Sworn Enemy of the Perpetually Offended
Montreal Expos Forever ...
Tyler Kelleher is the player of the decade? Well I’ll guess it is the first time since the sixties since the player of the decade (if they even had such awards back then) was never named and All American. Who was it in the aughts? Plenty of worthy candidates (Haydar, Hemingway, Conklin, JVR to name just a few). In the nineties? Krog, Mowers, Bogey. Eighties? Brickley would be my choice, maybe Steve Leach. And the seventies? Clark, Miller, C. Cox, Hislop, Miller, R. Cox, Gould. Before that? I’ll defer to Snively. We are going backwards, aren’t we?
As for whoever used the term “garbage science,” this is what it has come to now? You don’t agree with the findings of the 90% of the climate scientists on one side of this issue so you use the lame “both sides” argument and say it is “garbage.” Okay.
That said, the only reason TK was the POD is because he played four years to Poturalski’s two. AP was the better player AND a first-team All-American following his sophomore year.
Both players are elite UNH talents in ANY era. UNH has had some nice talent recently - just nothing like the depth they’ve had in the past and never nearly enough at any one time to support any team success...
Last edited by Dan; 12-26-2019 at 02:17 PM.
In my short time here have sometimes felt that TyK was always being measured against the past UNH greats, which, is understandable, I guess. But, make no mistake, TyK is one of those UNH hockey greats! Look at his senior year totals!!! Hasn't been a player since to even come close...but I imagine he's out there.
Last edited by HockeyRef; 12-26-2019 at 09:28 PM.
Let's Go SouzaCats!
1. Greg, you know exactly “whoever” it was, and yet you chose to go the junior high route. Grow up. You have a problem with what I say, address me directly. Stop with the passive aggressiveness.
2. Where is your reading comprehension? Or are you just so spring-loaded as to assume I disagree? I agree with the concept of climate change. Perhaps you weren’t perceptive enough to pick up on that when I EXPRESSLY said I agree that the earth is warming.
3. There absolutely IS garbage science on both sides, and if you think it’s a lame argument, you live in an echo chamber. It’s why one side (and their media cohorts) say that 187 million people are destined to lose their homes due to ocean levels rising, whIle the other side says it’s between 41,000 and 305,000 (as does their cohort media partner). It’s why one side says we have 11 years to right the ship or all hell breaks loose and the other side says that’s nonsense. MY POINT WAS, it’d be nice if we had a source we felt comfortable with, and in unanimity with to anchor on, and that source simply doesn’t exist today. Especially when the media on both sides amplify the extremes.
4. Two examples of “settled science”: pre-Copernicus galactic orientation and Newtonian physics. Would it be better if we’d stomped our feet in defense of the earth being the center of the universe or ignored relativity? Point is, let’s get very specific and objective about where we are going and stop the sound bite BS.
Now I’m done. Can’t believe this was the best you had. Talk about lame.
Last edited by wildcatdc; 12-26-2019 at 08:16 PM.
Let's Go SouzaCats!
TK was a Second Team All-American in 2017 after finishing his senior season. He scored 42-46-63 in his last three seasons respectively and finished with 167 total points. He’s at least a top-50 all time scorer if I remember correctly.
The numbers these two put up with no help aside from each other (in one season playing together) were phenomenal. If UNH had an equal second line and better D/G these two would have played on much more successful teams and they’d be better remembered for their talents, instead there’s a real chance they get lost in the mess of some dismal seasons for the team as a whole...
Both easily keep up with the star forwards of the 90’s and 00’s, IMO. Just to name one example - Mark Mowers was an awesome talent, but also one who played with Krog, Bekar, Nolan, Bogey, Nicklaus and Souza in JUST his junior season. Neither AP or TK ever played with a single other player of this caliber (aside from each other) for their entire careers...
UNH used to have great ROSTERS. No they’re reduced to having the occasional great player. It’s why landing the occasional star recruit means nothing - AP, TK, Gildon, Stutzle - they’re not going to win you anything unless you can land more (many more) and then build around a core. Good recruiters don’t land a stud or two. Anyone can do that. Good recruiters land studs consistently. If Souza and company can’t do that then they’re just...treading water...
Last edited by Dan; 12-27-2019 at 12:32 AM.
The very fact that you would pull out a misinformation argument to debate point 3, which is an argument about misleading/confusing information in and of itself, is so breathtakingly stupid it merits no further conversation, EXCEPT this:
If you believe my sources to be suspect, please take it up with them directly - the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, The WSJ, you know, all those disreputable organizations. I’m not quoting Alex Jones here.
My point, AGAIN, is that for the good of ALL of us, it’d be nice to have real clarity on the issue from sources without agendas, one that will rally all without question. Is that really so hard for you to understand or support? I’d like to think my family is doing its part to manage our carbon footprint - is it too much to ask to stop the noise of the extremist news cycle fueled by polarizing studies so that we can do even more?
And the fact that you would debate the desire to encourage continuous scientific breakthrough to get to better solutions (point 4) just shows what a whiny little contrarian you can be. Perhaps that point was too nuanced for you.
Please don’t deign to determine what I should or should not talk about. That’s buffoonery of the highest order.
Originally Posted by wildcatdc
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
While Chuck is happy to "me too" on your comment, his "sources" were, as I stated, two guys, one of whom has no credentials, and the other a meteorogist, who themselves rely upon two books written in the 70s by a business forecaster who is discredited (and believed in chemtrail conspiracies).
I'm all for being contrarian, but just being "contrarian" without a basis because it fits your worldview is different than the trite Copernicus example, where he was appying science against something that was not scientifically-based on observations, but fit into the a "blief" anti-science worldview.
So, Wildcatdc, help me out with the dispute, not about how dire the consequences will be, but the dispute about whether humans are contributing largely to the climate change.
Last edited by NCAA watcher; 12-27-2019 at 08:48 AM.
And I'm not even adderssing the Trumpism of "I'm actually going to reverse the steps just to **** off Obama" taht some here might love just because they get riled up at Obama and snowflakes (and 14 year old girls). That's a whole level of idiocy of cutting of the nose to spite the face. As my first google result showed, the level of objection correleates to the level of education in the field.
Last edited by NCAA watcher; 12-27-2019 at 08:56 AM.
Last edited by wildcatdc; 12-27-2019 at 09:00 AM.
Now let's see if we can fix UNH recruting, which is also at risk of sinking below sea level.
Last edited by NCAA watcher; 12-27-2019 at 09:06 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)