Confirmed with Link: Canucks hire Jason Krog as new NHL/AHL Skills Coach

[Javaman]

I didn’t expect to be discussing the philosophy of science on a hockey message board, but here we are.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is typically shorthand for falsifiability as an alternative to inductive reasoning and logical positivism. Testing a theory by looking for data that are consistent with the theory (in order to verify it) is a weak evaluation; better to ask “what would disprove my theory” and try to gather that evidence.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Welcome to the craziness. You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. The contention is that this phrase is typically used to (wrongly) bolster unevidenced claims.

 

[F A N]

FFS. Post 42? Are you deliberately trying to derail this conversation?

And I didn't say "won't"

I said "wont."

Just because you lack the vocabulary to understand the difference doesn't make it okay to misrepresent my statements.

Lol. Are you actually trying to have a conversation about Krog? Sure sounds like you’re more interested in having a conversation about how hard teaching is to prop up your own self worth.

I wasn’t trying to trigger you ok? Relax man. I care about Krog’s teaching abilities. I don’t care about yours ok?

 

[Shareefruck]

Maybe I'm missing something, but when did Javaman even imply that teaching was his profession?

 

[F A N]

Maybe I'm missing something, but when did Javaman even imply that teaching was his profession?

Was/is it not? Would be weirdly defensive over what he calls a throwaway comment if it’s not. Not usual that someone here gets upset quotes Aristotle over a casual comment relating to Krog now coaching lol. I would bet money that it was/is.

 

[biturbo19]

Wasn’t he an average skater? Not sure if he would make a good skating coach.

I feel like "average" is probably even generous.

Some of the other skills, sure...whatever. That wasn't really what held him back.


But i'd rather see them invest in a real quality skating coach somewhere in the mix. It can be real important. Usually it's figure skaters who you want teaching that sort of skill. Guys like Krog rarely ever even have a clue what is going right and wrong with the nuance of that. Just repeating things they've been told usually. lol.

 

[Shareefruck]

Was/is it not? Would be weirdly defensive over what he calls a throwaway comment if it’s not. Not usual that someone here gets upset quotes Aristotle over a casual comment relating to Krog now coaching lol. I would bet money that it was/is.

I can't speak for him, but I could easily find myself going off on a tangent, extensively ranting about a personal pet peeve turn-of-phrase that I hear a lot, fueled purely out of annoyance that the conventionally accepted meaning is actually completely untrue or misused, even if it had nothing to do with my profession, personally. He mentioned being equally annoyed by "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that has nothing to do with being a teacher, really.

Definitely don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw based on the rant itself, although maybe the fact that you kept accusing him of it and he ignored it rather than denied it every time is cause for suspicion.

Regardless, I don't see why the repeat accusational narrative is necessary in the first place-- felt like it came out of nowhere, and the way you kept insisting on it despite lack of confirmation felt pretty odd/aggressive/uncalled for to me. Challenge the point, don't appeal to guessed at underlying agendas/biases in order to dismiss someone (maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across). Seemed like you had enough solid reasoning to not have to resort to that anyways-- it only undermines your point.

For the record, I have no opinion on the actual disagreement itself.

 

[Javaman]

I can't speak for him, but I could easily find myself going off on a tangent, extensively ranting about a personal pet peeve turn-of-phrase that I hear a lot, fueled purely out of annoyance that the conventionally accepted meaning is actually completely untrue or misused, even if it had nothing to do with my profession, personally. He mentioned being equally annoyed by "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that has nothing to do with being a teacher, really.

Definitely don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw based on the rant itself, although maybe the fact that you kept accusing him of it and he ignored it rather than denied it every time is cause for suspicion.

Regardless, I don't see why the repeat accusational narrative is necessary in the first place-- felt like it came out of nowhere, and the way you kept insisting on it despite lack of confirmation felt pretty odd/aggressive/uncalled for to me. Challenge the point, don't appeal to guessed at underlying agendas/biases in order to dismiss someone (maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across). Seemed like you had enough solid reasoning to not have to resort to that anyways-- it only undermines your point.

For the record, I have no opinion on the actual disagreement itself.

I mean, I'd quibble that one post counts as an extensive rant, but otherwise, well said.

(I don't include my responses to others' responses to be part of a rant, fwiw.)

 

[F A N]

I can't speak for him, but I could easily find myself going off on a tangent, extensively ranting about a personal pet peeve turn-of-phrase that I hear a lot, fueled purely out of annoyance that the conventionally accepted meaning is actually completely untrue or misused, even if it had nothing to do with my profession, personally. He mentioned being equally annoyed by "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that has nothing to do with being a teacher, really.

That's fine. And note that in my first interaction with him I politely asked if he was a teacher and tried to stay on topic but alas...

Definitely don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw based on the rant itself, although maybe the fact that you kept accusing him of it and he ignored it rather than denied it every time is cause for suspicion.

Again, I only politely asked initially so I clearly didn't draw conclusions based on the rant alone. Also, does your point change if there is enough evidence to reasonably believe he works as a teacher?

Regardless, I don't see why the repeat accusational narrative is necessary in the first place

You keep saying I "accused" him of something but why? Do you have a lowly opinion of teachers?

-- felt like it came out of nowhere, and the way you kept insisting on it despite lack of confirmation felt pretty odd/aggressive/uncalled for to me.

This posters has a history here where he is aggressive towards me and doesn't try to debate my points. Look at this thread here. My posts stand on its own as at least attempting to steer the discussion towards Krog. Can you say the same about the other poster? Even in post #41 I was talking about Krog when the poster again has no interest but look at his reply. I think by that point it was reasonable for me to conclude that that poster has no interest in discussing Krog at all at that point.

Challenge the point, don't appeal to guessed at underlying agendas/biases in order to dismiss someone (maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across). Seemed like you had enough solid reasoning to not have to resort to that anyways-- it only undermines your point.

For the record, I have no opinion on the actual disagreement itself.

The point has been made. I could care less if my points have somehow been undermined by your perception of me. This is a thread about Krog. Look at the interactions I have had with this posters in this thread and tell me how many times I attempted to talk about Krog vs this poster.

 

[Hit the post]

...anyhow...bring this back to Jason Krog....

I *think* the Chicago Wolves had a habbit of "hiring the best hired guns" they could as they didn't really operate as a 'farm club' of sorts but wanted a highly competative/winning hockey club. As such, they signed guys like Krog (a legit AHL allstar). Probably not the type of affiliate the Canucks should've been partnered with in the day (as the "affiliate" naturally wouldn't care too much about working on developing the prospects but playing the mercenaries).

 

[RobertKron]

...anyhow...bring this back to Jason Krog....

I *think* the Chicago Wolves had a habbit of "hiring the best hired guns" they could as they didn't really operate as a 'farm club' of sorts but wanted a highly competative/winning hockey club. As such, they signed guys like Krog (a legit AHL allstar). Probably not the type of affiliate the Canucks should've been partnered with in the day (as the "affiliate" naturally wouldn't care too much about working on developing the prospects but playing the mercenaries).

When Krog was with the Wolves after his year with the Canucks, the Canucks' farm team was still in Winnipeg. He was on an NHL deal with Atlanta, who were the Wolves' NHL affiliate. Vancouver wasn't affiliated with the Wolves until 11-12.

 

[Hit the post]

When Krog was with the Wolves after his year with the Canucks, the Canucks' farm team was still in Winnipeg. He was on an NHL deal with Atlanta, who were the Wolves' NHL affiliate. Vancouver wasn't affiliated with the Wolves until 11-12.

True I was only referring to how that organization handled its personnel. Unless I'm mistaken again (heh, a good possibility), the Wolves organization still were in control of its operations much of the time (regardless who the "parent club" was).

 

[F A N]

...anyhow...bring this back to Jason Krog....

I *think* the Chicago Wolves had a habbit of "hiring the best hired guns" they could as they didn't really operate as a 'farm club' of sorts but wanted a highly competative/winning hockey club. As such, they signed guys like Krog (a legit AHL allstar). Probably not the type of affiliate the Canucks should've been partnered with in the day (as the "affiliate" naturally wouldn't care too much about working on developing the prospects but playing the mercenaries).

But the Canucks hired the coach who supposedly controlled the lineup card. For me there are different school of thoughts. One school believes that players need opportunities and playing time in order to develop. One school believes in putting the player in a position to succeed. Balanced out though, I think our prospects need to play but at the same time play with capable players. So if you have a Lekkerimaki, you might want to find him a Jason Krog to play with.

I think the Canucks did make moves to appease Chicago, but still don’t see how our development system fell into disarray during the Chicago Wolves years.

 

[Hit the post]

But the Canucks hired the coach who supposedly controlled the lineup card. For me there are different school of thoughts. One school believes that players need opportunities and playing time in order to develop. One school believes in putting the player in a position to succeed. Balanced out though, I think our prospects need to play but at the same time play with capable players. So if you have a Lekkerimaki, you might want to find him a Jason Krog to play with.

I think the Canucks did make moves to appease Chicago, but still don’t see how our development system fell into disarray during the Chicago Wolves years.

I"m going purely off memory so perhaps my recollections are off/incorrect (as we are talking about a number of years now). I was under the impression the Wolves generally ran their operations without alot of interference from their parent club.

 

[Shareefruck]

Again, I only politely asked initially so I clearly didn't draw conclusions based on the rant alone. Also, does your point change if there is enough evidence to reasonably believe he works as a teacher?

When I asked what basis the conclusion was drawn from, you did seem to just give the rant alone as your answer (seemed to amount to "why else would he go to such absurd lengths to defend it so rabidly?"), so that's what I'm responding to. Evidence might change my point, yes (or at least, it would make it understandable enough to not be worth bringing up), but again, that's why I asked the question "when did Javaman even imply that teaching was his profession?" in the first place-- I'm not claiming to know, I'm asking for clarification. If he did imply it, then great. The response you gave me didn't exactly sound like evidence, though, so my follow-up was based on what you gave me.

I'm still pretty unclear about what evidence you're referring to now, though.

You keep saying I "accused" him of something but why? Do you have a lowly opinion of teachers?

No. The negative implication isn't of someone being a teacher, it's of someone's sentiments being more dismissible due to the motives and biases that being a teacher would supposedly give them-- a behavior/disposition that is negative. You seemed to be assuming/claiming that he's guilty of such negative behavior/disposition, in order to downplay his point. So "accusation" seems fitting.

This posters has a history here where he is aggressive towards me and doesn't try to debate my points. Look at this thread here. My posts stand on its own as at least attempting to steer the discussion towards Krog. Can you say the same about the other poster? Even in post #41 I was talking about Krog when the poster again has no interest but look at his reply. I think by that point it was reasonable for me to conclude that that poster has no interest in discussing Krog at all at that point.

The point has been made. I could care less if my points have somehow been undermined by your perception of me. This is a thread about Krog. Look at the interactions I have had with this posters in this thread and tell me how many times I attempted to talk about Krog vs this poster.

First to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Javaman didn't behave equally badly in that interaction as well. Your instance of it just happened to jump out at me because it seemed to come so out of the blue and nobody was commenting on it. I don't think bad behavior on his part justifies what seemed like a baseless accusation to me.

That said, I don't really see the same value you seem to in "steering the conversation towards being about Krog," so your point there is a bit lost on me. When you're making a broader tangential point about a statement mentioned (which is how I took his rant), it seems reasonable to have no interest in the specific scenario that prompted it, and unreasonable to insist on the restrictions of the original circumstance being the focus, because the point wasn't really being made about that original circumstance in the first place. Talking about Krog isn't any more sensible than not talking about Krog. They're just two different topics that happened to arise from something Krog-related. One is a tangent, which by definition is more off-topic, but that seems perfectly fine/part of the fun in discussion to me rather than lacking in integrity or whatever's being implied there.

I'm not asking that you care about my perception, I'm just throwing it out there as a matter of record.

 

[RobertKron]

I"m going purely off memory so perhaps my recollections are off/incorrect (as we are talking about a number of years now). I was under the impression the Wolves generally ran their operations without alot of interference from their parent club.

The Wolves have said that their goal wasn't player development, and Gillis acknowledged that lack of control was an issue. The Wolves have been notoriously independent basically forever, as they considered themselves a competitor to the Blackhawks - this was a concern when the Canucks first ended up stuck with them. Even now, they've refused NHL affiliation.

IIRC, even with the MacTavish hire, there was some question as to whether he was the Canucks' guy or if it was the Wolves who wanted him.

 

[Shareefruck]

I mean, I'd quibble that one post counts as an extensive rant, but otherwise, well said.

(I don't include my responses to others' responses to be part of a rant, fwiw.)

I actually made the exact same point in my original response, but cut it down because it was getting too long. Personally, I find it very frustrating and take it with a grain of salt when someone is framed as being "weirdly defensive" simply because they're willing to endlessly reply to instances of their point being challenged (often requiring increasingly detailed clarification). It's happened to me a lot, personally. I don't do it to be defensive, I do it because (a) I don't mind, (b) to be helpful and (c) (ironically) try to show myself as arguing in good faith.

I am curious now, though. Can you clarify if you did make that rant because you're simply anal about the irrational logic of the statement, or because you are a teacher who happened to personally take offense to it because it hit close to home (or I guess both)? I did not see any sign of the latter, except that I wasn't sure why you didn't respond to any of FAN's multiple teacher-based accusations. Was that just out of a complete unwillingness to engage in spun narratives?

 

[F A N]

I"m going purely off memory so perhaps my recollections are off/incorrect (as we are talking about a number of years now). I was under the impression the Wolves generally ran their operations without alot of interference from their parent club.

There are different aspects to AHL operations. The Wolves have a reputation of caring much more about winning than player development. They are obviously willing to spend money to sign their own players who help the team win. My point is that despite this, the head coach was an employee of the Canucks. My sense it's that the Wolves people get angsty if the team is losing games while playing Canucks' prospects, which has led to short affiliation agreements since NHL GMs probably grow tired of fighting their farm team over who should play.

 

[F A N]

that's why I asked the question "when did Javaman even imply that teaching was his profession?" in the first place-- I'm not claiming to know, I'm asking for clarification. If he did imply it, then great.

Personally I don't think it's relevant or care that you think otherwise. I even tried to reason that it doesn't have to be a shot at teachers but he would have none of it. He wouldn't even entertain the discussion of whether Krog is in coaching because he can no longer play.

No. The negative implication isn't of someone being a teacher, it's of someone's sentiments being more dismissible due to the motives and biases that being a teacher would supposedly give them-- a behavior/disposition that is negative. You seemed to be assuming/claiming that he's guilty of such negative behavior/disposition, in order to downplay his point. So "accusation" seems fitting.

I personally don't think there's anything negative about him being a teacher and explained that I don't even think of that phrase as a shot at teachers but he wouldn't have it. He had ample opportunity to explain himself.

First to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Javaman didn't behave equally badly in that interaction as well. Your instance of it just happened to jump out at me because it seemed to come so out of the blue and nobody was commenting on it. I don't think bad behavior on his part justifies what seemed like a baseless accusation to me.

Why is it out of the blue when I asked twice previously? I tried to be nice and reason with him but he wasn't interested. You found the fact that he ignored it suspicious. Again, there is past history.

That said, I don't really see the same value you seem to in "steering the conversation towards being about Krog," so your point there is a bit lost on me. When you're making a broader tangential point about a statement mentioned (which is how I took his rant), it seems reasonable to have no interest in the specific scenario that prompted it, and unreasonable to insist on the restrictions of the original circumstance being the focus, because the point wasn't really being made about that original circumstance in the first place. Talking about Krog isn't any more sensible than not talking about Krog. They're just two different topics that happened to arise from something Krog-related. One is a tangent, which by definition is more off-topic, but that seems perfectly fine/part of the fun in discussion to me rather than lacking in integrity or whatever's being implied there.

I'm not asking that you care about my perception, I'm just throwing it out there as a matter of record.

You're missing the fact that this is a Krog thread. It is perfectly reasonable to "insist on the restrictions of the original cirucumstance being the focus." Rant once fine. But bring it back to the original discussion. A comment was made to imply that Krug is coaching/teaching because he can no longer "do". I said that's rooted in reality. Javaman can't seem to accept that and went on his tangent. Continued to rant as you would say.

 

[Shareefruck]

Personally I don't think it's relevant or care that you think otherwise. I even tried to reason that it doesn't have to be a shot at teachers but he would have none of it. He wouldn't even entertain the discussion of whether Krog is in coaching because he can no longer play.

Really don't see what any of these points have to do with the assumption of him being a teacher. Also already gave my assessment of why I think not entertaining discussion about Krog specifically is reasonable, given how non-specific his rant was, so we're talking in circles there. Aside from that, if your response is "I don't care if you disagree", then there's not much more to talk about, really.

I personally don't think there's anything negative about him being a teacher and explained that I don't even think of that phrase as a shot at teachers but he wouldn't have it. He had ample opportunity to explain himself.

Huh? What are you even talking about? You quoted my defense to your suggestion that me using "accusation" implies that I think being a teacher is negative, which it fundamentally doesn't. What does you also not feeling that there's anything wrong with being a teacher have to do with that?

Why is it out of the blue when I asked twice previously? I tried to be nice and reason with him but he wasn't interested. You found the fact that he ignored it suspicious. Again, there is past history.

I found it out of the blue that you were so persistent about leaping to it being true, despite flimsy evidence/reason to think this at best, and many other possible/plausible explanations which I provided (both regarding why someone who isn't a teacher might argue that way and regarding why someone might not answer your repeat question. Suspicion/curiosity and the absence of an answer isn't evidence.

You're missing the fact that this is a Krog thread. It is perfectly reasonable to "insist on the restrictions of the original cirucumstance being the focus." Rant once fine. But bring it back to the original discussion. A comment was made to imply that Krug is coaching/teaching because he can no longer "do". I said that's rooted in reality. Javaman can't seem to accept that and went on his tangent. Continued to rant as you would say.

I just fundamentally disagree that this is reasonable to insist on or that there is an obligation to bring a tangent you make back to the original discussion. Hypothetically, the sentiment may apply to Krog specifically, but may not be universally true enough to justify the statement being broadly adopted. If he's criticizing the generalization (which probably applies to teachers more than sports coaches specifically) and not the specific case, it makes no sense to continuously say "But look, it applies to Krog, and this is a Krog thread, so you must put a premium on this specific case" as if it were some gotcha. You may more reasonably say "This is a Krog thread, so your point is completely off topic-- delete it because it's against board rules" (though I personally don't agree with being that much of a stickler) but guilt in going off topic doesn't give you carte blanche to reframe what was actually argued in order to fit what WOULD be on-topic. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

Also, as mentioned, it was basically just a single rant, but if people repeatedly challenge you, naturally you're going to go into further detail and seem "weirdly defensive". I've fallen down that same rabbit hole plenty of times (hell, I kind of am in this very moment with you in this discussion). It's just a trap that certain types can fall into. I mean, aren't you doing it now too?

Edit: Also, I don't recall saying that he "Continued to rant", but I'm open to misremembering.

 

[F A N]

Really don't see what any of these points have to do the assumption of him being a teacher. Also already gave my assessment of why I think not entertaining discussion about Krog specifically is reasonable, given how non-specific his rant was, so we're talking in circles there. Aside from that, if your response is "I don't care if you disagree", then there's not much more to talk about, really.

Huh? What are you even talking about? You quoted my defense to your suggestion that me using "accusation" implies that I think being a teacher is negative, which it fundamentally doesn't. What does you also not feeling that there's anything wrong with being a teacher have to do with that?

I found it out of the blue that you were so persistent about leaping to it being true, despite flimsy evidence/reason to think this at best, and many other possible/plausible explanations which I provided (both regarding why someone who isn't a teacher might argue that way and regarding why someone might not answer your repeat question. Suspicion/curiosity and the absence of an answer isn't evidence.

I just fundamentally disagree that this is reasonable to insist on or that there is an obligation to bring a tangent you make back to the original discussion. Hypothetically, the sentiment may apply to Krog specifically, but may not be universally true enough to justify the statement being broadly adopted. If he's criticizing the generalization (which probably applies to teachers more than sports coaches specifically) and not the specific case, it makes no sense to continuously say "But look, it applies to Krog, and this is a Krog thread, so you must put a premium on this specific case" as if it were some gotcha. You may more reasonably say "This is a Krog thread, so your point is completely off topic-- delete it because it's against board rules" (though I personally don't agree with being that much of a stickler) but guilt in going off topic doesn't give you carte blanche to reframe what was actually argued in order to fit what WOULD be on-topic. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

Also, as mentioned, it was basically just a single rant, but if people repeatedly challenge you, naturally you're going to go into further detail and seem "weirdly defensive". I've fallen down that same rabbit hole plenty of times (hell, I kind of am in this very moment with you in this discussion). It's just a trap that certain types can fall into. I mean, aren't you doing it now too?

Now you're ranting. You also seem upset which also strikes me as odd but I won't express further since you'll be even more upset and accuse me of drawing conclusions.

I've made my point. I'll just say that if a mod comes in and cleans things up, I'll still have posts that stand on its own.

 

[Shareefruck]

Now you're ranting. You also seem upset which also strikes me as odd but I won't express further since you'll be even more upset and accuse me of drawing conclusions.

I've made my point. I'll just say that if a mod comes in and cleans things up, I'll still have posts that stand on its own.

Yikes. Ditto, I guess.

 

[Lindgren]

For some posters, disagreement means someone is "upset," and detailed disagreement is a "rant." Sometimes it's just ... disagreement.

 

[RobertKron]

For some posters, disagreement means someone is "upset," and detailed disagreement is a "rant." Sometimes it's just ... disagreement.

Some posters also aren't here to engage in good faith.

 

[F A N]

For some posters, disagreement means someone is "upset," and detailed disagreement is a "rant." Sometimes it's just ... disagreement.

Some posters like to use similar definition to words that was previously presented even though they could care less if it’s a rant or not.

Some posters also aren't here to engage in good faith.

That is true. Some posters see a certain poster’s posts and engage in pointless conversations like “why are you behaving this way?” and the offending poster is expected to carry on the conversation and explain himself on and on.

 

[Shareefruck]

For some posters, disagreement means someone is "upset," and detailed disagreement is a "rant." Sometimes it's just ... disagreement.

I agree. Although for the record, I don't really see the big deal in characterizing something as a rant anyways (I initially used the term to characterize my own behavior, remember). If you have an opinion that you've thought about enough to have a bunch of reasons for, and it's enough of a pet peeve of yours to bring it up as a tangent, unprompted, (Javaman's point clearly qualifies) I'm happy to consider that a light-hearted rant-- doesn't have to be some big disparaging label, nor imply mouth-frothing anger/irrationality or anything.

Doesn't seem like the term was being used all that innocently towards the end of the dispute, though.