Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
You cannot say, ‘X is a universal rule, except for all the exceptions.’ If it were a universal rule, there would be no exceptions.
|
Who said it was a universal rule?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I never said top 2 so ask that to the person who did.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Where did I say you couldn't talk about it or that I didn't like it?
I only pointed out that we are clearly talking about the Flames when you claimed nobody was.
Quote:
|
Nobody has run the numbers to SHOW THE CORRELATION.
|
So what? Are you ignoring the fact that nobody has said that a top 3 pick guarantees that you win a Cup?
Quote:
|
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!
|
Again that has nothing to do with the point you made. If you want to change the point fine, but it has nothing to do with me not grasping things and you try to move the goal posts.
Quote:
|
You do know what a null hypothesis is, don't you?
|
Yes
‘LOL’ is not an argument. And the argument you are posting has NOT shown to be true, because YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRELATION.[/QUOTE]
LOL is an argument when you are responding to silly #### like the Conn Smythe is the determiner of who the "big star" is and is comparable to the NHL draft. LOL