View Single Post
03-24-2004, 05:20 PM
Registered User
Edge's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Is there something wrong with me arguing again and again and again? Arent you doing the same thing?
As for the comment that noone outside of Pitt is watching and whether or not it is wrong...
Yes....It WAS, and IS wrong.
Yet even THAT in itself isnt true. The Penguins television ratings during the late 90's/ early 2000's were among the top three in the league. For a portion of that they were TOPS in the league.That is fact as well.
Again, show me how that proves that noone was watching when all it does is prove contrary?
For there city yes. In the entire NHL not. You're looking at the market share. Pitts has a hire % of their market share because again they are a smaller market. Kinda the big fish in a small pond theory.

As for the actual NHL numbers, as of 9 days ago the best ratings overall in the league belong to

The Wings, The AVS, The Bruins, The Leafs, The Habs and The Flyers in that order.

Pitts is actually ranked somewhere around the 25 or 26 mark if I remember correctly, despite having a higher market share than some teams.

And I know this, because I was just talking to the guy about a week ago because I was trying to find something else out.

Either way, in saying that he was doing well because noone was watching him is simply untrue in itself. You assumed that noone was watching him.
That isnt the case as evidenced by the facts.
Attendance/Television= a wrong statement. There is no need for a continuance because IT IS A WRONG STATEMENT. I simply don't see why you cant admit that or at the very least say that it was an assumption?
Because no offense unless you actually work with the people I know, I saw the numbers in front of me. And right, wrong or indifferent when they show me your pointing to is market share and not what you think it, than yes I'm gonna go with their statement over yours.

For the record, I live in California.

If by refuting, you mean changing what you said or playing semantics (in the other thread) then i guess you refuted them. However, going by THIS thread (and not the other) your points have been factually refuted. People were watching. Alot in fact. More so than almost every other team. Look at the TV ratings for yourself.

I have been factually refuted? How do you figure. I just told you i talked with the guy the other day. And i also just showed that you misread the number. Are you a marketing major? Do you at least have a degree in it.

When you look at the numbers {speaking from EXPERIENCE in a marketing background} you have the national ratings and you have the local market share.

That's why teams like Edmonton and Calgary are smaller markets. THEY are watching, but not enough people outside of THEM are watching. It's as simple as that.

Even with Kovalev, how often was he in the national news for his play. Not nearly as much as you'd think a 95 point player would be. There's a reason for that.

If you would like to continue about the other thread, PM me.
For what? you were perfectly willing to use the message boards before people started siding against you. Why is it any different now. If you believe what you believe strongly enough than share it.

Simply put, sheer numbers alone in terms of people believing a certain way, doesn't make them right or me wrong.
No it doesn't, but the people who often thought that they and they alone were right have had some interesting results in world history.

I have no problems with how people train in other countries. I have no problem with you pointing out that they are trained different. I have problems with statements that are deragatory when they are tied in to a nation.
And for the third or fourth time i'd like to ask you what i said was deragatory. The other person made the pansy comment. not me. But even despite me asking you in the other thread, you've failed to answer what exactly i said. Even when other people read it and said "what are you talking about" you failed to answer. So again, I really wanna know where you are getting this from?

Would you really like me to respond to the other thread? Would that make you feel better? I didnt dissapear, I read what you wrote. I simply didnt feel like carrying on a conversation where i was repeating myself over and over again, and where the argument was changed from the original point.
Was it or did you realize that when you reread my first post that there was nothing wrong it and your entire response was to a comment that I NEVER made?
I stated that I would graciously let you have the last word out of respect for your debates. I wanted to show that respect and let you have the last word as i said i would.I dont see the need to continue to rehash the same things over and over.
Again, if you would like to continue the debate, then take it to a PM.
What debate, you were arguing against something I never said in the last one. And here there is nothing else I can show you. If you read the numbers how you want, there is NOTHING I can about that. And if you read my last post you'll see that I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, just the personal jabs and assumptions you make that the people you meet on here don't actually know what they are talking about.

I know where i work and i know what i work in, if you can't accept the explanations I give you based on the actual numbers and interrpretations then there is nothing I can do right?

I mean I can't make you believe what you dont want to. But I can at least clarify it for someone who reads that and thinks that is the way it actually is, when it isn't.

Pretending to know my psyche now? I have opinions just like everyone else. I am unafraid to voice them. I am sorry if that comes across as arrogance or that I know everything. I dont pretend to have or be either.
Pretending or not, that is the way you're coming off.

I post on other teams message boards all the time. I come to learn. And to help others learn. Who the heck said I feel as if I am some demigod who is owed anything simply by my mere presence?
I dunno you tell me, you're the one coming off like that.
Again, if you dont like my posts, then block me. If you feel i am just here to attack you, then block me.
Did you even read what i said by any chance?

Obviously not. But you're a big boy, you can do that yourself.

You want to keep coming out with your current approach. That's fine. But in the end it really isn't going to get you anywhere. It's your call. Again I can't force you to do whatever you dont want. But at the same time, you can't expect people to tolerate it for too long. If your answer to everything is "block me" you're gonna be talking to yourself sooner rather than later.

am here reading and learning (the precise reason i came was to find out if there were any more Umberger rumors as I am interested in that situation). If I happen to see something that i disagree with then i will say so.
See my early comments about disagreeing. No one has a problem with that. But there is a right way and a wrong way to debate something.

If noone likes it, then it's all good. I don't care, just as you dont care what others on a message board think of you.
Right. But you should at least respect other people and treat them the way you wish to be treated.

If my style of postings turns off people then I am fine with that also. It doesnt change facts though, and if they tune out what i am saying based simply on HOW i post then it is thier choice.
What does a personal jab have to do with your opinion of something. Nothing. So why include it?

I could have the greatest post in the world, but you're not gonna listen if I start calling you names or trying to "judge" your character are you?

If you're not gonna talk about ideas, then why even post? Know what I mean?

Further more, if people on another teams message boards disagree with me, when I in turn disagree with the majority of the fans opinions, then I am absolutlely not going to ask "is it me?". I am taking a stance that isnt popular with Rangers fans in supporting Kovalev. I dont expect, nor do i need people to agree with me.
You're right, they may not agree with you. But you have no right to judge them as a person or say something about them.

You don't agree about the Kovalev thing, and that is fine. Seriously it is A-okay with me. I dont like the assumptions thought. You can post all you want about your ideas, beliefs, morals, whatever. That is the POINT of a message board. But the point of a message board is not to attack people's views or to assume they are lying all the time.

For example, your idea about the pens ratings was a little off. So I corrected it. I didn't say "You assume much" or "You read it wrong, you obviously cant read" because there is no place for that. I simply said "that is the market share, which is different". That's all it takes.

Actually, it was probably like 10 or 15 times because he said things about the Rangers more than once while in Pittsburgh. The main issues were a lack of direction, a lack of icetime and a lack of using him in his proper context. All of the things that you have mentioned.
He basically felt that his "creativity" was stifled in NY. Whether or not that is the actual case I have no way of knowing.
Problem is that I believe he is a big part of his own problem.

We disagree on this BUT see how smoother it goes when you dont take a jab at someone. We agree to disagree on Kovalev and that is that. There's nothing more to it and we are both okay with it. THIS is the correct way to do things and notice how we aren't fighting over it?

There is a HUGE difference between saying the things he did in public and making inflamatory comments about another race. Come on. You arent stupid at all...dont pretend to not know thier is a big difference between the two. I wouldnt be so ignorant as to defend a racist's words or deeds simply because he is firm in his beliefs.
Okay this is time number 4 I'm gonna ask about where the racist comments come from. You're still the only person who seems to see this but you haven't yet pointed out where they occured.

Help me understand what you are pointing to so i at least know where you're coming from.

What Kovy said is totally not on the same plain and you know it.
Okay, fifth time. What did I say. And if your pointing to the comments made by the other person. I didn't defend those.

So again, i have no idea what you are looking.

What exactly is presumtious about that? You made the statement that Kovy was doing well in Pitt because noone was watching him. I WAS taking your statement at face value. Either way though, whether it be Pittsburgh or television ratings, people were watching him.
Yes in the literal sense yes people {plural} were watching him. Under those guidelines, if I got out into a crowd "people" are watching me again. But I also said that on a national level. Which they weren't.

Yes people were watching him, just not as many as many other markets. Pitts. is a smaller market. Not as many people were watching. Simple as that.

I really dont see how it is all that presumptious. If it was (which I assure you in all sincereity wasn't my intention) then of course i apologize for it.
And saying something is assuming or speculation isn't a jab IMO. I really wasnt making a remark about you personally. I was making a remark that the statement you made for the reasons which you atrributed to his success was an assumption. It wasn't meant to be a JAB at you.
And that's fine and I accept that. Whether it is your intention or not, i'm just telling you that you might want to watch that because you've done it twice in as many days. Just keep an eye on it. That's all.

As far as others who dont believe what I believe....everyone has the right to thier opinion. I am no different. If by pointing out what i feel are falacies in an argument, they are taken personal, when they are in fact, NOT personal, then there is nothing i can do about that.
If you've noticed, no one is pointing to debate. They don't have a problem with your actual debate. They have a problem with your....side dishes if you will.

What has gotten me into an argument, isnt throwing "jabs". It is disagreeing with certain statements, thus the very reason for debate itself. Which, once again, is ok.
you haven't gotten in trouble for your actual opinions if you've noticed.

Let me ask you this. If I were to say that the reasons for Mike Richter's success in NY had anything to do with something OTHER than his ability (such as something circumstancial) wouldn't you agree that it was speculative at best?
Possibly, BUT again that isn't where we have the problem.

Here I'll play Devils advocate for a second.

Assume you said it was something other ability.

Would you like it if I came back with something along the lines of:

You have no proof for that. Your assuming. His actual stats say blah blah blah.

YOU need to get YOUR facts straight blah blah blah.

Right away I've gone away from the argument and gone towards you.

Now imagine this is a day after I implyed you are a racist which has to be one of most outlandish things i've ever heard.

Again, I am sorry that you took me saying that your reasoning behind this debate was speculative was a jab towards you. It wasn't. Your statement WAS speculative.
If anything, you have been the one who has been attacking ME on a personal level.
I've been attacking you?

{jaw drops}

You're kidding right?

You seriously have to be kidding right?

Lemme get this straight. You came on here and called me a racist, questioned my credibility and are insisting that numbers I've SEEN from people I KNOW are false and i'm the one attacking you.

I'm speechless...... I'm not even going to waste my time with a proper response for that.

And I feel I do have some good points. If you think i am taking cheap shots at you as a person to get them across then you missed what i was saying. I am simply pointing out why i feel your statements are wrong, and in doing so using terms like speculative.
And again NO ONE has a problem with that part.

You keep going back to that but you don't have to because no one has a problem with your view on the matter.

If i were to say that you were an idiot(which I certainly didnt, nor do i think that) or a clown (which you called me) then these are jabs and insults. If i were to say that you think you are better than everyone, or arrogant, or that your you know what doesn't stink (all of which you have said about me) then these would be insults. i have said nothing of the sort.
There is a difference between attacking your argument and attacking you.
Okay lemme get this straight. You "start off" our conversation by misquoting, calling me a racist and giving me a lecture on stuff I never said. You question my credibility, and generally act like a jerk on two threads now and you want me to.....what? Praise you?

I mean what reaction did you SERIOUSLY think you were gonna get?

I don't think I need to watch any assumptions. I am basing my arguments on what you said, not who you are. I am making no assumptions about the type of person you are at all. I am basing them on your words, and when you can use that, there are no assumptions involved.
I didnt call you a racist in the other thread, nor did i say you were arrogant, or this and that.
No you commented for about 8 pages how my comment {which wasnt even mine} was morrally wrong and you were gonna take a stand, and etc. etc. etc.

Then when I asked what it was exactly you were talking about, you suddenly wanted to take it to the PM's.

And I feel that this is getting WAY off topic. At the risk of you telling me I am running away again, I will give you the last word.
For the sake of others, if you want to continue this then I would suggest that we do it via PM's. I will gladly explain myself or get to know you so that you dont think I am being presumptuous.
But this is just going to keep going on and on, and i have no desire to have things turn personal any more than they already have.
So after you've commented on my "comment" you suddenly want to "spare" everyone when i ask what it was i said?

Don't you think that's a little convinient from your end?

It's like slapping someone in the fact and then saying "i really don't wanna get physical".

When you make implications you made in the other thread, ya know you're gonna have to defend them in public.

I've been here since this place opened up and I have met a lot of interesting people on here. And i will be darned if I'm gonna have someone pop up and say what you implyed.

To assume that I was a racist and biased person towards europeans is insulting. it's inmsulting to the work i've put in here and in my professional life and it's insulting to the fact that my ancestors come from the places you claim i was prejudice about.

Edge is offline