Chicago Blackhawks 2010-2011

[N3]

So you're arguing with me because I think Hawks sweep them and you think Hawks possibly win in 5? Were you on a debate team? LOL.

No im debating with you because you claimed the Hawks shouldnt worry because they have a 7 or 8 scheduled and it will be an easy sweep.

Just because I pick the Hawks in 5 or 6 doesnt mean i think they are going to go out and destroy the Flyers.

 

[Dismagic1]

No im debating with you because you claimed the Hawks shouldnt worry because they have a 7 or 8 scheduled and it will be an easy sweep.

Just because I pick the Hawks in 5 or 6 doesnt mean i think they are going to go out and destroy the Flyers.

Tell you what. If Hawks destroy the Flyers in 4 or 5, come back here and apologize to me. If Flyers push it to 6 or more, I'll apologize to you.

Sound good?

 

[N3]

Tell you what. If Hawks destroy the Flyers in 4 or 5, come back here and apologize to me. If Flyers push it to 6 or more, I'll apologize to you.

Sound good?

If the Hawks go out there and destroy the Flyers in 4 games, ill gladly apologize in between drunken celebrations.

But 5 games? Why would I apologize when I just said I would lean towards the Hawks in 5 or 6 games?

 

[Dismagic1]

If the Hawks go out there and destroy the Flyers in 4 games, ill gladly apologize in between drunken celebrations.

But 5 games? Why would I apologize when I just said I would lean towards the Hawks in 5 or 6 games?

I'm having a hard time putting your thoughts together. You don't think if the Hawks beat the Flyers in 5, that that constitutes a destruction?

 

[N3]

I'm having a hard time putting your thoughts together. You don't think if the Hawks beat the Flyers in 5, that that constitutes a destruction?

Not if those games consist of 2-1, 4-3, 3-2 scores.

You are telling me winning games by 1 goal is considered a "destruction"?

 

[Dismagic1]

Not if those games consist of 2-1, 4-3, 3-2 scores.

You are telling me winning games by 1 goal is considered a "destruction"?

If a team wins 4/5, I consider that a destruction, regardless of the scores in those games.

 

[N3]

If a team wins 4/5, I consider that a destruction, regardless of the scores in those games.

Id call that being the better team...Id call it a destruction if they went out there and beat them by 3 or 4 goals a game.

 

[Dismagic1]

Id call that being the better team...Id call it a destruction if they went out there and beat them by 3 or 4 goals a game.

When was the last time a team swept another team and won the 4 games by an average of 3 or 4 goals? That doesn't happen in this sport.

 

[N3]

When was the last time a team swept another team and won the 4 games by an average of 3 or 4 goals? That doesn't happen in this sport.

You cant alter the definition of destruction to fit a current sport.

The closest this post season has seen to 3 or 4 goals a game was by Philadelphia who beat New Jersey by an average of 2 goals per game.

 

[STEAL]

If a team wins 4/5, I consider that a destruction, regardless of the scores in those games.

If a team wins a series in 5 OT games, you consider that destruction? Please tell me, how old are you? Right now it seems like you've been alive for only 6 Stanley Cups.

When was the last time a team swept another team and won the 4 games by an average of 3 or 4 goals? That doesn't happen in this sport.

You must not be watching our series. We aren't winning by an average of 4.5 goals, are we?

You, kid, are a moron. And for that, my friend, I bid thee farewell.

 

[Rush]

Doesn't really matter if it's categorized as a destruction or not.

A win is a win. No matter how you get it. Arguing over one's definition of a "destruction" is about as logical as arguing over one's definition of a "close win".

Both are illogical. That is what I did there.

 

[N3]

also Philadelphia is on a pretty good pace to reach that goal against Montreal.

 

[N3]

Doesn't really matter if it's categorized as a destruction or not.

A win is a win. No matter how you get it. Arguing over one's definition of a "destruction" is about as logical as arguing over one's definition of a "close win".

Both are illogical. That is what I did there.

Sure a win is a win...but if you want to throw out the "destruction" tag, shouldnt you be beating a team by more than one goal?

 

[Dismagic1]

If a team wins a series in 5 OT games, you consider that destruction? Please tell me, how old are you? Right now it seems like you've been alive for only 6 Stanley Cups.



You must not be watching our series. We aren't winning by an average of 4.5 goals, are we?

You, kid, are a moron. And for that, my friend, I bid thee farewell.

Hey brah, why don't you find Eric Lindros and suck his dick.. maybe you can convince him to stop being suck a pussy and help you guys out against us... not that it would matter you dipshit philly cheesesteak eating fuckface.

 

[Dismagic1]

Destruction is niemi's word, not mine. I simply said the Hawks would sweep Philadelphia. I still believe that.

Niemi thinks Hawks can win in 5 so I'm not sure why he's obsessed in convincing me that Hawks cannot win in 4 but could possibly win in 5. It's beyond me.

 

[N3]

Destruction is niemi's word, not mine. I simply said the Hawks would sweep Philadelphia. I still believe that.

Niemi thinks Hawks can win in 5 so I'm not sure why he's obsessed in convincing me that Hawks cannot win in 4 but could possibly win in 5. It's beyond me.

This argument started because you said the Hawks had nothing to worry about because they had a 7 or 8 seed for their next opponent. It had nothing to do with winning in 4 or 5, that was later in the argument. It was me saying that both of those teams beat a #1 or #2 seed already.

 

[Rush]

If the Finnish Fortress has spoken...he has spoken.

 

[Dismagic1]

This argument started because you said the Hawks had nothing to worry about because they had a 7 or 8 seed for their next opponent. It had nothing to do with winning in 4 or 5, that was later in the argument. It was me saying that both of those teams beat a #1 or #2 seed already.

They have nothing to worry about. And if you think they can win in 5, you're in agreement with me.

 

[N3]

They have nothing to worry about. And if you think they can win in 5, you're in agreement with me.

No..if i said they were going to waltz into the cup and go apeshit i would agree with you.

The Hawks could lose game 1 and then win 4 straight...are you telling me you wont be worried if they lost game 1?

They could go up 2-0 and lose...once again nothing is for certain.

 

[STEAL]

Ohh lord. Oh man. I hate to go back on my word but I have to. I thought I was arguing with a child, I guess I was.

The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com - View Profile: Dismagic1

If you go back to the Disney Boards, I'll go back to being a dipshit philly cheesesteak eating fuckface.