HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Moore Update?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2004, 01:37 AM
  #1
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
Moore Update?

Can anyone up date Steve Moore's status? I've tried but can find nothing.

orcatown is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:41 AM
  #2
canucks666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown
Can anyone up date Steve Moore's status? I've tried but can find nothing.

1) he's NOT in that "spinal" hospital
2) he does NOT have a broken neck
3) the neck WILL heal in 4 to 6 weeks with no surgery
4) the concussion is probably still a b**ch


5) the avs knew all this 2 days after the incident, and so did everyone in vancouver
6) if pierre lacrox said all that, the outrage around north america wouldnt' have been as large
7) and the NHL would've only suspended bertuzzi for the season + 1 or 2 rounds of playoffs.

canucks666 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:44 AM
  #3
Breck Av
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
It's like a Laurel and Hardy routine now. One guy asks a question that would better be asked in the Avalanche forum. That's not the intention, though. It's a setup to another Bertuzzi/Moore thing. Leave well enough alone and get on with life.

Breck Av is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:45 AM
  #4
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
I'd like to restrict this question to actual reports people have rather than re-opening the can of worms about any fabrication on the Avs part. Someone usually knows something.

orcatown is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:48 AM
  #5
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,750
vCash: 50
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...024609,00.html

"Moore's agent, Larry Kelly, said his client went through a series of tests Wednesday, and that an update on his condition will be given soon."

Freudian is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:49 AM
  #6
Breck Av
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown
I'd like to restrict this question to actual reports people have rather than re-opening the can of worms about any fabrication on the Avs part. Someone usually knows something.
He's in a hospital in Denver, nobody's confirmed or denied if he's actually at the Craig Hospital. That's all the information there is.

Breck Av is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:56 AM
  #7
canucks666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breck Av
He's in a hospital in Denver, nobody's confirmed or denied if he's actually at the Craig Hospital. That's all the information there is.

incorrect. An article in the denver post that i can't locate has said that he is NOT in craig hospital.



The stuff i put in the first post are absolute facts. I do not think lacroix had any malicious intent whatsoever - he just couldn't imagine how important one word would be in determining the public's perception. He didn't mean for that to happen, there's no conspiracy

canucks666 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:01 AM
  #8
Breck Av
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks666
incorrect. An article in the denver post that i can't locate has said that he is NOT in craig hospital.



The stuff i put in the first post are absolute facts. I do not think lacroix had any malicious intent whatsoever - he just couldn't imagine how important one word would be in determining the public's perception. He didn't mean for that to happen, there's no conspiracy
He's in a hospital, not a spinal one. So what? He's still in a hospital and its been almost 2 weeks. The article also says that he was lucky he didn't do more damage to his spine since he was unconcious on the ice. The suspension is just and Bertuzzi will be back for game 1 next season. Let it go, like Naslund did in that clip you linked, and move on.

Breck Av is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:21 AM
  #9
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,750
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breck Av
He's in a hospital, not a spinal one. So what? He's still in a hospital and its been almost 2 weeks. The article also says that he was lucky he didn't do more damage to his spine since he was unconcious on the ice. The suspension is just and Bertuzzi will be back for game 1 next season. Let it go, like Naslund did in that clip you linked, and move on.
Since there is no damage to the spinal cord, I think the specialist clinic would not want to treat him. Their expertise are better suited for treating those that do have spinal cord injuries. Very much like no brain surgeon will be needed to treat his concussion. Don't see how it would change anything though. That Moore has no spinal cord damage has been known for a very long time.

Freudian is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:29 AM
  #10
Forsberg21
Registered User
 
Forsberg21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
As I posted on the Avs board, my professor also works part-time as an RN at Craig Hospital. The last time I talked to her on Monday, she told us that 'the hockey player' was at Craig. I know the paper has been reporting that he's not at Craig, so I don't know what gives. Maybe it's the whole privacy issue and the hospital is denying it. Or maybe he WAS at Craig earlier in the week but has been let go since.

Forsberg21 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:36 AM
  #11
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,750
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks666
incorrect. An article in the denver post that i can't locate has said that he is NOT in craig hospital.

The stuff i put in the first post are absolute facts. I do not think lacroix had any malicious intent whatsoever - he just couldn't imagine how important one word would be in determining the public's perception. He didn't mean for that to happen, there's no conspiracy
Are you sure they are absolute facts?

1) he's NOT in that "spinal" hospital A news story claimed so. So it seems to be true. Not that there is any need for him to be there since there is no spinal cord damage. Although Forsberg21 here has a source telling him he actually is at Craig Hospital. I don't think it matters all that much either way.
2) he does NOT have a broken neck The word fractured is a synonym with the word broken. Thus a fractured neck is a broken neck. If you want to claim Moore does not have a fractured neck, be my guest. I think you are making the mistake of equating a broken neck with spinal cord injury. But the spinal cord isn't bone and can't be fractured or broken. So basically this "fact" is a non-fact..
3) the neck WILL heal in 4 to 6 weeks with no surgery Do you have any of the treating doctors confirming this? Or do you base it on specualtion from Ian MacIntyre? The Denver Post article linked earlier has a specialist claiming the normal healing of this kind of injury is 6-12 weeks (which is speculating, but an expert speculating). Where is your source proving the "fact" that Moores injury will heal in 4 to 6 weeks?
4) the concussion is probably still a b**ch This is you specualting. We know nothing about how Moores concussion feels. We can specualte. But that isn't fact
5) the avs knew all this 2 days after the incident, and so did everyone in vancouver The diagnose for Moore hasn't changed since he was in Vancouver, if that is what you mean. What relevance it is supposed to have I don't know. I guess we can assume the Avs had a pretty good view of Steve Moores injuries at that stage though.
6) if pierre lacrox said all that, the outrage around north america wouldnt' have been as large Don't know what you are referring to. If you mean he should have lied and answered "no" to the reporters question "Does Moore have a broken neck?" I think it would be a poor strategy. The media doesn't appreciate being lied to. If him lieing to the media would have any effect on public outrage, we simply can't know. You speculate it would have. But that isn't fact..
7) and the NHL would've only suspended bertuzzi for the season + 1 or 2 rounds of playoffs. There you go again. You speculating is not fact. It is your opinion. It won't turn into fact no matter how much you wish it was true.

I think you should be much more careful in the future when you claim to have presented facts, when in reality you only presented your opinion. Most of your "absolute facts" are nothing more than pure specualtion.


Last edited by Freudian: 03-20-2004 at 02:45 AM.
Freudian is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:50 AM
  #12
canucks666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
first of all - yes moore was lucky in the sense that it COULD have been a lot worse.
however you can alsomake the claim easily that it COULD have been a lot better. If bert's punch was an inch off, he wouldn't have been knocked out and we wouldn't have this mess. So let's not deal with the hypothetical, only the real



Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
1) he's NOT in that "spinal" hospital True. Not that there is any need for him to be there since there is no spinal cord damage
some peopl continue to claim that he is there, which they use to imply that he has serious damage.

Quote:
2) he does NOT have a broken neck The word fractured is a synonym with the word broken. Thus a fractured neck is a broken neck. If you want to claim Moore does not have a fractured neck, be my guest. I think you are making the mistake of equating a broken neck with spinal cord injury. But the spinal cord isn't bone and can't be fractured or broken. So basically this "fact" is a non-fact..
Not quite. Yes he has a fractured neck. Fractured isn't broken. Want to know the difference? Take a stick and crack it. You can still pick it up in one piece but you'll notice that it's fragile and one pull or one slight hit and it'll break. But it's still in one piece. On the other hand take a stick and break it into two pieces. now you can't keep these in one piece no matter how you try. That's broken.

Yes you CAN call the first "fracture" a 'break' but that's not what people think of when they hear 'broken neck'. When people hear 'broken neck' they think christopher reeves and possible paralysis. NOT a short healing period.

Quote:
3) the neck WILL heal in 4 to 6 weeks with no surgery Do you have any of the treating doctors confirming this? Or do you base it on specualtion from Ian MacIntyre? The Denver Post article linked earlier has a specialist claiming the normal healing of this kind of injury is 6-12 weeks. Where is your source proving the "fact" that Moores injury will heal in 4 to 6 weeks?
Yes, i've heard doctor's reports. I've also heard 6 to 8 weeks. So OKAY, if you want to be pessimistic let's say 4 to 12 weeks. But either way no surgery. And either way there's no permanent damage and he'll be 100% in that department way before next season.

Quote:
4) the concussion is probably still a b**ch This is you specualting. We know nothing about how Moores concussion feels. We can specualte. But that isn't fact
that's why i said probably. However he's got a grade 3 concussion i think. This is serious enough in that it might clear up within a couple of weeks or it might take a year. You just never know. I saw an article that it's the same type of concussion some phoenix player got LAST season and he's still not back from it.

Quote:
5) the avs knew all this 2 days after the incident, and so did everyone in vancouver The diagnose for Moore hasn't changed since he was in Vancouver, if that is what you mean. What relevance it is supposed to have I don't know. I guess we can assume the Avs had a pretty good view of Steve Moores injuries at that stage though.
what i meant by that was that there is no reason for all this beating about the bush about where moore is and what his condition is. Almost everyone already knows.

Quote:
6) if pierre lacrox said all that, the outrage around north america wouldnt' have been as large Don't know what you are referring to. If you mean he should have lied and answered "no" to the reporters question "Does Moore have a broken neck?" I think it would be a poor strategy. The media doesn't appreciate being lied to. If him lieing to the media would have any effect on public outrage, we simply can't know. You speculate it would have. But that isn't fact..
Google for bertuzzi suspension. HALF of the articles say that he broke moore's neck AND the way they talk about it it's as if it's an injury that's EXTREMELY serious. NOT something that will heal on it's own in 4 to 12 weeks. HELL, that's how long a torn ACL takes to heal. But by no means is it career ending, or life threatening but that's how people make that "broken neck" sound like. And by the way the reporters did NOT ask lacroix if he has a broken neck.

They asked for moore's status. And lacroix said "i'm not a doctor but it's a broken neck". What he SHOULD'VE said was "i'm not a doctor, so i don't know exactly what that means but he's got two fractured vertebrae". The simplification affected public opinion in a HUMONGOUS way.

Quote:
7) and the NHL would've only suspended bertuzzi for the season + 1 or 2 rounds of playoffs. There you go again. You speculating is not fact. It is your opinion. No matter how much you wish it was true.
alright FINE, that one is not a fact. But this is not a shot in the dark nor wishful thinking. The NHL decided to send a message to the world with the bertuzzi suspension by making it harsher than any other suspension in history. Why did they have to do that? Why couldn't they have given him a suspension to other comparable offenses (12 games to johnson etc). Why wouldn't have 15 to 20 games been enough? Because the public outrage around north america was so large that the NHL was concerned about the "casual" fan base and also turning away potential new fans. And why was there such an outrage? Because uninformed people wrote hundreds of articles where htey implied that steve moore's career and even LIFE is potentially in danger. Which is not true at all.

Quote:
I think you should be much more careful in the future when you claim to have presented facts, when in reality you only presented your opinion. Most of your "absolute facts" are nothing more than pure specualtion.
"pure speculation" is saying 'the canucks are gonna win teh cup this year'. Everything i said has a HUGE amount of evidence behind it as i showed. This is much more intelligent and deep to be pure speculation

canucks666 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:07 AM
  #13
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,750
vCash: 50
I think if people claim he is there they imply that he in fact is there. That he by being there is more seriously injured than he previously was is your interpretation.

You are wrong about broken and fractured being different things. They are the exact same thing.

Main Entry: fracture
1 : the result of fracturing : BREAK
2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (as bone) b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue <kidney fracture>
3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral

There are of course several kinds of fractures (examples and more examples). But that doesn't change the fact that a broken arm is a fractured arm and a fractured neck is a broken neck. You are inventing your own interpretation of what broken and fractured means. When you have a hairline fracture it is still a fracture and when you have a bone that is completely off it is still a fracture. More information about the different types of fractures are available on the net if you wish to inform yourself.

I'm glad you realize most of the other points are speculation and not even close to being absolute facts. I don't think you really need to use the word absolute to preface it though. The word fact is strong enough without the need to enhance it. Point six you are just repeating your previous speculation. Don't know why you felt that was needed.

One thing I think you should take into condideration. When a patient arrives at the hospital, you don't get an exact diagnosis at once. You have to deal with what is viewed as the most serious injury first and then work your way down the list. So the later diagnose will alway be more specific than the earlier one. So that the information released to the media go from general to specific is no proof of any conspiracy. It is to be expected.

Anyway, this is just repetition of what has been discussed previously on this forum. When there is something new to discuss I will pop in again. If not, that is it for me.


Last edited by Freudian: 03-20-2004 at 03:30 AM.
Freudian is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:50 AM
  #14
canucks666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
I think if people claim he is there they imply that he in fact is there. That he by being there is more seriously injured than he previously was is your interpretation.

You are wrong about broken and fractured being different things. They are the exact same thing.

Main Entry: fracture
1 : the result of fracturing : BREAK
2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (as bone) b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue <kidney fracture>
3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral

There are of course several kinds of fractures (examples and more examples). But that doesn't change the fact that a broken arm is a fractured arm and a fractured neck is a broken neck. You are inventing your own interpretation of what broken and fractured means. When you have a hairline fracture it is still a fracture and when you have a bone that is completely off it is still a fracture. More information about the different types of fractures are available on the net if you wish to inform yourself.
no i'm not inventing anything. YOU and thousands of people like you are being too picky and too "academic"

If i say to you "don't go nowhere" are you gonna assume that just because i used a double negative, and in the english language a double negative is a positive that means i told you to go away? NO. It is accepted in society that these kinds of double negatives are STILL a negative, no matter what hte "academic" and "proper" way is. Society accepts "don't go nowhere" as the same as "don't go anywhere".

It's the same thing here. It does not MATTER what the proper dictionary definition of fractured is. People don't look up things in the dictionary. People have their own perception of things. And in people's minds, broken is more extreme than fractured. When people hear "broken neck" they think of all the movies they saw where you can kill someone instantly by breaking their neck. They think christopher reeves. They think wheelchair. They think years of rehab. They think "re-learning how to walk". They think career in danger. They think LIFE in danger.

Don't deny that's what people think. You KNOW that's what people think.

Quote:
I'm glad you realize most of the other points are speculation and not even close to being absolute facts. I don't think you really need to use the word absolute to preface it though. The word fact is strong enough without the need to enhance it. Point six you are just repeating your previous speculation. Don't know why you felt that was needed.
Why don't you get off your high horse already. TWO out of my 7 points were not facts. That's nowhere close to being "most". Furthermore, i have shown very clearly why they are MUCH MORE than speculation. There's very good evidence behind the reasoning, and if you choose to deny it and continue to call it speculation, you're no different than people like bill o'reilly who call everything they don't agree with - truthful or not "propoganda".

Quote:
One thing I think you should take into condideration. When a patient arrives at the hospital, you don't get an exact diagnosis at once. You have to deal with what is viewed as the most serious injury first and then work your way down the list. So the later diagnose will alway be more specific than the earlier one. So that the information released to the media go from general to specific is no proof of any conspiracy. It is to be expected.
at the time when lacroix made the announcement, they already knew it was fractured. he simplified it because of the same thing you said - a fracture is technically a break. he didn't consider the consequences this would have, because of course he had other things on his mind - the well being of his player as well as his club.


Quote:
Anyway, this is just repetition of what has been discussed previously on this forum. When there is something new to discuss I will pop in again. If not, that is it for me.
so what you're saying is "don't bother defending your worthless speculation, i won't be here to read your mindless drivel", right?

canucks666 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 04:19 AM
  #15
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,750
vCash: 50
A few quick points. Using a phrase the correct way is not being picky or academic. It is a essential for meaningful communication.

Secondly, even if people associate broken neck with paralysis - why on earth would they continue to believe Steve Moore was running a risk of being paralyzed after they were told he could move and feel his arms and legs. When did they expect this paralysis to kick in? Either way, you can't demand anyone should assume people are idiots when describing what kind of injuries a player has. If you are describing it correctly you have done nothing wrong. You have done the right thing. Any journalists speculating Steve Moore would be paralyzed did a horrible job.

I counted 5 out of 7 being speculation. The other two (#1 and #5) were not that interesting. And while it is possible that you have a lot of evidence that support your speculation, you have offered none in this thread. I think you are making the same mistake as when you used the word fact when you are using the word evidence. Just because something fits with how you view things, doesn't mean you have provided evidence.

For example when you say "Yes, i've heard doctor's reports." you seem to think you have offered up evidence. But you have given us no links to these reports (from doctors that has examined Moore). You have only offered us a claim that you have heard them. The only reports from the doctors treating Moore I am aware of (ie, the press release they made a few days after the incident) made no predictions whatsoever as to when he would be recovered. If you claim there is doctors reports that do, please offer us a chance to confirm that. That would be to provide evidence. Claiming they exist without providing any way for anyone to confirm it is not providing evidence, in fact it is the opposite of doing it. Same with your long list of speculations as to how Bertuzzis suspension would have been affected if Moore would have had less injuries. It probably makes perfect sense to you, but that in no way means you proven your point. In fact you have in no way provided anything to support your claims. You assume the media pressure affected the suspension. You assume Bertuzzi would have gotten 12-15 games otherwise. And so on.

My advice is that in the future you should use the phrases "I think", "I suspect", "It is possible" etc when speculating or expressing your opinion. Because when you say "I know" and "This is fact" people expect it to actually be fact. And when it becomes obvious that it is not, it is hard to take what you say seriously. This may of course sound picky and academic to you, and you are free to claim your speculation and opinion is fact in the future if it makes you happy.


Last edited by Freudian: 03-20-2004 at 04:27 AM.
Freudian is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 05:54 AM
  #16
Blane Youngblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Just wondering, does Steve Moore technically have brain damage and a broken neck?

I am not joking or trying to be rude, I'm just wondering if that would be correct to say or an outright lie.

Blane Youngblood is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 09:50 AM
  #17
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jin
Just wondering, does Steve Moore technically have brain damage and a broken neck?

I am not joking or trying to be rude, I'm just wondering if that would be correct to say or an outright lie.
The Avalanche will neither confirm nor deny this...

dakota is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 09:54 AM
  #18
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
HIPAA. There may not be any great conspiracy at all. Things have changed quite a bit this season with regards to info about injuries because of it.

ceber is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:05 PM
  #19
canucks666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Using a phrase the correct way is not being picky or academic. It is a essential for meaningful communication.

so i suppose that if you walk into somebody's workshop and they say "don't touch nothing" you will go ahead to touch SOMETHING because that's what the person TECHNICALLY told you? Because TECHNICALLY that person told you "touch something"?

right?

I just want you to be consistent - if someone tells you don't touch nothing, will you touch something? And if not..........why not? I thought it was essential for meaningful conversation that you took phrases the correct way, and that a double negative is a positive.


Also........you need to realize something. SOME opinions are facts. For example.

"If hitler was killed as a child there would've been no holocaust". Is that an opinion or a fact? Well I can tell you for sure that you can make the claim that "Even if hitler never lived, some OTHER german would've still decided to kill a few million jews. It wouldn't have changed a thing". Well i'm sorry but in this case the probability of that is so minimal that anybody with half a brain knows that that sentence is a FACT.

Similar thing here..........

I said things like "the NHL would've only suspended bertuzzi for the season + 1 or 2 rounds of playoffs." - if the outrage wasn't as big as it was.

It's the exact same situation. If you actualy THOUGHT about what i said instead you would realize that for all intents and purposes it's a fact

canucks666 is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 05:57 PM
  #20
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
The original question was asked and answered (Freudian's 1st post), and there's no real reason to rehash this all again as it's already turned into a two person argument about semantics.

Sotnos is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.