Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurs
Again explaining it isn't dismissing it.
|
You cannot say, ‘X is a universal rule, except for all the exceptions.’ If it were a universal rule, there would be no exceptions.
You don't know what ‘rule’ means in this context, do you?
If someone says ‘You CANNOT win the Cup without a top-2 pick that you drafted,’ then EVEN ONE EXCEPTION proves that statement wrong.
Quote:
|
St. Louis drafted Pietrangelo
|
4th overall. The claim I am contending against is that it has to be a top-2 pick. Pietrangelo DOES NOT COUNT in supporting that claim.
Quote:
|
On a Flames message board, in a Flames thread, with people talking about whether the team should rebuild, retool, recycle, reboot nobody is talking about the Flames? LOL
|
LOL yourself. I'll talk about what I damned well want to talk about. When somebody claims that X is the ONLY way to win the Stanley Cup, they are obviously NOT talking exclusively about the Flames. At that point we are talking about the NHL in general, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.
Quote:
|
Nobody has said having a top 3 pick is a guarantee.
|
Nobody has run the numbers to SHOW THE CORRELATION.
Quote:
|
No it is you making up things that were never said.
|
Bull. I am trying to point out that YOU PROVE NOTHING UNTIL YOU ESTABLISH A CORRELATION. And nobody has done the work with the null hypothesis!
You do know what a null hypothesis is, don't you?
Quote:
|
LOL sure the draft is a vote and the argument I am posting has shown to be true.
|
‘LOL’ is not an argument. And the argument you are posting has NOT shown to be true, because YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRELATION.