Support and prove are 2 very different things. You should know that.
Waggling your genitals at me just shows your insecurities. I could say I went to Harvard and Chicago and taught at Stanford (I didn't). It wouldn't prove a thing. - Levit8
You are wrong about Statistics (in any meaningful sense) being so malleable. It would neither prove nor support everything you like. If it could, you could have found Statistics to support the case that the Earth is flat. After all, most of us take that as a learned fact (those who are not astronauts cannot see the earth's curvature for themselves).
You brought up the school issue, not me. You do not have to tell me you did not go to those schools for anything scientific or Statistics related. I knew that from the first words of the first post of yours.
That is however neither here nor there. Its not your lack of scientific training or illogical thinking that is the issue here. It is your implicit and explicit attitude, so rampant nowadays, that it is meaningless, and that it is evidence of elitism, and that you can simply Google anything you like, find a pov you like, and that confers equality between that pov and publications like Scientific American and journals like JAMA.
There are plenty of things I don't know poop about. I was not here for the Flyers golden years up to and before 1987. I don't however ever pick arguments with people who were first hand witnesses based on me just googling random sites and videos.
I thought it was proven that Jagr told all the teams that he wasn't sure when he was going to make the jump to the NHL because all he really wanted to do was play for the Pens because of Lemieux.
You are wrong about Statistics (in any meaningful sense) being so malleable. It would neither prove nor support everything you like. If it could, you could have found Statistics to support the case that the Earth is flat. After all, most of us take that as a learned fact (those who are not astronauts cannot see the earth's curvature for themselves).
You brought up the school issue, not me. You do not have to tell me you did not go to those schools for anything scientific or Statistics related. I knew that from the first words of the first post of yours.
That is however neither here nor there. Its not your lack of scientific training or illogical thinking that is the issue here. It is your implicit and explicit attitude, so rampant nowadays, that it is meaningless, and that it is evidence of elitism, and that you can simply Google anything you like, find a pov you like, and that confers equality between that pov and publications like Scientific American and journals like JAMA.
There are plenty of things I don't know poop about. I was not here for the Flyers golden years up to and before 1987. I don't however ever pick arguments with people who were first hand witnesses based on me just googling random sites and videos.
Because it disrespects the quality of debate. - PT21
And now the straw man argument. You are pathetically predictable, and predictably pathetic.
I've met, listened to and conversed with so many over-educated elitists like you who think that a couple of letters after your name makes you an expert on every subject. Just wondering, do you have a fake English accent to make yourself seem more credible?
I've learned in my short time on this not-quite-spherical earth that when someone accuses me of being or doing something, they are in fact providing insight to themselves. Unfortunately, they will never see this because they just can't fathom that they're not nearly as perfect as they have led themselves to believe they are.
I don't know you personally, but I have met you thousands of times.
This just reminded of a game I was at against Boston in 98. The Bruins had been chipping Lindros the whole game. And then Tim Taylor got his stick up and Lindros had enough.
Poor Taylor.
- MBFlyerfan
I think I saw S2TP in the stands for a few moments in that video. Or at least the back of his follically-challenged scalp.
And now the straw man argument. You are pathetically predictable, and predictably pathetic.
I've met, listened to and conversed with so many over-educated elitists like you who think that a couple of letters after your name makes you an expert on every subject. I've learned in my short time on this not-quite-spherical earth that when someone accuses me of being or doing something, it is because they are in fact providing insight to themselves. Unfortunately, they will never see this because they just can't fathom that they're not nearly as perfect as they have led themselves to be.
I don't know you personally, but I have met you thousands of times. - Levit8
Of course you have, just as you have met the tooth fairy, and just as your claim that Statistics can prove (or was it support) everything.
And then, when someone takes you to school by connecting the dots you so so generously provide yourself to complete the simian likeness, you find this act elitist. I too have met dozens like you, many here on HB.
I don't have any particular desire for personal approbation from you. I am not important, in absolute terms, or in this debate.
My only regret, as an American and as a scholar, is to marvel in sadness at what befell your lot that your consider an article in Scientific American, that magazine where Martin Gardner and Douglas Hofstader used to write for, where so many Nobel Prize winners have written, that popular flagship institution of American Science (itself an institution we have fought so hard to build) to be something you can be so dismissive about ("There are so many things that are wrong etc.").
It is like watching some random dude dismissing say, the views of a general on war. This attitude manifests itself in the criticism of people like Fauci, who was once among the most cited scientists working in any field.
It is not just the specific instance. It is that you actually don't believe in the act of institutions and quality. As Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Of course you have, just as you have met the tooth fairy, and just as your claim that Statistics can prove (or was it support) everything.
And then, when someone takes you to school by connecting the dots you so so generously provide yourself to complete the simian likeness, you find this act elitist. I too have met dozens like you, many here on HB.
I don't have any particular desire for personal approbation from you. I am not important, in absolute terms, or in this debate.
My only regret, as an American and as a scholar, is to marvel in sadness at what befell your lot that your consider an article in Scientific American, that magazine where Martin Gardner and Douglas Hofstader used to write for, where so many Nobel Prize winners have written, that popular flagship institution of American Science (itself an institution we have fought so hard to build) to be something you can be so dismissive about ("There are so many things that are wrong etc.").
It is like watching some random dude dismissing say, the views of a general on war. This attitude manifests itself in the criticism of people like Fauci, who was once among the most cited scientists working in any field.
It is not just the specific instance. It is that you actually don't believe in the act of institutions and quality. As Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - PT21
Every war has Generals on both sides. Yet, one side is wrong.
Your type also could never allow anyone else to have the last word. As a narcissist, it's in your DNA.
Again, you show a ridiculous lack of logic. The articles produced contained statements where the GM stated that Patrick suffered from migraines when he was younger and in junior hockey which was in fact PRE-DRAFT! As well as having a family history. Now if he had phrased the question "show me an article that was written pre-draft that said that Patrick had a migraine issue, then you might have a point. As someone who is uber educated and works in academia, you should be able to grasp that simple nuance. The key words are "suffered from migraines pre draft". That's obviously over your head.
I'm glad you mentioned context. Here is another logic failure on your part. His premise which goes straight to context was that he does not have a migraine issue but has concussion issues from the hits he took playing for the Flyers and that he has a migraine issue that he also had previously as a younger player is a lie! That is the only context that matters! He attempted to use that as evidence to support his agenda. It does not do so and you know it doesn't. - MJL
To clarify for you. Show one article like I’ve said many time printed before 2017 his draft year that states anything with him associated with migraines. There aren’t any. Not what the damn gm says of the flyers in 2020. Show and date predraft article. You’re the fraud. I’ve made my position quite clear numerous times. Even when other people try to clarify it for you you take the trump stance. Per usual. It’s like arguing with a 12 year old. Do your research. Find just article. Dated the day of or before nopa was drafted with migraine anything. Is that clear enough for you.
I think the issue here is, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, is that it is unclear if the migraine history was known pre-draft or if it was learned post-draft. Nobody is arguing that there is a history. When was the history learned?
Is there an article/story/statement dated before June 23, 2017 that mentions this history? Sincere question, not being argumentative. - Scoob
There is no article /story/statement. Which is proof the team lied and continues to lie. There’s no way the top pick or probable top pick in draft year there wouldn’t be that info. It’s not like hiding herpes. If he had migraines young and he missed a game it would’ve come out. It just doesn’t make sense. Migraines while they suck they aren’t a big deal in the grand scheme of life. They’re very manageable now and the ones that aren’t would definitely had him out for games. This excludes migraines from trauma which is obviously extremely worse. As evidenced by lindros Crosby pronger etc.
You're only partially correct Scoob. Your first statement I believe is true. However the poster in question is stating that the team is lying about it being a migraine issue and has nothing to do with migraines and it is strictly a concussion issue. That the team is making up the migraine part to hide the concussion issue. - MJL
Per usual trumpet. Use language to fit your narrative. I’ve said numerous times the migraines nopa has ( I never said he’s not having a migraine issue now) is due to trauma. (Concussion) because there’s zero chance regular migraines (even bad migraines clusters or ones that’ll knock you on your a$$ for days) keeps a pro athlete out of action for well over a year. Again name any pro athlete that missed over a year from migraines NOT NOT NOT due to a trauma? The team is not making up migraines. The team is lying by saying he didn’t have concussion and nopa has history of migraines since childhood yet there’s not one article before June draft 2017 that can be produced stating any issue with migraines about nopa. And funny how before bubble fletcher was hinting at might’ve had concussion. It’ll come out eventually and you’ll look like a tool as usual. What will you say then? Oh they just realized 18 months later? Ok believe that
I'm laughing my ass off with the I rest my case your honor. Any respectable honor would throw your case out of court why also laughing hysterically. Your case is ridiculously weak and completely circumstantial. It doesn't in any way support that the Flyers are lying about his condition. You also ignore that the reason why there was no talk of it or that it wasn't leaked was simply because at that point in time, it was a non issue. Whatever issues he had in the past weren't present. Nothing you've offered increases the likelihood that there were no migraines. Has the player himself refuted that he had migraines in the past pre-draft? - MJL
As you said if at that point in time he had migraines it was a non issue.... as I’ve stated I suffer from migraines. Some of my children suffer from migraines. I occasionally miss work due to migraines. My children sometimes miss school due to migraines. Neither of us have been out of action for over a year. And we’re not close to shape of a pro athlete. Don’t you find it strange even if he did have migraines and there wasn’t a concussion like the flyers said he didn’t have that he’d miss that long a time? Name 1 athlete you’ve ever heard of or person for that matter that missed that much time without trauma. It doesn’t add up. Please 1 example. Anyone. Pt21 gets it it’s call critical thinking. Look at the facts and make a semi logical conclusion. Or drink the kool aid
Do you clowns realize that you’re still having a hissy fit 12 hours later. Hope you guys took the time to eat a healthy meal and get a good nap in. You know because Bill’s going to write a article today on the many implications on the color orange.
I wanted to add something to this, in case it is misinterpreted.
Much of the life of an academic goes by in agreeing to serve as referee for journals. There, typically identifying information is stripped from the submission to ensure that everyone gets the same review process, irrespective of whether it is a graduate student or a Nobel Prize winner who has submitted an article.
But in day to day life, you do not have the luxury of examining every single piece of news as inherently being equal to others. You simply do not have time to make the judgment.
So what do you do? You look at the entities that produce information, and see who has the most strongest quality control, who hires the best people, who has the most to lose from a slip-up, and who has the most respect among people who you respect.
And after that, you keep an open mind as much as possible, but you give a priori preference to the ones that pass your tests. In the same way that a GM would trust the analysis of his scout over a source without similar credentials. Especially if that source has himself a history of poor advocacy.
Its not elitism. Its rational allocation of time.
Ok I am done.
Cheers. - PT21
It's elitism and this very post proves it. You actually think that as an 'academic" people want you to referee and tell people what's true and what isn't! LOL. That's elitism. People can think and decide for themselves. The issue is those like yourself, who are indoctrinated don't think for themselves. You think like you've been trained to think. Like a puppy who sits for a treat. That's not even addressing and opening the can of worms that is the main stream media. You don't trust or respect the Washington Examiner because they don't think like you and the rest of your collective think. Not to mention your ignorance of claiming that the Examiner was the source when they weren't. It wasn't an op-ed. The Florida house report is the source of the information that the article was about.
Support and prove are 2 very different things. You should know that.
Waggling your genitals at me just shows your insecurities. I could say I went to Harvard and Chicago and taught at Stanford (I didn't). It wouldn't prove a thing. - Levit8
PT21 frequently flaunts credentials. It's absolutely due to insecurity. As I've told him many times, smart people don't need to tell others that they're smart. He's constantly and desperately trying to prove to others how smart he is.
Everybody takes themselves waaaaaay to effing seriously. - twotoekenn
If you dismissively challenge Paul Stewart here on HB about some aspects of refereeing, with some motives/perspectives/opinions you found on the Internet, you have every right to do so. The question however is why you choose to exercise the right.
First, he has attained a high level of proficiency in his profession, so chances are he is right and you are wrong (not a 100% lock but on average this will be true). Second, by being dismissive, you not only disrespect the person/blog, you also disrespect the entire process of attaining competency, proficiency and finally expertise.
We are all born equal, but after that we display different talents, and choose different fields to gain expertise in. As time goes along, these gaps grow. Accepting this is in no way anything to do with elitism, anymore than you accepting an opinion from your doctor over your neighbor is elitist.
Scientific American is an extremely highly regarded, apolitical magazine that literally represents everything that American Science stands for at its best. Statistics and probability is the way we systematically sort out the uncertainties of modern life. It is present in everything from insurance to Covid statistics to Hockey analytics. Their existence also demands respect.
Should you uncritically accept things you read from reputed sources? Not at all. Use your critical faculties, and supplement them with other quality sources that make your perspective as complete as possible.
But don't harbor the mistaken belief that the institutions mean nothing (they do, and they deserve at the least careful reading and the presumption of being correct), and your lazy rebuttals are some sort of exercise in egalitarianism. It is much more likely that they are an exercise in branding you as a stone cold loser.
In other words, some things should be taken seriously.
I feel as tho I need to clarify some thing in regards to nopa from previous thread. First off and most importantly I do NOT have any ill feelings toward nopa and have absolutely no desire for his career to be over. I hope he recovers and continues career and excels. I would never wish injury on anyone. I’m no sicko. With that said and hopefully fully understood my comments of fake migraine boy are in jest to the situation. Nothing more. I absolutely believe the team lied (maybe not intentionally or maliciously about a concussion) but to clear up why it’s important is because it affects the team for future and how they and we as fans perceive it and as fans talk about it. For example, who plays 3c who’s possible here or signed or brought up. Who moves to wing and such. So when fans say nopa will be back because “it’s a migraine condition he’s had from childhood “ when again no one can produce an ARTICLE MJL who can’t comprehend I asked for an ARTICLE not a MEDICAL REPORT. Producing an article would never violate hippa. Many articles written about draft players health. And it’s all relevant in today’s age because so much more info on concussions. So the odds that nopa could possibly not play again like primeau are greater than ever. Do I think it’ll go that way? Probably not. Do I think nopa will be back? Yeah probably will and I sincerely hope he does. Would I be surprised if he’s not back? Wouldn’t be shocked at all because I know this isn’t just migraine related from childhood. This is from trauma. Obviously from concussion. I don’t need a medical report to come to that conclusion. - SMS4016
apparently in your world calling the kid a bust on multiple occasions as well as mush head and fake migraine boy mean you want him to excel. at least own it. this is laughable.
I often like to do a lot of space coke with my extraterrestrial alien friends. Prove me wrong. (Or prove me right.) - Bendecko
The first is false because by definition since there is absence of evidence, there is evidence of something being absent, and as such there is evidence of absence.
The second is false, since I am the only space coke pusher in this universe and you failed to meet my asking price.
We are all born equal, but after that we display different talents, and choose different fields to gain expertise in. As time goes along, these gaps grow. Accepting this is in no way anything to do with elitism, anymore than you accepting an opinion from your doctor over your neighbor is elitist.
- PT21
You don't accept that the gaps between others have grown. You just arbitrarily claim that you are ahead of others and that there is a gap. That makes you an elitist. You keep trying to spin out of it but each post you make just confirms it more.
The first is false because by definition since there is absence of evidence, there is evidence of something being absent, and as such there is evidence of absence.
The second is false, since I am the only space coke pusher in this universe and you failed to meet my asking price. - PT21
