Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ishkur
This is a judged contest, so it doesn't really matter what I have to say or how airtight and indefensible my argument is, I'm still going to lose. With you people in charge, I'd lose against four blindfolded monkies jumping on typewriters while firing rocket launchers, just to spite me.
|
Man, when I'm right, I'm always right.
I concede to you, Mark. As for the judges: If you seriously want to base your decision on a guy who has barely played a full career's worth of elite level hockey, basing his statistics on perceived or completely imaginary events that you postulate
could or
might have happened, then I should've picked Pavel Bure whom, when he was healthy, was quite simply the most electrifying hockey player I've ever seen in the history of the game. But I thought the judging was going to be on actual criteria: objective, actual things that happened in real life. I did not consider Bure because he played too seldom, and he was hurt too often, to warrant serious contention. But now that I see Mark's argument, I should have, because I could drum up any argument on what Bure's career would have looked like had he played a long, healthy, and lengthy career like Messier or Gretzky. Call me a poor sport, but I really do think your judging criteria is ass. And the tragic thing is Mark is not to blame for this. He just had a poorly-constructed argument and didn't consider all criteria.
I'm done.