Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is wrong, and the debate's over, so you can continue to live in your cave and I won't argue with you.
The point is that even if you don't think that the evidence I put forward is convincing, you'd have to be a complete idiot to suggest that it has NO value. Goals and assists don't tell anywhere near a complete story of who a player is, but they give SOME information. Giveaways and takeaways don't tell a whole story, but they give you SOME information.
Consequently, even if you don't think the evidence is as convincing as the person offering it would like it to be, it's still at least some basis for an evaluation. Whereas someone saying "I watch hockey and you guys are just going to have to trust me because I'm an expert" is has no value whatsoever.
|
And this is how it goes every time...
Start with 'you're all idiots', then move the goalposts from "I'm right!" to "well you have to agree that it has some value"
Yes, I (and I believe almost everyone) agree(s) that it has some value.
The problem is the arrogant, 'I am right and you're all blind!' way you always start the argument, before falling back to 'well, at least it's some basis for evaluation'