Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

freudling · 02:31 PM

So, predictions for Canucks/San Jose?

I'll say San Jose 4-2 wins the series. The way Niemi is playing, and with a bunch of players on San Jose producing... the only way the Canucks will get anywhere is if everyone shows up, not just Kesler and Burrows.

Athens · May 14, 2011, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Athens, Wikipedia lists several more trophies than you list for San Jose. Although I don't know the significance of all of them, if any.

Going with 2010/2011 Season Trophy nominations from nhl.com, thats all they where listing. We wont even know who gets what until the playoffs are over.

James L · May 15, 2011, 10:45 PM

The Canucks are 7 wins away from the Cup. I'm not saying hell has completely frozen over yet, but they must be noticing the drop in temperature.

Athens · May 15, 2011, 11:01 PM

3 Wins away from the Finals. One step at a time.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 16, 2011, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

Anyway, who gives a shit what I think about x or y player. It's only my opinion, and mine alone. Enough said.

It would be nice, once in a while, if you would actually be able to give a reason for your opinions, rather than just stating them without any reason whatsoever as to why you think so. (See: the Osama thread, etc. etc.)

Saying you think Datsyuk is a sycophant is just completely out of left field in my opinion. The guy is one of the best hockey players in the world, but an absolutely gentleman on and off the ice - unlike Crosby he rarely whines to the refs, unlike Ovie he is always a team-first player who plays under complete control, unlike Malkin he almost never takes dumb penalties...I mean, the man gets fantastic praise from absolutely everyone. He simply seems like a completely classy guy.

And then you come along and call him a sycophant. And when everyone scratches their head and asks why, you just shrug?

Sorry buddy. That's ****ing lame as shit. Come up with a reason.

greg

OldManMac · May 16, 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It would be nice, once in a while, if you would actually be able to give a reason for your opinions, rather than just stating them without any reason whatsoever as to why you think so. (See: the Osama thread, etc. etc.)

Saying you think Datsyuk is a sycophant is just completely out of left field in my opinion. The guy is one of the best hockey players in the world, but an absolutely gentleman on and off the ice - unlike Crosby he rarely whines to the refs, unlike Ovie he is always a team-first player who plays under complete control, unlike Malkin he almost never takes dumb penalties...I mean, the man gets fantastic praise from absolutely everyone. He simply seems like a completely classy guy.

And then you come along and call him a sycophant. And when everyone scratches their head and asks why, you just shrug?

Sorry buddy. That's ****ing lame as shit. Come up with a reason.

greg

Thank you. Slandering someone and not giving a reason is childish.

freudling · May 16, 2011, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

Thank you. Slandering someone and not giving a reason is childish.

It's not slander. Saying that my opinion of someone is that they're a sycophant would never meet the definition of slander. Period.

This is an Internet forum, and it's my opinion of him. Move on.

freudling · May 16, 2011, 12:41 PM

I was surprised by Vancouver last night. San Jose had no answer. Well, if we can win the next game, maybe my prediction will be wrong. We'll see what San Jose can come up with. Vancouver is certainly the faster team. San Jose has to get back on their system and cycle.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 16, 2011, 01:18 PM

Wellllllll...without further evidence, it seems like you're pretty consistently showing that you come up with your "opinions" without having any actual shred of knowledge about whatever you're opinionating on.

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.

freudling · May 16, 2011, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Wellllllll...without further evidence, it seems like you're pretty consistently showing that you come up with your "opinions" without having any actual shred of knowledge about whatever you're opinionating on.

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.

I don't give a shit about your opinion of my opinion of someone. I don't owe you or anyone any other explanation. Period.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 16, 2011, 05:48 PM

Absolutely agree. On teh intarwebs, you're completely free to spout uninformed, ignorant nonsense and misinformation, and you're certainly taking full advantage of that freedom.

Congratulations.

Athens · May 16, 2011, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Absolutely agree. On teh intarwebs, you're completely free to spout uninformed, ignorant nonsense and misinformation, and you're certainly taking full advantage of that freedom.

Congratulations.

And making me look better

freudling · May 16, 2011, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Absolutely agree. On teh intarwebs, you're completely free to spout uninformed, ignorant nonsense and misinformation, and you're certainly taking full advantage of that freedom.

Congratulations.

Following your lead.

freudling · May 16, 2011, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

And making me look better

And you've got a long way to go before you look anything like good.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 17, 2011, 09:50 AM

Not a bad article here critiquing Luongo's postseason play and the fans' perception/reaction to him. Interesting stuff.

Article on Luongo's play this postseason

Athens · May 17, 2011, 02:52 PM

Very good article. I really never had a bad opinion of him to begin with or the team. I just think people in Vancouver in general are really hard on its team at times.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 18, 2011, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

It's not slander. Saying that my opinion of someone is that they're a sycophant would never meet the definition of slander. Period.

Actually, once again you're wrong - if by "slander" you mean the oral form of defamation. Technically your comment could in fact be considered defamatory, which is (loosely) a "communication that would lower the esteem of an individual in the minds of the ordinary public". Your public claim is that a very specific public individual is a sycophant, which is generally considered to be an extremely undesirable thing to be - I imagine it would meet that test.

Of course, a person can always easily avoid defamation by saying "I've heard/seen/read that Datsyuk does this and this and this, which are things typical of a sycophant. Because of this I think he's a sycophant."

Of course, that would require you to actually have a factual basis for making statements. Something that would probably cause you no end of misery, it seems.

freudling · May 18, 2011, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Actually, once again you're wrong - if by "slander" you mean the oral form of defamation. Technically your comment could in fact be considered defamatory, which is (loosely) a "communication that would lower the esteem of an individual in the minds of the ordinary public". Your public claim is that a very specific public individual is a sycophant, which is generally considered to be an extremely undesirable thing to be - I imagine it would meet that test.

Of course, a person can always easily avoid defamation by saying "I've heard/seen/read that Datsyuk does this and this and this, which are things typical of a sycophant. Because of this I think he's a sycophant."

Of course, that would require you to actually have a factual basis for making statements. Something that would probably cause you no end of misery, it seems.

You should sue me and determine in the courts if my statements have factual basis. Otherwise, go away before I sue you for defaming my character with your accusations. Keep pushing this issue too, because you know, it's totally on topic and not trollish, especially after I've told people, like you, to move on. Anymore talk of this, start another thread and discuss it. Not here.

Athens · May 18, 2011, 07:01 PM

Well considering a comedian was successfully sued by some hackling guests, I would absolutely encourage ShortCut to sue you just to see if it would stand up in court.

Game 2 Tonight

ShortcutToMoncton · May 18, 2011, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

You should sue me and determine in the courts if my statements have factual basis.

But it doesn't matter if your comments have factual basis. You can still defame someone by expressing a true communication. It doesn't even matter if you intended to defame or not.

But you're right - it's totally irrelevant. It's just hard not to point out, again and again, where you're repeatedly and consistently wrong and ignorant in your statements.

freudling · May 18, 2011, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

But it doesn't matter if your comments have factual basis. You can still defame someone by expressing a true communication. It doesn't even matter if you intended to defame or not.

But you're right - it's totally irrelevant. It's just hard not to point out, again and again, where you're repeatedly and consistently wrong and ignorant in your statements.

You're repeatedly and consistently wrong in your statements. Let's move on and stay on topic and not have posters like you argue and pontificate over off topic issues, derailing threads.

Canucks tonight. If they win San Jose will have a huge battle in this series.

Athens · May 18, 2011, 08:35 PM

I see a little battle. Sharks will drown.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 18, 2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

You're repeatedly and consistently wrong in your statements.

What a cutting remark!

No, seriously - does it ever bother you, going through life having to ignore everyone who calls you on the stupid stuff you say?

ghporter · May 18, 2011, 10:14 PM

Aside from being curious about how anyone might determine that Datsyuk or any other hockey player was "A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer," I have to say that I'm kind of lost trying to keep up with who plays for whom and what their on-ice styles are. It's easier to keep up with teams' styles of play (aggressive and fast, aggressive and organized, aggressive and independent).

I'm still disappointed that the Red Wings were eliminated, but I guess that has to happen now and then. It makes the wins that much sweeter, right?

James L · May 19, 2011, 12:08 AM

Well, that was an entertaining game.

exca1ibur · May 19, 2011, 12:22 AM

Sh*t, not looking good

freudling · May 19, 2011, 12:58 AM

Wow, the Canucks are just coming up with wins. We'll see how the San Jose coaching staff responds and what the home ice crowd will do for San Jose in relation to the next few games.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 19, 2011, 05:54 AM

Well now we're seeing what (almost

) everyone predicted - the Twins are no longer up against possibly the best defensive pairings in the league on Nashville and Chicago, and finally have a little space to work with.

olePigeon · May 19, 2011, 12:35 PM

Come on Sharks, at least don't make it a shutout.

Show some effort!

Athens · May 19, 2011, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Well now we're seeing what (almost

) everyone predicted - the Twins are no longer up against possibly the best defensive pairings in the league on Nashville and Chicago, and finally have a little space to work with.

Every team has a chemistry with other teams. Some match ups means lots of goals, some few goals. Nashville and Chicago both very defensive teams. The Twins playing style does not work well in those situations. But the Twins are still useful even if they are not scoring by preventing the scoring from the other teams best line. Chicago and Nashvilles top lines against our top line effectively stalemated each other from goals. Nashville was scoring mostly with its second line, I cant remember with Chicago but I think it was the second line as well just as it was our second and third lines doing all the scoring. Its why I never agreed with the notion they where not earning the pay checks. They did what they got told to do which was to keep Chicago's and Nashville's top line from scoring. Now against a less defensive team they have space to open up and score and you see goals from both teams because of it.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Come on Sharks, at least don't make it a shutout.

Show some effort!

Orca's eat Sharks (and penguins)

Athens · May 19, 2011, 04:33 PM

Oh I like this one

I still think its going to be a fight to the end, prob Canucks winning at game 6

RobOnTheCape · May 19, 2011, 10:44 PM

Go Bs.

Athens · May 20, 2011, 09:53 PM

OUCH Sharks have teeth

exca1ibur · May 20, 2011, 10:49 PM

There we go, don't let up. The last 3rd period was a bitch. LOL

Athens · May 20, 2011, 10:54 PM

im hoping history repeats

exca1ibur · May 20, 2011, 11:45 PM

There we go.

Was starting to get Deja vu for a min.

Athens · May 20, 2011, 11:58 PM

Im about to head out for some Shark food at a Japanese place. The Ref's where pretty bias in this game in favour for the Sharks. They called almost everything on the Canucks. At least it was a 1 goal game

I hope Rome is already he took a bloody hard hit.

James L · May 21, 2011, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

Im about to head out for some Shark food at a Japanese place. The Ref's where pretty bias in this game in favour for the Sharks. They called almost everything on the Canucks. At least it was a 1 goal game

I hope Rome is already he took a bloody hard hit.

San Jose deserved to win the game tonight. I'm still calling the series for Vancouver though.

Athens · May 21, 2011, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by James L

San Jose deserved to win the game tonight. I'm still calling the series for Vancouver though.

I got no issues with San Jose, chances are even if they had as many penalties we prob wouldn't have capitalised on them. But then again we might have. The Ref's where very one sided. Its never fair to fault a team over a bad ref.

Madison · May 21, 2011, 12:06 PM

Bruins in 6 over Tampa Bay, they're looking good.

freudling · May 22, 2011, 05:24 PM

Wow did San Jose ever blow it today. Vancouver up 3-1 now. Likely Vancouver in the final. It's going to be hard for San Jose to climb out of this hole.

Boston/Vancouver match up... tough battle for Vancouver because Boston's defence is so good. Tampa is very similar to the Canucks as they are fast and offensively oriented. Can't believe Canucks are pulling out these wins.

James L · May 22, 2011, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

Wow did San Jose ever blow it today.

Yes, by playing against Vancouver who are the stronger team.

Can't believe Canucks are pulling out these wins.

I can see how you would think that. They were only the best team in the NHL this year.

freudling · May 22, 2011, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by James L

Yes, by playing against Vancouver who are the stronger team.

I can see how you would think that. They were only the best team in the NHL this year.

Bottom line: year after year teams that have done well in the regular season have blown it in the playoffs, including the Canucks, who have struggled in the playoffs over the past several years. Washington and San Jose being two examples of teams that have played tops in the regular season and crapped it in the playoffs.

Looks like Canucks vs. I want to say Tampa but who knows. I'm leaning toward Tampa because Guy Bouche is an incredible coach and they have a solid team.

exca1ibur · May 22, 2011, 11:08 PM

Penalties... you can't do that against good teams. 5 on 3 power plays will usually not go your way.

Athens · May 22, 2011, 11:23 PM

Vancouver is the talk of the town in Washington State. Over herd chat about them at a Jack in the Box and at a Gas Station. It was the gas station employees doing the talking so I know they where locals.

I was shocked to see Canuck stuff in Seattle as much as in Vancouver.

olePigeon · May 23, 2011, 11:04 AM

Shoot. From my perspective, the Sharks look like the better team, but the Canucks are absolutely ruthless and take no prisoners when they get a power play.

I still think the Sharks can pull it off if they keep their penalties down.

Athens · May 23, 2011, 11:22 AM

Any one know why the game was so early yesterday?

ort888 · May 23, 2011, 12:00 PM

Probably because NBC wanted an afternoon game.

exca1ibur · May 23, 2011, 12:25 PM

My guess is because the NBA playoff game was later. (Bulls vs. Heat) That way they have a prime spot solo.

freudling · May 23, 2011, 12:37 PM

Ya, early game. And the Tampa/Boston game was even earlier (10:30 am PST).