Thoughts on Crosby

I just worry he'll turn into an Alex Daigle ... LOL.

Gretz is certainly impressed by him - having said that, how often does he
comment on CHLers and their potential? Gretz saying this is the guy who
can/will break his records, that's pretty bold. It would certainly be nice
to see a new superstar though.

If there is no hockey this season, how will the draft work? Will they use
the 03/04 order?

SDB

"Rod's news" <rod.gram.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4F%vd.520792$nl.516068@pd7tw3no...
>
> "BJ42" <argh.TakeThisOut@mtta.ca> wrote in message
> news:A7_vd.36645$Ya4.1324@edtnps84...
>> Since there isn't much else going one here - what are your thoughts on
>> Sidney Crosby?
>
> He has big lips and wears lipstick. But that said, he has a TON of talent
> :) Tremendous puck handling skils, tremendous passing skills ...... and
> WILL go into the corners !!! This kid is close to the real deal.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby 

And you sound like a string theorist...aka someone who is preoccupied
with fashionable nonsense. As physicist Philip W. Anderson said:

"Second is Horgan's very clever use of the philosophical naivety of
some of his subjects - he even remarks on it in the case of Ed Witten.
These are people who really believe that the goal of science is the
complete answer to some all encompassing question, people who, like
Witten and others in physics, Stephen Hawking in cosmology or Richard
Dawkins (and possibly even Stuart Kauffman ) in biology, believe there
is some unifying, underlying principle or law whose consequences then
need only to be explicated in order to understand everything. The
position is called "naive reductionism" and is typified by Witten's
curious remark that "every exciting discovery in physics follows from
string theory".

This naivety is reinforced by great reputations fed by the enormous
appetite of the general public for speculative musings on the "mind of
God", the ultimate theory of everything, or the fate of the universe,
and seems to be shared by Horgan himself, who, let's face it, is not
visibly deep scientifically. It is a regrettable fact that the same
naivety is shared by generation after generation of able students who
follow these pied pipers into the morasses of string theory, cosmology
and other postempirical subjects. Horgan is, in a way, quite right in
his description of this kind of work as ironic and postempirical, but
wrong in seeing it as the essence of science; science itself is still
an empirical subject. Kuhn's "normal science" in my mind, can be
described as a search for answers, great science as a search for
questions, the greatest science as a search for the form the answers
may take. These last two types of search are sometimes hard to
distinguish from postempirical science until someone has invented the
apparatus or the type of argument necessary to check them out, but the
scientific community itself is often able to tell the difference. One
good test (which several of Horgan's interviewees fail to pass) is
whether the scientist involved has any history of dealing successfully
with empirical facts."

Its same to assume you have no history of dealing successfully with
empirical facts. In other words, you are "NOT EVEN WRONG".
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby 

"BJ42" <argh DeleteThis @mtta.ca> wrote in message news:EO%vd.37301$Ya4.4095@edtnps84...
>I just worry he'll turn into an Alex Daigle ... LOL.
It's always possible that could happen - but that is more of a reflection of
individual attitude than it is of individual talent.
>
> Gretz is certainly impressed by him - having said that, how often does he
> comment on CHLers and their potential? Gretz saying this is the guy who
> can/will break his records, that's pretty bold.

It's also pretty unlikely (I know ... never say never) unless the NHL culls
back to 24 teams or so, and becomes so populated with offensive players that
the trap gets lost in the shuffle. And I also think that unless 4 on 4 is
resumed in the case of offsetting penalties, goal production will be further
stifled. Another correction that will need to be made is the goalie
equipment. If we were ever to revert back to 70's and 80's type hockey,
there is a chance someone will come along and break them, - but until the
game itself changes back to the good old days, several legitimate contenders
to break those records could come along, but they'll never achieve the
numbers required given the state of the game today.

It would certainly be nice
> to see a new superstar though.

It would just be nice to see some hockey. Hell, I'd take Tie in town just to
get slapped around by big Georges :)
>
> If there is no hockey this season, how will the draft work? Will they use
> the 03/04 order?

I don't think the powers that be know the answer to that one yet.
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby 

"BJ42" <argh.RemoveThis@mtta.ca> wrote in message
news:HL4wd.41699$Ya4.24940@edtnps84...
> You are a nut case afterall !!!

It took you this long to figure that out? Sheesh.

Ragnarok73
--
"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus
Aurelius
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby 

Nutcase + aptitude in limited field = Idiot Savant = HungryLion.

Hey, at least I am posting something interesting HL! So how about that
Donald Trump ...

SDB

"HungryLion" <hungrylion2004.TakeThisOut@zworg.com> wrote in message
news:1103163447.983011.223170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> And you sound like a string theorist...aka someone who is preoccupied
> with fashionable nonsense. As physicist Philip W. Anderson said:
>
> "Second is Horgan's very clever use of the philosophical naivety of
> some of his subjects - he even remarks on it in the case of Ed Witten.
> These are people who really believe that the goal of science is the
> complete answer to some all encompassing question, people who, like
> Witten and others in physics, Stephen Hawking in cosmology or Richard
> Dawkins (and possibly even Stuart Kauffman ) in biology, believe there
> is some unifying, underlying principle or law whose consequences then
> need only to be explicated in order to understand everything. The
> position is called "naive reductionism" and is typified by Witten's
> curious remark that "every exciting discovery in physics follows from
> string theory".
>
> This naivety is reinforced by great reputations fed by the enormous
> appetite of the general public for speculative musings on the "mind of
> God", the ultimate theory of everything, or the fate of the universe,
> and seems to be shared by Horgan himself, who, let's face it, is not
> visibly deep scientifically. It is a regrettable fact that the same
> naivety is shared by generation after generation of able students who
> follow these pied pipers into the morasses of string theory, cosmology
> and other postempirical subjects. Horgan is, in a way, quite right in
> his description of this kind of work as ironic and postempirical, but
> wrong in seeing it as the essence of science; science itself is still
> an empirical subject. Kuhn's "normal science" in my mind, can be
> described as a search for answers, great science as a search for
> questions, the greatest science as a search for the form the answers
> may take. These last two types of search are sometimes hard to
> distinguish from postempirical science until someone has invented the
> apparatus or the type of argument necessary to check them out, but the
> scientific community itself is often able to tell the difference. One
> good test (which several of Horgan's interviewees fail to pass) is
> whether the scientist involved has any history of dealing successfully
> with empirical facts."
>
> Its same to assume you have no history of dealing successfully with
> empirical facts. In other words, you are "NOT EVEN WRONG".
>
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby 

May the Force be with you!


"HungryLion" <hungrylion2004.RemoveThis@zworg.com> wrote in message
news:1103163447.983011.223170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> And you sound like a string theorist...aka someone who is preoccupied
> with fashionable nonsense. As physicist Philip W. Anderson said:
>
> "Second is Horgan's very clever use of the philosophical naivety of
> some of his subjects - he even remarks on it in the case of Ed Witten.
> These are people who really believe that the goal of science is the
> complete answer to some all encompassing question, people who, like
> Witten and others in physics, Stephen Hawking in cosmology or Richard
> Dawkins (and possibly even Stuart Kauffman ) in biology, believe there
> is some unifying, underlying principle or law whose consequences then
> need only to be explicated in order to understand everything. The
> position is called "naive reductionism" and is typified by Witten's
> curious remark that "every exciting discovery in physics follows from
> string theory".
>
> This naivety is reinforced by great reputations fed by the enormous
> appetite of the general public for speculative musings on the "mind of
> God", the ultimate theory of everything, or the fate of the universe,
> and seems to be shared by Horgan himself, who, let's face it, is not
> visibly deep scientifically. It is a regrettable fact that the same
> naivety is shared by generation after generation of able students who
> follow these pied pipers into the morasses of string theory, cosmology
> and other postempirical subjects. Horgan is, in a way, quite right in
> his description of this kind of work as ironic and postempirical, but
> wrong in seeing it as the essence of science; science itself is still
> an empirical subject. Kuhn's "normal science" in my mind, can be
> described as a search for answers, great science as a search for
> questions, the greatest science as a search for the form the answers
> may take. These last two types of search are sometimes hard to
> distinguish from postempirical science until someone has invented the
> apparatus or the type of argument necessary to check them out, but the
> scientific community itself is often able to tell the difference. One
> good test (which several of Horgan's interviewees fail to pass) is
> whether the scientist involved has any history of dealing successfully
> with empirical facts."
>
> Its same to assume you have no history of dealing successfully with
> empirical facts. In other words, you are "NOT EVEN WRONG".
>
 >> Stay informed about: Thoughts on Crosby