HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Lockout Thread: Good Things Come To Those Who Wait

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 12:09 AM
  #101
ChuckW
We'll be back.
 
ChuckW's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
We'll miss out on the part of the season in which we suck! This lockout thing might work to our advantage.

ChuckW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:47 AM
  #102
TankClerval
Fifth Line Center
 
TankClerval's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
This is why lockouts happen. The fans aren't willing to do what has to be done to stop them. It's really that simple.
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.

It's really that simple, amirite????

Quote:
Because at the end of the day, we're *not* in this together.
You are the worst motivational speaker ever.

Quote:
We all have our reasons for doing what we have to do, so let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.

First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.

The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:

Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.

Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*

Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.

Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)

Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?

Just masterful.

--hank

TankClerval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:35 AM
  #103
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Kevin, let me help you with your retort to Hank, specifically in how it should begin.

"Hank, you ignorant s1ut."

The remaining words should flow pretty freely from there...

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:50 AM
  #104
ChuckW
We'll be back.
 
ChuckW's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
Kevin, let me help you with your retort to Hank, specifically in how it should begin.

"Hank, you ignorant s1ut."

The remaining words should flow pretty freely from there...
SNL reference --> +1

ChuckW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:09 AM
  #105
halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
 
halleJOKEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankClerval View Post
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.

It's really that simple, amirite????



You are the worst motivational speaker ever.



This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.

First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.

The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:

Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.

Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*

Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.

Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)

Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?

Just masterful.

--hank
Please post more often.

halleJOKEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:32 AM
  #106
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 28,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankClerval View Post
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.

It's really that simple, amirite????



You are the worst motivational speaker ever.



This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.

First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.

The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:

Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.

Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*

Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.

Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)

Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?

Just masterful.

--hank
So you can clearly not choose the wine in front of him?

What the Faulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:46 AM
  #107
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the Faulk View Post
So you can clearly not choose the wine in front of him?
Inconceivable!

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:52 AM
  #108
Gotta Catch Em Staal
The Red Scare of '14
 
Gotta Catch Em Staal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 7,211
vCash: 500


Fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against HankClerval when message board credibility is on the line!'

__________________
-Jonathan
Gotta Catch Em Staal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 11:36 AM
  #109
CarolinaCaniac
Registered User
 
CarolinaCaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
Inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

CarolinaCaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 12:41 PM
  #110
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
This is why lockouts happen. The fans aren't willing to do what has to be done to stop them. It's really that simple. Because at the end of the day, we're *not* in this together. We all have our reasons for doing what we have to do, so let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
You are delusional. I don't support the lock out and i'll be pissed if the season doesn't start on time. Just because I renewed way back in April doesn't mean for 1 second I support what they are doing. I think the NHL and NHLPA need to suck it up and get this done on or before Sept. 15th.

caniac247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 12:50 PM
  #111
Carolinas Identity
I'm a bad troll
 
Carolinas Identity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: United States
Posts: 8,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac247 View Post
You are delusional. I don't support the lock out and i'll be pissed if the season doesn't start on time. Just because I renewed way back in April doesn't mean for 1 second I support what they are doing. I think the NHL and NHLPA need to suck it up and get this done on or before Sept. 15th.
This.

Also, I think they will. There're just playing hardball and we all know it. Had Bettman come out and said "We're working hard to get something done, and I can't wait to see what the PA has on the table" tha would've been a sgn of waknes on his part, o instead he went with the more conventional, albeit false "They gon do it our way or they gon be locked out on the 15th"

Carolinas Identity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 01:01 PM
  #112
Sens1Canes2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,175
vCash: 500
They better get this done soon. I've got some money riding on the season starting...

Sens1Canes2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 02:30 PM
  #113
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,547
vCash: 500
If the lockout does happen and games that were bought as season tickets are canceled, do we get refunded in any sort of way?

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 02:42 PM
  #114
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 23,007
vCash: 500
Some promising news of late:

Quote:
Josh Rimer ‏@JoshRimerHockey

Well now I see why Sidney Crosby was so positive when I bumped into him the other day. Here's to hoping he's right and there's no lockout!
Quote:
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris

Fehr says proposal should "lead to a new CBA."

Fehr says players will take reduced HRR for next three seasons
Quote:
David Shoalts ‏@dshoalts

Don Fehr: we do believe proposal players made today can produce stable industry. Players indicated they take lower share revenue next 3 yrs.
Quote:
Luke DeCock ‏@LukeDeCock

Waiting for details, but potentially some really interesting developments out of NHL/NHLPA negotiations today.

Instead of responding in kind to NHL's preposterous opening salvo, appears NHLPA made reasonable offer in attempt to find common ground.
Quote:
Fehr: if revenue grows in next 3 yrs, reduced compensation could hit $455-million. Offer more revenue sharing - as much as $250-m next 3 yr

Players propose 3 year deal with option for fourth. Fehr said will take owners "some time to understand."

Fehr says be wrong to interpret there no hard salary cap in proposal. Said will still be a hard cap.

Fehr said players willing to reduce share of income because some franchises in trouble.

Players propose there be no changes to player contracts under existing rules.

Fehr flanked by most of 23 players who attended meeting. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos front and centre. All look solemn.

Fehr won't predict how owners react to their reaction. "I'm out of prediction business."

Fehr says talks somewhere between frank and cordial. Frank is lawyer-speak for hostile.

Fehr said offer was after 3 yrs of working under their proposal an option to revert to current CBA in 4th year.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 03:01 PM
  #115
Carolinas Identity
I'm a bad troll
 
Carolinas Identity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: United States
Posts: 8,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Some promising news of late:
good news

Carolinas Identity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 03:07 PM
  #116
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 23,007
vCash: 500
Considering I was expecting the NHLPA to counter the owner's ridiculous offer with their own, equally ridiculous one, this is massive progress.

I didn't expect any kind of compromise until at least October.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:38 PM
  #117
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
If the lockout does happen and games that were bought as season tickets are canceled, do we get refunded in any sort of way?
What they will probably end up doing is keeping the money on your account as a credit and applying it towards next season. If you then cancel and opt out of renewing next season, then they'll refund you the money. But I wouldn't expect a check in the mail unless you tell them you are cancelling your season tickets.

I know in 2004-05, we kept our account open and they applied the credit we accured from the missed season to the 2005-06 season.

caniac247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 05:08 PM
  #118
Sasha Cares
28 mph!!!!!!!
 
Sasha Cares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Island of Misfit Toy
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
It's nice to see an reasonable counter.... But I'm not a fan of a 3 year deal... 6-8 would be nice... I like no rollback with reduced cap idea for selfish reasons

Sasha Cares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 05:11 PM
  #119
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 23,007
vCash: 500
Yeah, a 3-year deal isn't ideal, considering a new plan will have to be formed (or at least, considered) as early as next offseason, but if the choice was the 3-year deal or lockout, you gotta go with the 3 year deal.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:39 PM
  #120
Obi Wan LaRosie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,701
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Obi Wan LaRosie Send a message via Yahoo to Obi Wan LaRosie
Nice tactic by the players here....offer a reasonable deal after the public knows how unreasonable the owners offer was....get the public on their side and make the owners look like the bad guy.

Anyone who thinks the court of public opinion isnt important is kidding themselves.

Obi Wan LaRosie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:45 PM
  #121
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 23,007
vCash: 500
From what I could tell, the players were happy to play with the current CBA anyway, so any lockout would have had the fans against the owners anyway.

And actually, with what the PA is proposing, it's doing more than getting the fans on their side. If I'm following the situation correctly, the players are saying they'll take a smaller percentage of the revenue for the next 3 years, while at the same time, proposing more revenue sharing to help out smaller markets.

So in essence, they're not only getting the fans on their side by proposing a fair offer (or fairer offer than the owners), but they're pitting the small market owners (those that take the most advantage of revenue sharing) against the large market owners.

A house divided and all that.


Last edited by Blueline Bomber: 08-14-2012 at 08:06 PM.
Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:42 PM
  #122
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,547
vCash: 500
If I'm Gary Bettman, I am doing all in my power to get the bigger markets to agree to the general idea of the proposed NHLPA deal. It's more than fair.

What I'm concerned is that the NHL will reject this more on the basis that the owners need to win. In a sense, they almost 'have' to reject it to save face.

The NHL is in a corner here. It's going to be interesting to see how they react.


Last edited by Finlandia WOAT: 08-14-2012 at 09:50 PM.
Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:06 AM
  #123
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Maybe, but then again, they won in 2005, so maybe not.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:42 AM
  #124
wallym
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,250
vCash: 500
Why does it matter whether the public supports the players or owners? They both only have one product, and it's the same thing.

wallym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 12:23 PM
  #125
Sasha Cares
28 mph!!!!!!!
 
Sasha Cares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Island of Misfit Toy
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
There is some twitter chatter about the agreement with Canadian Juniors and the NHL. Can anyone enlighten me?

Sasha Cares is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:39 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.