So you should have said 10 (or 12 if you include goalies). I listed the number of homosexuals on the field at a single time. You appeared to roll a dice and pick a random number.
I guess I should stop trying to apply conventional logic to BlueFlame logic as it's obviously impossible. You fly hard in the face of logic.
EDIT: Lets play a game, to test your guys' hockey knowledge.
Is this a legal check?
I guess I should stop trying to apply conventional logic to BlueFlame logic as it's obviously impossible. You fly hard in the face of logic.
EDIT: Lets play a game, to test your guys' hockey knowledge.
Is this a legal check?
Last edited by dawesdust_12, .
Well, you indicated that 20 players stop to fight. I figured I should tell you that there's either 2 teams (thus 40 players), or that they have more than 10 players per team.
I'm here to educate, as you clearly know nothing about the sport. Although that about sums up every single topic you attempt to discuss here, and then try to argue as if you're some kind of expert.
Or was it that you tried to add 20 + 20 and managed to get out 20, because algebra is so arbitrary and such nonsense?
Don't go for the 750. It's ridiculously underclocked, and crippled compared to the 760. You're better off saving up a bit of $/£/EUR to get a 760.
More excellent hockey knowledge here guys.
A team is made up of 20 skaters (18 players and 2 goalies. A team may not go 19 players and 1 goalie) per team. 5 players (plus 1 goalie) or optionally 6 skaters (and no goalie) may be on the ice at a given time.
Also, how many fights did you see in the Olympics?
Right, 0. Because IIHF rules institute 5 + GM for fighting, where NHL only assesses a GM in specific situations (1 man fight I believe is one of them).
If the NHL instituted a 1 fight rule (which is what the GM for fighting effectively does), you would see nearly 0 fighting as well.
However, you'd see more dangerous and violent plays as a result of not having that unwritten code of honour that revolves around fighting and dangerous/violent plays (meaning, if you check someone in a bad manner, you should be prepared to fight as a result of the dirty play).
It's a good system as it theoretically keeps players in check from going too far, and writing out cheques on dirty plays that they can't cash.
But what do I know, I've only grown up around hockey my entire life, played over 600 games of it, and officiated over 1000 games, 100+ of those being Junior hockey.
Relatively, yes.. but that's relative to BlueFlame knowledge.
Matt, you're not out of the woods either. Some of your vernacular was absolutely non-hockey and instead was jacked from that sport of 22 gay guys diving all over a grassy field while kicking a ball.
More shortcutting.
Even Scawen tweeted that video from his personal twitter.
Again, if you knew anything about hockey, you'd know that "Shots" implies "Shots on goal" as attempted shots are not a recorded stat.
Actually, the shots count expressly counts shots saved by goaltender (or goals). Not shots that miss, or hit the post. Hence them called "Shots on goal" and not "shots near goal".
Again, great hockey knowledge.
Again, great hockey knowledge.
Think about it like an elaborate game of tug-of-war.
Considering you were trying to use the GAA as a way to measure a teams ability, and use it as why Latvia did better against Canada is about the most obvious "case in point" about how little you understand hockey.
GAA is only ever used as a stat to gauge a goalies abilities, never a full team.
If a team gets 60+ shots on your goalie, it means you are significantly worse at breaking the puck out of your zone than the other team is at holding the line and back checking.
Fact of the matter was Latvia managed only like 15 shots in the whole game. That's like 1 shot every 4 minutes. That's Latvia's offence being destroyed by Canada's defense.
So yes, you clearly do not understand hockey with the ways that you tried to gauge Latvia's performance.
That said, I dunno why I'd expect anything less from BlueFlame and Matt. Having indepth conversations about things they obviously don't understand.
I laughed very hard reading about you guys talking about hockey, considering how lacking your knowledge is, along with your totally incorrect vernacular.
Made me laugh.
As someone who spent $1300 on a new gaming PC for AC (and DOTA) and it will do me for years of sim racing. Full grid of AIs and I get like 90FPS with a GTX 760. Spend the money and you will be good for a while. Then GPUs are usually the only thing you'll need to upgrade.
Money well spent, right guys?
I can see how your subscription goes to having a rock solid server architecture.
I can see how your subscription goes to having a rock solid server architecture.
They just hollowed out a traffic cone.
Best person to ask would be Kegetys as he created SoftTH.
Never mind what Bose explained as a "product" doesn't exist at all.
You know, in his historically useful and ever enlightening manner.
You know, in his historically useful and ever enlightening manner.
Still better quality than the Galaxy S4.
Probably not then.
Photo of a horse taken with a Samsung Galaxy S4
Scawen, instead of hoping for 100 hz monitors (which is unlikely), why not look towards a 120hz cycle for the physics as there are already displays that run at 120hz (plus divides evenly by a 60hz display, rather than having slight drift).
Not that it matters too much, but that's a more likely solution than hoping for 100hz monitors.
Not that it matters too much, but that's a more likely solution than hoping for 100hz monitors.
I'm pretty sure every American city and town has a dedicated squad of 30 or 50 people for this task. They're kept pretty busy too.
I don't think it's humanly possible to have a shittier place than 4chan.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG