Gerber vs Blackhawks

Neely4Life wrote:Thats cool, some people like being as ignoraant as you do. Dont need my stamp but I would suggest you go and grab some sort of idea about the game... Cheers

LOL. Ignorant? Huh. That should come as news to the University of Ottawa, who will be giving me my PhD in exactly one month. And the major publishing house that is going to publish my thesis.

But you know best. As you would put it, "Youre the smrtest person I no."

Oh, I didnt know getting a PhD gave you some super power where one knows all... congrats on that by the, thats actually impressive, that's something I could never do in all honestly.

Guess what, its a hockey board and you can read all the articles and books you want, you're still ignorant to the game of hockey, buddy. Again, have a good one!

Okay, that's enough you two. Geez...at least it was amusing when I looked at it, but it's not necessary. Rooney's a great contributor and Neely is...Neely. That's neither a good nor bad thing, you just need to know when to back away and let him go at it.

Enough, or I'll lock the thread.

Chris Neil = WIN

Seriously, that'll do.

Haha come on Heater. I want to talk about how relivant a PhD is to a hockey thread, haha.

I laughed at both of your posts, but c'mon, keep this on track.

You deserve a PhD in good humour then!

Calling someone ignorant is just as relivant (sic) to a hockey-themed discussion as getting a PhD. A PhD typically means that you have passed high school and college, and gotten a Bachelor's and a Master's degrees. And the cherry on top of all that is a PhD degree which proves a very high level achieved in a very particular subject matter. While the PhD, in and of itself, doe not indicae of a broad knowledge base, the only way to even get to starting one does. And that pretty much negates the ignorant attack.

But I'll ask again, since Chicago has not played anyone from the East, how can you say you are right in asserting that they are better than any team out int he East?

Neely4Life wrote:Oh, I didnt know getting a PhD gave you some super power where one knows all... congrats on that by the, thats actually impressive, that's something I could never do in all honestly.

Guess what, its a hockey board and you can read all the articles and books you want, you're still ignorant to the game of hockey, buddy. Again, have a good one!

Thanks for the congrats. It's more than I expected of you.

Does a PhD make me hockey-smart? Hell no. But I watch the game avidly and obsessively (just talk to the gf on that one, who positively hates hockey before June is over!), and I played hockey from the time I was 5 years old -- I remember my dad teaching me how to skate, with the help of a chair, when I was only 3 or 4 -- until near the end of high school (17 or 18). And I grew up watching hockey, my oldest memories dating back to me and my dad watching (on my granmother's old tv, nonetheless) Roy win his first cup in '86.

So what does my education bring to the table? It brings the capacity for analysis and critical judgment that I gained from my studies to everything I watch. What I have behind me after running one of the longest and hardest gambits there is in life is 11 years experience in always questioning received tradition, in meticulously compiling evidence and constructing logical arguments based on observation, in dealing with and understanding and accurately re-presenting the arguments of others, and -- most of all -- of being an active reader and interpreter of every single thing that happens in front of me.

That's also what allows me to say, "hey, you're misrepresenting me, wrenching my words out of context" with respect to my arguments in previous posts.

Your assignment for the day (should you be brave enough to accept it): go back to my old posts on the topic and provide an accurate, truthful synopsis what I wrote there, with an eye the context it was written in. If you're honest with yourself or with me, surely you'll see how the comments I made in December are no longer relevant as respects this team in May. CHI's goaltending *has* gotten better. Their D *has* significantly improved -- and, sorry, but Barker started the season in the minors (cap crunch -- they couldn't fit him in, that's why he only played 68 games this year) and got significantly better in the second half to boot. And the Pahlsson pick up, and the emergence of guys like Bolland and Brouwer, *has* improved the team's overall checking abilities. That's not "backpeddling." What that is, is such a drastic change in context that my comments no longer apply to the situation because the team has made the kinds of adjustments that I said they needed to make to impress me. If you were at all honest with yourself and with me, you'd recognize that that doesn't make me wrong -- it makes me right. I pin-pointed their flaws. They addressed them. That's why they're a better team now, in May, then they were then, in December.

Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

Yeah, but if I just say "I'm right, you're wrong" enough times, then maybe it'll be true...

j/k

:^^^^:

Even if we can't agree, can we call a truce?

wprager wrote:Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

275 pages.

Acrobat wrote:Yeah, but if I just say "I'm right, you're wrong" enough times, then maybe it'll be true...

j/k

:^^^^:

Even if we can't agree, can we call a truce?

Done.... provided I don't have to see my name and opinions paraded through the mud by one, um, individual.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

275 pages.

What's the subject?

wprager wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

275 pages.

What's the subject?

The British novel circa the late 18th and early 19th centuries -- specifically, in the context of the French Revolution debates in England.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

275 pages.

What's the subject?

The British novel circa the late 18th and early 19th centuries -- specifically, in the context of the French Revolution debates in England.

COngrats, that's pretty impressive.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:Umm, Rooney, just how long is that dissertation of yours?

jk

275 pages.

What's the subject?

The British novel circa the late 18th and early 19th centuries -- specifically, in the context of the French Revolution debates in England.

Yep, that's pretty specific. I didn't even know they debated the French Revolution in England. But now that I think of it, how could they not? I'll bet the royal family and all the various levels of the aristocracy were very keen on the outcome of these debates. I wonder if some of them had their bags packed, just in case.

What's surprising, though, is that I don't remember any Monty Python sketches on the topic.