Summer Dany Heatley hits

Wait, wait, I got it:



When do I get to cry "foul", btw? Someone asks me a question about my thesis in one of these thread, I answer, and 20 minutes later the thread is shut down. We're two pages into this nonsense, and on and on it goes. All I'm asking for here is equity.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have demanded I spell your name right...even though I have proven you can't even spell our Captain's or any other word properly for that matter .

With you, it's small battles before big ones. I have just one this small one (which normally I wouldn't care about) but, you started it. We all know you like to pat yourself on the back, so I will as well.

No need to admit you are wrong, we can all see that.

Now, onto hockey...

Didn't see your posts till now guys, will do.

Case was closed anyway.

rooneypoo wrote:Wait, wait, I got it:



When do I get to cry "foul", btw? Someone asks me a question about my thesis in one of these thread, I answer, and 20 minutes later the thread is shut down. We're two pages into this nonsense, and on and on it goes. All I'm asking for here is equity.

Ya, no one around that has the ability to lock the thread.

Thank you on behalf of everyone for both agreeing to stick to hockey only, without name-calling, or other such tactics.

notch4077 wrote:If you didn't care, you wouldn't have demanded I spell your name right...even though I have proven you can't even spell our Captain's or any other word properly for that matter .

With you, it's small battles before big ones. I have just one this small one (which normally I wouldn't care about) but, you started it. We all know you like to pat yourself on the back, so I will as well.

No need to admit you are wrong, we can all see that.

Now, onto hockey...

Ok, onto hockey... so the best team doesnt always win eh... when was the last time a team who didnt have home ice advantage won the cup? You stated Carolina and Tampa won the cups... while Tampa was 1st in the conferance and Carolina was second...

Also, the "assumptions" I made that are all fact, what do you say to those? Just curious.

You're aloud to admit you're wrong. I just proved your statement was false.

rooneypoo wrote:Wait, wait, I got it:



When do I get to cry "foul", btw? Someone asks me a question about my thesis in one of these thread, I answer, and 20 minutes later the thread is shut down. We're two pages into this nonsense, and on and on it goes. All I'm asking for here is equity.

Where's the smiley for "can of worms opening..." ?

To address the issue of the best team "always" winning, I would refer you to a book called "The Drunkard's Walk". It's about randomness and its effect on life (or something like that - it's been a while).

IIRC, in a 7-game series, a team that is "10% better" (ie. 55:45) has about a 60% chance of winning the series - still not much better than a flip of a coin.

If you have two mismatched teams, such that one is twice as good as the other (66.7:33.3), the weaker team will still be expected to win about 20% of the 7-game series.

Don't quote me on the exact numbers, but I'm sure they are close; I'll find the book and repost the exact numbers later when I get time. This assumes that all "random variable" such as lucky bounces, refereeing effects, etc are truly "random"; the author made a good argument as to why you could assume this.

(BTW, this is my excuse for why Detroit lost - random variation - and I'm sticking to it...)

EDIT: here is a weblink that touches on it - jump to 13:50
http://www.lolsports.com/tag/odds-of-winning-a-7-game-series/
At least the first of the two numbers I quoted is correct...

notch4077 wrote:If you didn't care, you wouldn't have demanded I spell your name right...even though I have proven you can't even spell our Captain's or any other word properly for that matter .

With you, it's small battles before big ones. I have just one this small one (which normally I wouldn't care about) but, you started it. We all know you like to pat yourself on the back, so I will as well.

No need to admit you are wrong, we can all see that.

Now, onto hockey...

We're back to hockey and you have nothing but hope. Thought so.

Can we stop with this? It's literally ridiculous. Stick to hockey, debate the team, personal attacks = no good for me.

notch4077 wrote:
You're talking to me about spelling.....bahahhahahahhahhahahhahaha....give me a second here...bahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhaha...more to come...

Icing on the cake...

I believe N4L was referring to correctly spelling the name of Hall of Famer Cam Neely. He has gone on record multiple times about his own inability to spell (although that time he got drunk and kept posting, his spelling improved dramatically -- go figure).

Anyway. This is beyond pointless.

N4L, you *are* negative. You can be realistic, correct and still be negative. Those are not mutually exclusive. You also tend to state things in absolutes, seemingly giving no chance to an improbable, but possible outcome. That rubs people the wrong way.

SpezDispenser wrote:Can we stop with this? It's literally ridiculous. Stick to hockey, debate the team, personal attacks = no good for me.

We tried diplomacy; now it's your turn.

May I suggest a muzzle?

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Can we stop with this? It's literally ridiculous. Stick to hockey, debate the team, personal attacks = no good for me.

We tried diplomacy; now it's your turn.

May I suggest a muzzle?

Diplomacy: the art of saying "Nice doggy" while reaching for a big stick.

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Can we stop with this? It's literally ridiculous. Stick to hockey, debate the team, personal attacks = no good for me.

We tried diplomacy; now it's your turn.

May I suggest a muzzle?

Again, look back at the convo and try and see who tried to keep it on track.

wprager wrote:

notch4077 wrote:
You're talking to me about spelling.....bahahhahahahhahhahahhahaha....give me a second here...bahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhaha...more to come...

Icing on the cake...

I believe N4L was referring to correctly spelling the name of Hall of Famer Cam Neely. He has gone on record multiple times about his own inability to spell (although that time he got drunk and kept posting, his spelling improved dramatically -- go figure).

Anyway. This is beyond pointless.

N4L, you *are* negative. You can be realistic, correct and still be negative. Those are not mutually exclusive. You also tend to state things in absolutes, seemingly giving no chance to an improbable, but possible outcome. That rubs people the wrong way.

Im negative a lot, here I wasnt though. My spelling is awful though, I've never had a problem saying that. Man I was hammered that night though...

Neely4Life wrote:

wprager wrote:

notch4077 wrote:
You're talking to me about spelling.....bahahhahahahhahhahahhahaha....give me a second here...bahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhaha...more to come...

Icing on the cake...

I believe N4L was referring to correctly spelling the name of Hall of Famer Cam Neely. He has gone on record multiple times about his own inability to spell (although that time he got drunk and kept posting, his spelling improved dramatically -- go figure).

Anyway. This is beyond pointless.

N4L, you *are* negative. You can be realistic, correct and still be negative. Those are not mutually exclusive. You also tend to state things in absolutes, seemingly giving no chance to an improbable, but possible outcome. That rubs people the wrong way.

Im negative a lot, here I wasnt though.

The problem here was that even though you tried to keep the convo on course, you also poked a stick at the same time, when you asked him to learn to spell. That's like Mike Milbury telling Ken Holland he's a bad GM.

Anyways, the only two times I've seen this guy he trashed the sight and turned a hockey conversation into some wierd, juvenile, comments about my bad spelling. That's like telling a parapalegic he's in a wheel chair.

Zoolander wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:

wprager wrote:

notch4077 wrote:
You're talking to me about spelling.....bahahhahahahhahhahahhahaha....give me a second here...bahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhaha...more to come...

Icing on the cake...

I believe N4L was referring to correctly spelling the name of Hall of Famer Cam Neely. He has gone on record multiple times about his own inability to spell (although that time he got drunk and kept posting, his spelling improved dramatically -- go figure).

Anyway. This is beyond pointless.

N4L, you *are* negative. You can be realistic, correct and still be negative. Those are not mutually exclus

ive. You also tend to state things in absolutes, seemingly giving no chance to an improbable, but possible outcome. That rubs people the wrong way.

Im negative a lot, here I wasnt though.

The problem here was that even though you tried to keep the convo on course, you also poked a stick at the same time, when you asked him to learn to spell. That's like Mike Milbury telling Ken Holland he's a bad GM.

If a word was right in front of me 10 times, as bad as I am, I would get it right, haha.

I also didnt really tell him how to spell, I actually corrected him and told him who it was based on and who is was not. Poking him with a stick or not I still talked hockey... he basically left after it turned to hockey again. I'm sure he'll come back saying something stupid fairly soon.