level is inane at best even for you.
The question is if there is anything really intangible in the game of hockey that cannot be understood without playing. To me, the answer is an obvious no unless you want to claim that sports are metaphysical somehow. Of course, most people don't realize the implications of what they're saying and don't realize this.
18 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are proving how stupid you really are, well done!
Yes, of course I would understand it better than many players. This really is uncontroversial considering some players are between doorbells and doorknobs in the intelligence scale.
The question is if there is anything really intangible in the game of hockey that cannot be understood without playing. To me, the answer is an obvious no unless you want to c ...[text shortened]... se, most people don't realize the implications of what they're saying and don't realize this.
You need no help proving yourself wrong!
You obviously know nothing about all the college boys in the game. Not to mention they are (pretty well) all millionares are you?
So, they know the game better than you ever will, plus being between doorbells and doorknobs in your inane opinion have more money than you. How does that make you feel?
18 Nov 09
I wonder if it might be better if uzless posted the hockey clips in the Posers and Puzzles Forum? So that those of us (okay maybe just me) who are actually interested in solving the puzzle can discuss the clip, without worrying about uzless's motives (or the relative intelligence of doorknobs and doorbells).
18 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Very RustySo what if they're rich? What do their salaries have to do with anything? 😵
You are proving how stupid you really are, well done!
You need no help proving yourself wrong!
You obviously know nothing about all the college boys in the game. Not to mention they are (pretty well) all millionares are you?
So, they know the game better than you ever will, plus being between doorbells and doorknobs in your inane opinion have more money than you. How does that make you feel?
18 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaNo richer than you are! You call their intelligence between doorbells and doorknobs, in comparison to yours, as you do mine, and we all have more money than you do.
So what if they're rich? What do their salaries have to do with anything? 😵
The question was: How does that make you feel that people who are as dumb as doorbells and doorknobs have more money than you?
Perhaps, you underestimate people?
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyI really don't care. Good for them, I guess. I wouldn't trade what I do for that, though.
No richer than you are! You call their intelligence between doorbells and doorknobs, in comparison to yours, as you do mine, and we all have more money than you do.
The question was: How does that make you feel that people who are as dumb as doorbells and doorknobs have more money than you?
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by darvlayCome on Darv. You might be the only one that qualifies here as a non-player who has watched a lot of games. Not sure any of these other yahoo's even watch hockey. Their argument seems to revolve around theoretical tv watchers instead of factual ones.
No. But I am following you on this one! Keep it going...
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWithout saying what you do of course.
I really don't care. Good for them, I guess. I wouldn't trade what I do for that, though.
I just don't think it is right that you call people dumb, when they are smart enough or have worked hard enough in their life to have more money than you do, is all. It is money that does the talking in this world, when all else is said and done.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessI believe Darv knows the game, but he did play some also, and you did say for those who haven't actually played the game.
Come on Darv. You might be the only one that qualifies here as a non-player who has watched a lot of games. Not sure any of these other yahoo's even watch hockey. Their argument seems to revolve around theoretical tv watchers instead of factual ones.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI got nothing againsta ya melanerpres...you gave it a legit shot. Kudos to you.
I wonder if it might be better if uzless posted the hockey clips in the Posers and Puzzles Forum? So that those of us (okay maybe just me) who are actually interested in solving the puzzle can discuss the clip, without worrying about uzless's motives (or the relative intelligence of doorknobs and doorbells).
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very Rustythis is a carry-over of the other other thread about why watch a game you can't play. In it I argued people who didn't play at a high level of competetition couldn't understand the game as well as someone who hadn't played or had only played at a lower level. Just because a person played at a kids level, doesn't mean they can translate that experience into full knoweldge.
I believe Darv knows the game, but he did play some also, and you did say for those who haven't actually played the game.
At least, that is my argument. I've been trying to back up that argument by using this thread to test/prove my argument but everyone who opposed me in the other thread won't even try to disprove my point by commenting on the goal.
It's hard to do an experiment if you don't get any data (melanerpress notwithstanding)