24 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessIs that the Canadian version of 'Dancing on Ice'?
Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
25 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkauzless will have to eventually provide his answer and we can then make judgments. The answer will either prove his point or it will not. I'm looking forward to what that answer is.
You're almost there. If uzless could tell you what happened in clear terms, then his premise would crumble. You would learn and understand what happened, despite never having played!
So the corollary is obvious. uzless cannot reveal his game or he'll lose. So he won't.
If uzless never provides his answer, he clearly loses. So I am confident he will "reveal his game."
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYes, which means that he's backed himself into a corner he can't win.
If uzless never provides his answer, he clearly loses.
However, never underestimate how much space there is under the carpet. By not answering and claiming that he will, he can defer the loss until people forget about this.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaIf that happens, I'm sure one of us will post a thread reminding everyone. Or we could turn this thread into a "sticky thread game" so that it always remains at or near the top.
Yes, which means that he's backed himself into a corner he can't win.
However, never underestimate how much space there is under the carpet. By not answering and claiming that he will, he can defer the loss until people forget about this.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyGarner only played a few games for Calgary, but your question was asking if there were any timid goalies.
Are these #1 NHL goalies?
Oh yea Pang he was that little goalie, and I don't think he lasted very long either.
Garner ever make the NHL? With the Calgary Flames NHL team?
Are you an ex-NHL player?
Or just back ups...I am talking more about the the NHL #1 goalies, not the fill ins, or back ups.
I don't think I even remember anyone named Tyrone Garner to be honest with you. Of course there are 30 teams now.😕
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're the only trapper here palynka.
You're almost there. If uzless could tell you what happened in clear terms, then his premise would crumble. You would learn and understand what happened, despite never having played!
So the corollary is obvious. uzless cannot reveal his game or he'll lose. So he won't.
If i explain this one play, you only gain insight into one play. If we were to try this with another clip, the set of circumstances would be different and the players thought process would be different so for you to apply anything you get from what i say about why this particular goal happened wouldn't necessarily work.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by Palynkajebus, by none of you non-players/tv watchers explaining the clip you can defer the loss until people forget about this.
Yes, which means that he's backed himself into a corner he can't win.
However, never underestimate how much space there is under the carpet. By not answering and claiming that he will, he can defer the loss until people forget about this.
YOU GUYS are the ones that claimed I don't have insight that can't be gained without playing the game but are refusing to show that you in fact HAVE gained this knowledge by watching games on tv.
There is only one way to play this game, and it's to have the non-players step up and take a crack at showing they have as much insight as i do. You guys go first, then me, and we'll compare.
There is NO OTHER WAY to do this properly. But you won't. We know it. You know it.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWrong...again.
. If uzless could tell you what happened in clear terms, then his premise would crumble. You would learn and understand what happened, despite never having played!
I can tell you what these guys are thinking because I KNOW what they are thinking. You on the other hand wouldn't actually KNOW what they are thinking simply because I told you what they were thinking. YOU, could only BELIEVE that what I am telling you is truthful.
YOU have to believe what i'm saying ON FAITH ALONE. YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING. You just believe.
I KNOW.
YOU BELIEVE.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
And more importantly, the next time you see a play, despite knowing what happened in one play at some historical point in time, you will NEVER be able to know what the players were thinking during any other play in the future!
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessWe.
jebus, by none of you non-players/tv watchers explaining the clip you can defer the loss until people forget about this.
YOU GUYS are the ones that claimed I don't have insight that can't be gained without playing the game but are refusing to show that you in fact HAVE gained this knowledge by watching games on tv.
There is only one way to play this gam ...[text shortened]... e.
There is NO OTHER WAY to do this properly. But you won't. We know it. You know it.
Don't.
Watch.
Hockey.
Idiot.
25 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessThis does bring up a major problem. There needs to be some way for us to judge your answer. Otherwise, how can any of us be able to know whether or not your analysis about the players' thoughts is correct? Just because you say so? How would we ever know that you're not just pulling stuff out of your arse? You may indeed have greater insight than the rest of us - but just because you are a former player doesn't make you infallible.
Wrong...again.
I can tell you what these guys are thinking because I KNOW what they are thinking. You on the other hand wouldn't actually KNOW what they are thinking simply because I told you what they were thinking. YOU, could only BELIEVE that what I am telling you is truthful.
YOU have to believe what i'm saying ON FAITH ALONE. YOU DON"T KNOW ...[text shortened]... ill NEVER be able to know what the players were thinking during any other play in the future!
What we'd really need is to find some other former players, and have them each give their own independent analysis. If all of them (or even just a great majority of them) offered the same analysis, I would accept "on faith alone" that their consensus opinion is very likely to be the correct one. Not ironclad proof, but the closest thing possible short of asking Ovechkin et al themselves about the play. But I'd have a problem accepting any one person's view as being The Truth - even if that one person was Wayne Gretzky.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's a small point but I assure you, when I explain the play, you will understand completely what I am saying and will actually "see" what I am saying when you watch the players while thinking about what I said.
This does bring up a major problem. There needs to be some way for us to judge your answer. Otherwise, how can any of us be able to know whether or not your analysis about the players' thoughts is correct? Just because you say so? How would we ever know that you're not just pulling stuff out of your arse? You may indeed have greater insight than the rest ...[text shortened]... ng any one person's view as being The Truth - even if that one person was Wayne Gretzky.
Having said that, there are others on RHP who have played hockey before and can verify what i say.
But regardless, the point here is to shwo that I have insights that most non-players dont'. My explanation will prove those insights, rest assured.
Again, i've put my position on the line....too bad no one else will.