No, the way you are talking to people is picking a fight. See your last sentence for evidence on that.
Your sample size is one. You think that ONE specific trade dictates what is going to happen this year, at this deadline.
The value between a 3rd and a 4th is pretty minimal. The funny part is that you are so emotional about what mid-round pick or picks Giroux is going to get. If he gets a 3rd instead of a 4th, it changes nothing, because the value is so minimal. If it means that much to you fine, I'll change my prediction from a 4th to a 3rd. It doesn't really matter.
Maybe my "tone" has switched because of the things you are saying... don't you think? Anyone can easily go back to the beginning of the conversation, I was perfectly rational.
It all begins when you throw "
it seems like an odd argument to start" in post #35. So you are questioning the validity of my argument, which was perfectly reasonable since I am saying that 3 + 3 is comfortably superior to 4.
In my next post I demonstrate that your argument is the "odd" one but then for some reason, you go on and say :
- that I am "
trying to pick a fight about it"
- "
I'll put it in plain language for you" (like if was too dumb to understand your posts?)
- "
then the math isn't so simple, is it?" (despite your maths not making any sense)
Some people really need to wake the f*** up and remove the beam in their eyes before looking at the mote in other people's eyes.