The Unofficial Fire Ron Wilson/Ron Wilson is the Greatest Thread

[Kin]

Actually.... if you even bothered to read what he said which is not only on the website CW linked but also in the "BIG BOLDED AREA" too. He specifically said all the kids. Not some... not a couple. And certainly not some + parts of the prospect base.

Wow. You're serious. You actually read that as Brian Burke saying he'd have to trade away all of the young players on the team.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Tigger]

Also, Crawford does have a cup and a Jack Adams.

And since then he's gotten out of the 2nd round once and missed the playoffs 7 times in 13 seasons. I'm with CF on this one.

There's that, his own admission that the cup winning Avalanche mainly needed him to stay out of their way and that, well, he left Gretzky and Yzerman on the bench in the shootout. The last part may not be entirely fair on it's own but I'll never forgive him for it.

 

[Kin]

And since then he's gotten out of the 2nd round once and missed the playoffs 7 times in 13 seasons. I'm with CF on this one.

Well, that was more of a joke but, for the sake of argument, if you look at his coaching record it's really not that bad. Some good years with the Nords/Avs before they got bounced in the first round in that epic series with the Oilers where Cujo stood on his head. Then some pretty good results with a rebuilding Kings team considering the talent on the roster. I mean, can you even really look at the Stars last year and say someone should have gotten significantly more out of that roster?

Quite frankly, I think Marc Crawford's coaching resume is pretty good provided you ignore the stretch with the Canucks. And even then, can you really lay that on him? Or is a fairer conclusion that he can't get great results when the team is run by someone who thinks it's a good idea to try and win playoff series with Dan Cloutier in net year after year regardless of how badly he fails?

I mean, it's not like he'd be dealing with the same issue in Toron....

Yeah, Marc Crawford can't be the next coach.

 

[losveratos]

Actually.... if you even bothered to read what he said which is not only on the website CW linked but also in the "BIG BOLDED AREA" too. He specifically said all the kids. Not some... not a couple. And certainly not some + parts of the prospect base.

Wow. You're serious. You actually read that as Brian Burke saying he'd have to trade away all of the young players on the team.

Best of luck to you.

Personally I doubt he meant every single kid on the team and farm including all picks and futures. But I wouldn't do the stupid leap of logic you did and change his words from all to some.

That's like going from 100% down to 20%.

You honestly seem like you'll start to say anything not to ever appear wrong on this website. Maybe your 2000+ posts would be better served talking about the intricacies of lolcat captions.

He's where you can register for membership. http://icanhascheezburger.com/

 

[Kin]

Personally I doubt he meant every single kid on the team and farm including all picks and futures. But I wouldn't do the stupid leap of logic you did and change his words from all to some.

So you don't think he meant all but you wouldn't go from "all" to "some". And then define "some" as 20%.

Yeah, you're right. My bad on those terrifying leaps in logic I made.

 

[losveratos]

Personally I doubt he meant every single kid on the team and farm including all picks and futures. But I wouldn't do the stupid leap of logic you did and change his words from all to some.

So you don't think he meant all but you wouldn't go from "all" to "some". And then define "some" as 20%.

Yeah, you're right. My bad on those terrifying leaps in logic I made.

All 100%
Most 75%
Half 50%
Some 25%
None 0%

I'd probably go with a formula pretty close to that. Though if you flesh it out with a few more like Almost none and Almost all. That sort of thing. Some finds it's place in the 20% range... so yeah. All to some I would argue is in the neighborhood of a 80%ish drop.

 

[Kin]

All 100%
Most 75%
Half 50%
Some 25%
None 0%

I'd probably go with a formula pretty close to that. Though if you flesh it out with a few more like Almost none and Almost all. That sort of thing. Some finds it's place in the 20% range... so yeah. All to some I would argue is in the neighborhood of a 80%ish drop.

Right, well, you'll forgive me if I tend to use those words as defined by the dictionary as opposed to your own personal interpretation.

 

[Corn Flake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw

:-*

 

[Kin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw

:-*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ABTOTW7aY

 

[losveratos]

All 100%
Most 75%
Half 50%
Some 25%
None 0%

I'd probably go with a formula pretty close to that. Though if you flesh it out with a few more like Almost none and Almost all. That sort of thing. Some finds it's place in the 20% range... so yeah. All to some I would argue is in the neighborhood of a 80%ish drop.

Right, well, you'll forgive me if I tend to use those words as defined by the dictionary as opposed to your own personal interpretation.

The dictionary doesn't say. But popular consensus puts it in the neighborhood I'm talking about. Seeing as I teach English as a foreign language and the topic of frequency % comes up quite often in all books on the subject matter. From such groups as Stanford and Harvard. They entirely agree on the placement of that word in a % scale.

So nope. You're not forgiven for misusing a word like all by changing it to some.

Could you lend me some money? Oh! How much? 1,000,000 dollars.

 

[Kin]

The dictionary doesn't say.

It really does

Stick to definitions 1 and 2. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[losveratos]

The dictionary doesn't say.

It really does

Stick to definitions 1 and 2. Don't hurt yourself.

being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied

The dictionary specifically doesn't specify an exact number because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm specifically talking about % and you're giving me notes on exact numbers. These are different conversations and the fact that it's 5am where I am right now and I can plainly see that and you can't astonishes me.

Of course they're going to say there's no number to be mentioned. Because when you say some the number will almost always be different.

For instance... I have a bag of chips and you ask for some and I give you a handful. Lets say 10 chips. Another situation I have a jug of water and you ask for some so I pour you a glass from the jug.

How can you not understand that % is not a number until you give it a context?

If you ask anyone in English teaching to draw out a scale %age line of frequency words from 0 to 100% they will put some around 20 and most around 80. And a few other words above below and in between.

You really can't figure out when you're wrong.

 

[Kin]

The dictionary specifically doesn't specify an exact number because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, "some" is a word that is specifically designed to express an unknown quantity. Not a specific quantity. Not 20% or 25%. It is intentionally vague. It allows for the unknown. It refers to the unknown. Much like the unknown number of prospects/players Burke is talking about. The only thing "some" rules out is all. That is the basic concept of the word recognizable to anyone with even a working knowledge of the language.

You are the only one trying to derive a specific percentage from the word "some" which is by it's very defintion pointless. Your beef, and I'm glad you mention it's very late where you are so it gives you some excuse rather than force me to conclude there are a lot of ESL students out there who should be angrily demanding refunds from you, is not with me. It is with the good people at the OED.

 

[losveratos]

The dictionary specifically doesn't specify an exact number because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, "some" is a word that is specifically designed to express an unknown quantity. Not a specific quantity. Not 20% or 25%. It is intentionally vague. It allows for the unknown. It refers to the unknown. Much like the unknown number of prospects/players Burke is talking about. The only thing "some" rules out is all. That is the basic concept of the word recognizable to anyone with even a working knowledge of the language.

You are the only one trying to derive a specific percentage from the word "some" which is by it's very defintion pointless. Your beef, and I'm glad you mention it's very late where you are so it gives you some excuse rather than force me to conclude there are a lot of ESL students out there who should be angrily demanding refunds from you, is not with me. It is with the good people at the OED.

Go out and find me a single person right now that would agree that 99% of a group of something is some. When it gets to a certain % of a group of something people switch to the word most. Or if it's somewhere in the middle we say half.

Anyways... I've done my duty for what I would consider the rest of my life in talking to a wall. You're half as smart and not as useful, seeing as the one behind me is keeping the roof from falling and you're just keeping my eyes from falling.

So I believe I will add you to my list of never reads. Enjoy Chazz's company.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

The dictionary specifically doesn't specify an exact number because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, "some" is a word that is specifically designed to express an unknown quantity. Not a specific quantity. Not 20% or 25%. It is intentionally vague. It allows for the unknown. It refers to the unknown. Much like the unknown number of prospects/players Burke is talking about. The only thing "some" rules out is all. That is the basic concept of the word recognizable to anyone with even a working knowledge of the language.

You are the only one trying to derive a specific percentage from the word "some" which is by it's very defintion pointless. Your beef, and I'm glad you mention it's very late where you are so it gives you some excuse rather than force me to conclude there are a lot of ESL students out there who should be angrily demanding refunds from you, is not with me. It is with the good people at the OED.

Go out and find me a single person right now that would agree that 99% of a group of something is some. When it gets to a certain % of a group of something people switch to the word most. Or if it's somewhere in the middle we say half.

Anyways... I've done my duty for what I would consider the rest of my life in talking to a wall. You're half as smart and not as useful, seeing as the one behind me is keeping the roof from falling and you're just keeping my eyes from falling.

So I believe I will add you to my list of never reads. Enjoy Chazz's company.

You can cut the sexual tension between these two with a knife right now.

 

[losveratos]

The dictionary specifically doesn't specify an exact number because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, "some" is a word that is specifically designed to express an unknown quantity. Not a specific quantity. Not 20% or 25%. It is intentionally vague. It allows for the unknown. It refers to the unknown. Much like the unknown number of prospects/players Burke is talking about. The only thing "some" rules out is all. That is the basic concept of the word recognizable to anyone with even a working knowledge of the language.

You are the only one trying to derive a specific percentage from the word "some" which is by it's very defintion pointless. Your beef, and I'm glad you mention it's very late where you are so it gives you some excuse rather than force me to conclude there are a lot of ESL students out there who should be angrily demanding refunds from you, is not with me. It is with the good people at the OED.

And while we're in a pissing match. Also none by your very definition not mine. Stop saying stupid wrong things even when you're talking about your own broken logic.

 

[Mack674]

Wow, are we arguing interpretations of dictionary definitions now? The Leafs really are in a bad way.

Slow down kids, you're scaring the adults.

 

[Kin]

Go out and find me a single person right now that would agree that 99% of a group of something is some.

Yes, that seems like an entirely fruitful quest when the people who write the dictionary aren't good enough for you.

Anyways... I've done my duty for what I would consider the rest of my life in talking to a wall. You're half as smart and not as useful, seeing as the one behind me is keeping the roof from falling and you're just keeping my eyes from falling.

Ah yes. The true mark of someone who's won an argument. Resorting to Ad Hominem. Well, rest assured the fact that I won't get to talk to you in the future fills me with all manner of sadness.

 

[Kin]

And while we're in a pissing match. Also none by your very definition not mine. Stop saying stupid wrong things even when you're talking about your own broken logic.

"The only thing some rules out is all". None is nothing.

Learn the language before trying to teach it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You guys are more than welcome to continue this debate in the useless thread where it belongs, but quit it here.