PDA

View Full Version : Today's News,Wednesday,May 02



denime
05-02-2012, 05:32 AM
Mornin'



Game Day !





TFC TV




(http://www.torontofc.ca/video)Voyageurs Cup Defence Begins


(http://www.torontofc.ca/news/2012/05/voyageurs-cup-defence-begins)TFC: Reds Better Than Impact


(http://www.torontofc.ca/news/2012/05/tfc-reds-better-impact)Winter: 'We're better' than Montreal Impact (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/winter-were-better-than-montreal-impact)


Reed: Canadian quartet locks horns (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opinion/2012/04/canadian-quartet-lock-horns.html)


Winless Toronto FC seeks boost in Canadian Championship (http://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/mls/torontofc/article/1171511--winless-toronto-fc-seeks-boost-in-canadian-championship)


Impact sees struggling TFC as dangerous opponent in Canadian Championship (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/impact-sees-struggling-tfc-as-dangerous-opponent-in-canadian-championship/article2419592/)




TFC Related Blogs !!


(http://redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?29582-TFC-MLS-blogs-thread)


SUNSHINE (http://www.torontosun.com/sunshine-girl)








(http://www.torontofc.ca/video)

Red CB Toronto
05-02-2012, 05:38 AM
Good morning. Should be a good one in MTL tonight. Come on u Reds.

tfcleeds
05-02-2012, 06:21 AM
Sigh...Winter obviously doesn't understand the concept of "bulletin board material".

ensco
05-02-2012, 06:30 AM
Sigh...Winter obviously doesn't understand the concept of "bulletin board material".

He's delusional. Montreal has 4 points from its last two games but ...“ I think that Montreal, at this moment, is not playing so well.”

He's incredible. Can anyone else find an example of a coach in any sport, anytime, anywhere ... that was 0-7, or similar, and trash talking his opponent in public?

Technorgasm
05-02-2012, 07:07 AM
said it once, said it 100 times.
Winter needs to watch some eother managers interviews.
Now is the time he nees to step up and injuject some hope and positivity into the mediasphere.

things like
"I'm proud of the way the players went abotu their work"
or
"HE is an intelligent football player, that makes a good accoutn of himself for the football club"
or
"We work hard in training, and feel we are ready for Montreal. We will use our experience in CCL this year and hope we get the result"

shit liek that. Positive, TFC focussed comments. . . .

Im not Anti-Winter. . . . yet. . . .but. . holy shit life of a TFC fan sucks sweaty hairy dog balls ATM.

scooter
05-02-2012, 07:39 AM
mornin d

tonights the night,we gona feel alright

Ageroo
05-02-2012, 07:47 AM
He's delusional. Montreal has 4 points from its last two games but ...“ I think that Montreal, at this moment, is not playing so well.”

He's incredible. Can anyone else find an example of a coach in any sport, anytime, anywhere ... that was 0-7, or similar, and trash talking his opponent in public?

Not saying it is smart....but I would take every opportunity to trash talk an opponent where I could. In certain instances it can take an opponent off their game and maybe they make mistakes because they are focusing on his words....but the other side of the coin is that they focus more and it backfires.

We'll find out tonight I guess.....lol

Red Rat
05-02-2012, 07:50 AM
He's delusional. Montreal has 4 points from its last two games but ...“ I think that Montreal, at this moment, is not playing so well.”

He's incredible. Can anyone else find an example of a coach in any sport, anytime, anywhere ... that was 0-7, or similar, and trash talking his opponent in public?

hahahahaha and now you wonder if it is the right thing to legalize "Soft Drugs" like in the Netherlands? this is guy is on crack!
at least you will have a positive outlook in life

Phil
05-02-2012, 07:56 AM
holy shit life of a TFC fan sucks sweaty hairy dog balls ATM.

Yup it does. Lets hope it turns around tonight.

The whole we are better than Montreal....sigh. After a couple weeks of 'we will win' it really doesnt do well to make that statement at this time. I don't think the Impact players will be making poutine in their shorts over that.

Technorgasm
05-02-2012, 08:11 AM
Yup it does. Lets hope it turns around tonight.

The whole we are better than Montreal....sigh. After a couple weeks of 'we will win' it really doesnt do well to make that statement at this time. I don't think the Impact players will be making poutine in their shorts over that.

winning cures all!
WE CAN DO IT!!!!

http://youtu.be/Nwv61Uu1fdA

__wowza
05-02-2012, 08:12 AM
said it once, said it 100 times.
Winter needs to watch some eother managers interviews.
Now is the time he nees to step up and injuject some hope and positivity into the mediasphere.

winter could be the worst fucking interviewee in the world, as long as he motivates our players.
what we need to do is get BDK out there going apeshit on reporters, refs and mascots alike.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 08:19 AM
winter could be the worst fucking interviewee in the world, as long as he motivates our players.
what we need to do is get BDK out there going apeshit on reporters, refs and mascots alike.

Yeah but once again...what are the indications? If he can't communicate with the media other than to throw players under the bus, what makes you think he is able to motivate players? Has he been able to so far? Doesn't look like it.

It might be what I do for a living, but I am always looking for markers. Indications. Signs. Symptoms. Anything that gives me information. Investing isn't an exact science. I never know for sure if a country or a company is actually growing or if they just telling the public what they want to hear. We pour over data to find the little things to give us a clue as to what is going on. Even the smallest number could be a sympton of something larger.

That's what I wish people would do with TFC. If you think Ecks not shaking Winter's hand is not a sign we should be paying attention to, or Winter's inability to communicate effectively with the media doesn't translate similarly in the lockerroom then you're not paying attention, either willingly or unwillingly. But the signs are there for those that want to dig deeper than simply having our ears tickled.

Phil
05-02-2012, 08:54 AM
Yeah but once again...what are the indications? If he can't communicate with the media other than to throw players under the bus, what makes you think he is able to motivate players? Has he been able to so far? Doesn't look like it.

It might be what I do for a living, but I am always looking for markers. Indications. Signs. Symptoms. Anything that gives me information. Investing isn't an exact science. I never know for sure if a country or a company is actually growing or if they just telling the public what they want to hear. We pour over data to find the little things to give us a clue as to what is going on. Even the smallest number could be a sympton of something larger.

That's what I wish people would do with TFC. If you think Ecks not shaking Winter's hand is not a sign we should be paying attention to, or Winter's inability to communicate effectively with the media doesn't translate similarly in the lockerroom then you're not paying attention, either willingly or unwillingly. But the signs are there for those that want to dig deeper than simply having our ears tickled.



You have a point, but as well, sometimes when we are too emotionally invested we read way too much into things. With Ecks, I see a passionate guy who wants to play the full 90. He was pissed he came off, but it was obvious it was a bad game for him. It is debatable wether a bad Ecks is better than our best replacement but they did well with that sub overall (again my opinion).

I trust that Ecks is professional enough to bounce right back and still back the manger. It was heat of the moment.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 09:07 AM
Totally plausible explanation. I have no doubt it's entirely possible.

The problem is that there is accumulating evidence, not just one-off examples. And you'd then have to rationalize all the evidence away.

At some point, it begins to look like excuses not explanations.

Getting back to my example, we don't use just one singular indication to help us reach a conclusion or projection about an economy, industry or company, but a collection of signals. What is the collection of signals telling us about Winter?

Much like with Volcanos (ever watch Dante's Peak? I love that move, one of the last before Linda Hamilton lost her looks.) sometimes the guy giving you the early warning is doing you a favour and if you don't listen, by the time you do want to act, it's too late and the damage is done. (ie. MoJo) Some people seem to need the volcano erupting in their faces before they accept that the evidence was pointing to it all along.

Fort York Redcoat
05-02-2012, 09:12 AM
I think Winter is getting close to Leo Cahill status with the ominous factor of his quotes.

It would take an act of God for them to lose...

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 09:14 AM
And yes I am calling myself Pierce Brosnan and yes, I would like to bang a young and fresh-looking Linda Hamilton.

Phil
05-02-2012, 09:20 AM
Totally plausible explanation. I have no doubt it's entirely possible.

The problem is that there is accumulating evidence, not just one-off examples. And you'd then have to rationalize all the evidence away.

At some point, it begins to look like excuses not explanations.

Getting back to my example, we don't use just one singular indication to help us reach a conclusion or projection about an economy, industry or company, but a collection of signals. What is the collection of signals telling us about Winter?

Much like with Volcanos (ever watch Dante's Peak? I love that move, one of the last before Linda Hamilton lost her looks.) sometimes the guy giving you the early warning is doing you a favour and if you don't listen, by the time you do want to act, it's too late and the damage is done. (ie. MoJo) Some people seem to need the volcano erupting in their faces before they accept that the evidence was pointing to it all along.

By no means am I being dismissive about it, its a gesture that is noteworthy and one for the log books. I know we don't see eye to eye on Winter but I have a healthy amount of respect for where you are coming from.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 09:26 AM
And you forgot that yes, I am Pierce Brosnan.

nickio
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
One thing is for sure, game days don't feel nearly as exciting anymore. I don't even remember what win is like anymore

__wowza
05-02-2012, 09:32 AM
Yeah but once again...what are the indications? If he can't communicate with the media other than to throw players under the bus, what makes you think he is able to motivate players? Has he been able to so far? Doesn't look like it.

It might be what I do for a living, but I am always looking for markers. Indications. Signs. Symptoms. Anything that gives me information. Investing isn't an exact science. I never know for sure if a country or a company is actually growing or if they just telling the public what they want to hear. We pour over data to find the little things to give us a clue as to what is going on. Even the smallest number could be a sympton of something larger.

That's what I wish people would do with TFC. If you think Ecks not shaking Winter's hand is not a sign we should be paying attention to, or Winter's inability to communicate effectively with the media doesn't translate similarly in the lockerroom then you're not paying attention, either willingly or unwillingly. But the signs are there for those that want to dig deeper than simply having our ears tickled.

i didn't think one line would warrant such a response, but here's where im coming from.
which scenario allows you more time to think more about your response?
- being asked a string of rapid fire questions
- being asked for a random statement
- being expected to give a pregame speech

now add that to english not being his first language. look up at the questions again, and tell me again, which would be easier to communicate? i've seen seasoned coaches give horrible post game interviews. hell, winston churchill had a stutter and found answering questions a hell of a lot more nerve racking than giving a speech to an entire country.


what i don't get about you roogsy is that you present a point while kettling it in the very same post. you say that we pour over little things for any indication that it could lead to something larger, but in doing that it seems like you're negating every other possible option. you say you're looking for signs, markers, etc, but just seem to stop searching when you think you've found your conclusion. ecks didn't shake anyones hand when he went to the bench, not the trainers, no ones, would this indicate that he's mad at them too?

maybe you're just overlooking the obvious: ecks thought there was more he could do, and he was pissed that winter felt the need to save him for montreal. we've always known him to have a competitive spirit, maybe he just thought "fuck, really? i feel fine, keep me in!". the difference between the other options and the one you chose to believe reads like you just stopped thinking because you found the one point that proved you right. the one thing you could flip around and say "yup, here it is!" instead of accepting an equally (if not more) logical conclusion:

+ ecks is a hot head
+ he didn't want to be subbed out
+ didn't shake anyones hand
___________________________
he thought he should've been kept in and was pissed he got swapped

you say "didnt shake his hand = inability to communicate with the locker room". even if you were right, even if ecks came out and ran down winter, it would still fall under a fallacy of composition (ie: just because part is true doesn't mean the conclusion is). the number of times i hear "plays ran down winter, this organization is in shambles!" amuses me, and again, see above. just because less than half a dozen do it doesn't mean a complete and total organizational breakdown.

lastly, if ecks is really rotted at winter and his ability to communicate to the team. he sure didn't mention it when he stuck up for him and playing his formation.. i think he used the words "believing in it". he's managed to get two of our best players vocally believing in it, even if the rest of us don't.

reggie
05-02-2012, 09:35 AM
I think Winter is getting close to Leo Cahill status with the ominous factor of his quotes.

It would take an act of God for them to lose...

yes...i can also hear the goodbye leo chants,if we lose tonight and are losing saturday,i can hear the goodbye winter chants but it wont matter he doesnt understand english anyway.

Pookie
05-02-2012, 10:53 AM
yes...i can also hear the goodbye leo chants,if we lose tonight and are losing saturday,i can hear the goodbye winter chants but it wont matter he doesnt understand english anyway.

no issues with what he or Avila or Johnson are thinking. Sports Pyschologists would highlight that whatever you need to think to give you confidence to perform is fine. Rational or not.

The fact that they choose to tell Montreal what they think could be a positive thing. Certainly questionable to put it in the papers vs keep it in the room but hey, I'd rather them think that they are better than MTL than go in there thinking they are going to get slaughtered.

pdogg
05-02-2012, 10:59 AM
+ ecks is a hot head
+ he didn't want to be subbed out
+ didn't shake anyones hand
___________________________
he thought he should've been kept in and was pissed he got swapped

you say "didnt shake his hand = inability to communicate with the locker room". even if you were right, even if ecks came out and ran down winter, it would still fall under a fallacy of composition (ie: just because part is true doesn't mean the conclusion is).

It might just me being delusional/fanboy/whatever but I didn't read into the Ecks situation as much as others have. Knowing that he plays with a lot of passion and enthusiasm, I would be more surprised if Ecks wasn't pissed. I know whenever I get subbed out for recreational soccer, I'm not happy about it. Having said that, was Ecks playing worse than the other defenders and should he have been the first one subbed out? I don't think so, but I work behind a desk, not as a coach. Maybe the coaching staff saw something that we didn't. Or maybe, heaven forbid, we keep our CBs playing together for a full game (see Aceval substitutions).

jloome
05-02-2012, 11:06 AM
hahahahaha and now you wonder if it is the right thing to legalize "Soft Drugs" like in the Netherlands? this is guy is on crack!
at least you will have a positive outlook in life

Or you could look at the stats showing allowing tacit legalization in Holland decreased youth consumption by more than 10% over a 20 year period, so that it's now about 11% lower than the U.S.

And crack isn't a soft drug.

jloome
05-02-2012, 11:07 AM
They took him out to add some aerial presence and it worked; Henry scored.

jloome
05-02-2012, 11:14 AM
i didn't think one line would warrant such a response, but here's where im coming from.
which scenario allows you more time to think more about your response?
- being asked a string of rapid fire questions
- being asked for a random statement
- being expected to give a pregame speech

now add that to english not being his first language. look up at the questions again, and tell me again, which would be easier to communicate? i've seen seasoned coaches give horrible post game interviews. hell, winston churchill had a stutter and found answering questions a hell of a lot more nerve racking than giving a speech to an entire country.


what i don't get about you roogsy is that you present a point while kettling it in the very same post. you say that we pour over little things for any indication that it could lead to something larger, but in doing that it seems like you're negating every other possible option. you say you're looking for signs, markers, etc, but just seem to stop searching when you think you've found your conclusion. ecks didn't shake anyones hand when he went to the bench, not the trainers, no ones, would this indicate that he's mad at them too?

maybe you're just overlooking the obvious: ecks thought there was more he could do, and he was pissed that winter felt the need to save him for montreal. we've always known him to have a competitive spirit, maybe he just thought "fuck, really? i feel fine, keep me in!". the difference between the other options and the one you chose to believe reads like you just stopped thinking because you found the one point that proved you right. the one thing you could flip around and say "yup, here it is!" instead of accepting an equally (if not more) logical conclusion:

+ ecks is a hot head
+ he didn't want to be subbed out
+ didn't shake anyones hand
___________________________
he thought he should've been kept in and was pissed he got swapped

you say "didnt shake his hand = inability to communicate with the locker room". even if you were right, even if ecks came out and ran down winter, it would still fall under a fallacy of composition (ie: just because part is true doesn't mean the conclusion is). the number of times i hear "plays ran down winter, this organization is in shambles!" amuses me, and again, see above. just because less than half a dozen do it doesn't mean a complete and total organizational breakdown.

lastly, if ecks is really rotted at winter and his ability to communicate to the team. he sure didn't mention it when he stuck up for him and playing his formation.. i think he used the words "believing in it". he's managed to get two of our best players vocally believing in it, even if the rest of us don't.

Are you asking people on these boards to be objective? About football? Most people (and neuroscience supports this) aren't objective 85% of the time in their day-to-day lives, and I guarantee you there are as many people on the support side of the equation doing the same thing as Roogsy, just less vociferously, because people who support something are always quieter about it than those who oppose it. That's survival instinct. I try to make long, balanced and reasoned arguments here almost daily, and I guarantee you a solid chunk of the time, I'm exhibiting bias without even realizing it.

Having said that, I do wish the longer arguments on these boards contained a little of both sides, to at least demonstrate that people are generally trying to see the other side and not just win an argument. Anyone who's convinced they're right about this situation isn't considering how much we really know -- I mean REALLY KNOW, provably. And since we have almost NO inside information on anything to do with TFC that is sourced and reputable, it is impossible to form an position to which any of us should be wedded.

Then again, I have a 143-page dissertation demonstrating brain chemistry causes religion as part of that same survival instinct process and that all belief is really a form of addiction; it's compelling, took me years to construct using research from people with many PhDs after their name ... and if you're addicted to a belief with which you're secure, that same brain chemistry will tell you to not even read it.

That's life.

jloome
05-02-2012, 11:18 AM
i didn't think one line would warrant such a response, but here's where im coming from.
which scenario allows you more time to think more about your response?
- being asked a string of rapid fire questions
- being asked for a random statement
- being expected to give a pregame speech

now add that to english not being his first language. look up at the questions again, and tell me again, which would be easier to communicate? i've seen seasoned coaches give horrible post game interviews. hell, winston churchill had a stutter and found answering questions a hell of a lot more nerve racking than giving a speech to an entire country.


what i don't get about you roogsy is that you present a point while kettling it in the very same post. you say that we pour over little things for any indication that it could lead to something larger, but in doing that it seems like you're negating every other possible option. you say you're looking for signs, markers, etc, but just seem to stop searching when you think you've found your conclusion. ecks didn't shake anyones hand when he went to the bench, not the trainers, no ones, would this indicate that he's mad at them too?

maybe you're just overlooking the obvious: ecks thought there was more he could do, and he was pissed that winter felt the need to save him for montreal. we've always known him to have a competitive spirit, maybe he just thought "fuck, really? i feel fine, keep me in!". the difference between the other options and the one you chose to believe reads like you just stopped thinking because you found the one point that proved you right. the one thing you could flip around and say "yup, here it is!" instead of accepting an equally (if not more) logical conclusion:

+ ecks is a hot head
+ he didn't want to be subbed out
+ didn't shake anyones hand
___________________________
he thought he should've been kept in and was pissed he got swapped

you say "didnt shake his hand = inability to communicate with the locker room". even if you were right, even if ecks came out and ran down winter, it would still fall under a fallacy of composition (ie: just because part is true doesn't mean the conclusion is). the number of times i hear "plays ran down winter, this organization is in shambles!" amuses me, and again, see above. just because less than half a dozen do it doesn't mean a complete and total organizational breakdown.

lastly, if ecks is really rotted at winter and his ability to communicate to the team. he sure didn't mention it when he stuck up for him and playing his formation.. i think he used the words "believing in it". he's managed to get two of our best players vocally believing in it, even if the rest of us don't.

I'd also say post hoc fallacy; Winter took him off, he didn't shake Winter's hand, ergo he must be mad at Winter. We have no evidence of that. Maybe he was mad at himself, distracted and didn't even see his hand.

Consider the balance of possibilities is fun, but unless someone involved clarifies, guessing why is about demonstrating an emotional driver for equally unsupportable arguments on either side of the Winter issue.

jloome
05-02-2012, 11:19 AM
And yes I am calling myself Pierce Brosnan and yes, I would like to bang a young and fresh-looking Linda Hamilton.

Stephanie Zimbalist, dude. Linda Hamilton was Beauty and the Beast.

DangerRed
05-02-2012, 11:45 AM
If we lose in Montreal, I wonder if he'll come out and say "I was wrong. We were not a better team than Montreal." I'm willing to bet there'll be more bullshit about not having the right players and bad luck.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 12:35 PM
I'd also say post hoc fallacy; Winter took him off, he didn't shake Winter's hand, ergo he must be mad at Winter. We have no evidence of that. Maybe he was mad at himself, distracted and didn't even see his hand.

Consider the balance of possibilities is fun, but unless someone involved clarifies, guessing why is about demonstrating an emotional driver for equally unsupportable arguments on either side of the Winter issue.

I agree with the potential fallacy in the conclusion, hence why I did not state it as a conclusion but rather as anecdotal evidence. In conjunction with everything else being reported about Winter, observations and ultimately the results on the pitch, it can be used to form an opinion, but not a conclusion.

I don't know for certain that Ecks is mad at Winter, whether it be in general or just for those 30 seconds, nor have I ever claimed to know. None of us may ever know. But it was not an insignificant event as many have tried to pass it off nor should it be dismissed as irrelevant.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Stephanie Zimbalist, dude. Linda Hamilton was Beauty and the Beast.


Now you've done it. You've stepped over the line. :lol:

Nobody...and I mean nobody...questions my knowledge of movies. I am as addicted to movies as I am donuts.

http://www.flickclip.com/images/flickimages/dantespeak.jpg

ag futbol
05-02-2012, 12:40 PM
It's the old SAF: "take the pressure off the players by running your mouth trick". Unfortunately, in this case I think it would only serve to motivate the opposition.

If I were Jesse Marsh I'd be telling my players all week that a coach of an 0-7 team thinks THEY'RE shit.... if he can keep a straight face.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 12:45 PM
i didn't think one line would warrant such a response, but here's where im coming from.
which scenario allows you more time to think more about your response?
- being asked a string of rapid fire questions
- being asked for a random statement
- being expected to give a pregame speech

now add that to english not being his first language. look up at the questions again, and tell me again, which would be easier to communicate? i've seen seasoned coaches give horrible post game interviews. hell, winston churchill had a stutter and found answering questions a hell of a lot more nerve racking than giving a speech to an entire country.


what i don't get about you roogsy is that you present a point while kettling it in the very same post. you say that we pour over little things for any indication that it could lead to something larger, but in doing that it seems like you're negating every other possible option. you say you're looking for signs, markers, etc, but just seem to stop searching when you think you've found your conclusion. ecks didn't shake anyones hand when he went to the bench, not the trainers, no ones, would this indicate that he's mad at them too?

maybe you're just overlooking the obvious: ecks thought there was more he could do, and he was pissed that winter felt the need to save him for montreal. we've always known him to have a competitive spirit, maybe he just thought "fuck, really? i feel fine, keep me in!". the difference between the other options and the one you chose to believe reads like you just stopped thinking because you found the one point that proved you right. the one thing you could flip around and say "yup, here it is!" instead of accepting an equally (if not more) logical conclusion:

+ ecks is a hot head
+ he didn't want to be subbed out
+ didn't shake anyones hand
___________________________
he thought he should've been kept in and was pissed he got swapped

you say "didnt shake his hand = inability to communicate with the locker room". even if you were right, even if ecks came out and ran down winter, it would still fall under a fallacy of composition (ie: just because part is true doesn't mean the conclusion is). the number of times i hear "plays ran down winter, this organization is in shambles!" amuses me, and again, see above. just because less than half a dozen do it doesn't mean a complete and total organizational breakdown.

lastly, if ecks is really rotted at winter and his ability to communicate to the team. he sure didn't mention it when he stuck up for him and playing his formation.. i think he used the words "believing in it". he's managed to get two of our best players vocally believing in it, even if the rest of us don't.


I do not dismiss your argument nor do I accept it. Please see my answer to Jeremy. I merely stated the Ecks example as one of many signs. On it's own it is not indicative of anything. It is in combination where you can beging to see patterns and thus form opinions and conclusions. It's all circumstantial, it's all it could ever be!

And that is the point you are missing. Generally on the pro-Winter side, there is a heckuvalot of rationalizations and excuses with each criticism. But what you don't acknowledge or possibly even realize is that it isn't the ability to excuse or rationalize each problem away where you fail but rather the fact that you have to do it so often to begin with. It is a cummulative effect that with each instance of discussion, the pendulum swings the other way because much like with Winter's explanation of "luck"...eventually the frequency alone condemns you, not the fact that you can excuse each instance.

I have to object to your characterization that I "negate" possible options when in fact I have gone out of my way to acknowledge the validity of the options presented before me. Take a look at my responses to you, Phil and others where I very often utter the actual words that your theories do carry some argumentative value. How then can it be said that I negate other options? I have always stated that all have merit and a case for consideration, however they must be done so within context, which is where I believe your side fails. I would in fact argue to the contrary that it is the pro-Winter side that generally dismisses increasingly heavy amounts of evidence that is piling up at his feet without acknowledging their merit or value.

jloome
05-02-2012, 03:00 PM
Now you've done it. You've stepped over the line. :lol:

Nobody...and I mean nobody...questions my knowledge of movies. I am as addicted to movies as I am donuts.

http://www.flickclip.com/images/flickimages/dantespeak.jpg

LOL, nope just showing my age. He's better known for Remington Steele, co-starring Stephanie Zimbalist, which was on at the same time as Beauty and the Beast, starring Linda Hamilton.

jloome
05-02-2012, 03:03 PM
I don't know for certain that Ecks is mad at Winter, whether it be in general or just for those 30 seconds, nor have I ever claimed to know. But it was not an insignificant event as many have tried to pass it off nor should it be dismissed as irrelevant.

Er... you have no evidence to support that it was not an insignificant event. You've just admitted you have no idea why he didn't shake his hand, ergo, by logical extent, you can't have any idea of whether it was a significant event. You can say it didn't SEEM insignificant but without evidence of a motivating factor, the logic here doesn't follow.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 03:33 PM
It's semantics I know but I disagreewith you. By it's very surprising nature, it's not an insignificant event. The very fact it was highlighted and discussed not just by TFC fans but also by commentators who were somewhat shocked at the display, indicates it is not insignificant.

The fact that it could have been a temporary moment of anger at himself or Winter is irrelevant. Whether or not it has any long-term effect at all is irrelevant. The action itself was noticeable and shocking and thus not insignificant. Insignificant indicates lacking importance. If it lacked importance, it would not be shocking nor would anyone have made anything more than a passing comment. The fact that it caused observers to dig for more information makes it a significant action. Whether their investigation reveals any lasting impact all does not change the nature of the original action itself.

Roogsy
05-02-2012, 03:44 PM
Oh and speaking of Pierce Brosnan's screen love interests, this list could be a long one.

Stephanie Zimbalist
Linda Hamilton
Michelle Yeoh
Famke Janssen
Teri Hatcher
Denise Richards
Sophie Marceau
Halle Berry
Salma Hayek
Rene Russo

And I will be honest, I love Miss Moneypenny during his stint as Bond, so I am including Samantha Bond.






Basically he's the hero of every teenage boy in the 80s and 90s...

Auzzy
05-02-2012, 04:21 PM
MLSE deal won’t be challenged by Competition Bureau

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1171955--mlse-deal-won-t-be-challenged-by-competition-bureau?bn=1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/competition-bureau-clears-bce-rogers-acquisition-of-mlse-stake/article2420539/

tfcleeds
05-02-2012, 05:05 PM
Oh and speaking of Pierce Brosnan's screen love interests, this list could be a long one.

Stephanie Zimbalist
Linda Hamilton
Michelle Yeoh
Famke Janssen
Teri Hatcher
Denise Richards
Sophie Marceau
Halle Berry
Salma Hayek
Rene Russo

And I will be honest, I love Miss Moneypenny during his stint as Bond, so I am including Samantha Bond.






Basically he's the hero of every teenage boy in the 80s and 90s...

Don't forget Alison Doody in "Taffin". (If the name isn't familiar, she played Indiana Jones' love interest in the Last Crusade)

jloome
05-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Oh and speaking of Pierce Brosnan's screen love interests, this list could be a long one.

Stephanie Zimbalist
Linda Hamilton
Michelle Yeoh
Famke Janssen
Teri Hatcher
Denise Richards
Sophie Marceau
Halle Berry
Salma Hayek
Rene Russo

And I will be honest, I love Miss Moneypenny during his stint as Bond, so I am including Samantha Bond.






Basically he's the hero of every teenage boy in the 80s and 90s...

Dude was SKINNY back in those Remington Steele days man

ExiledRed
05-02-2012, 05:49 PM
'Pass the butter'

'what butter?'

'that butter'

' you are fallaciously presenting margarine as something of higher fat content that is made through a completely different process and is more expensive.'

er...I always call margarine butter, but ok 'pass the margarine then'

'oh ok....its just the way you referred to it as butter, was confusing. glad you clarified that, but its still incorrect.'