1. I was just showing my appreciation for American innovation 2. I think it's too much of a generalization to say no Americans want to move to Canada. In fact, many prospective high school seniors want to attend our world class universities for a fraction of the cost it would take to go to one of many mediocre state schools in the US. As well, our laws on same sex marriage is a major relief for the gay community. We also have free healthcare which is another massive issue in the states in addition to exhorbitant tuition costs. Maybe the absolute number of immigrants is fewer than in the US, but the cultural diversity and welcoming nature of Canada is something that you cannot quantify and that starts with the attitude of the majority race. 3. When I was talking about standard of living and racism/segration, the link I was making is that it is so much harder for an immigrant to thrive in America. As an example, hispanics often work illegally for under the table cash. The best jobs in law, medicine, media and business are extremely difficult to attain for non-whites. For instance, almost all fortune 500 C level executives are caucasian. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact there is quota on Asian enrolment into the ivy leagues and top universities regardless of how good our SAT's are. In short, immigrants have to live their entire lives knowing that there is a glass ceiling on our career accomplishments. Do you now see my point? I'm not trying to antagonize you but merely giving you an educated if somewhat extreme view from the other side of the bridge.
You're oversimplifying things to a gross degree and then stamping it with this false claim that you know everything (when you don't). 1) Kay. 2) Are you seriously saying bobloblaw was "generalizing" too much? Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Please re-read your prior statements and then come back and tell me who likes to generalize more. And what do you mean the diversity is impossible to quantify? Canada of course has fewer immigrants, even by percentage, than the states. More importantly, the breakdown of immigrants is different. There is like 3% blacks in Canada and <2% Latin Americans. East, South and Southeast Asians make up nearly 13% of the country! So what's this diversity you're talking about? And "welcoming" nature? You serious? You can't possibly be trying to compare the "welcoming nature" of the two countries and actually telling me you know for a fact that the US has less of a welcoming nature than Canada...I don't know how you could POSSIBLY know that. At best you have one or two data points and now you're extrapolating the attitudes of two countries from just one or two data points? 3) Oh so much harder for an immigrant to thrive in the US than in Canada. I see. Glad to know, thanks for the evidence backing that up. You know, I'm starting to wonder what you even mean by immigrants because I can't tell if you mean all minorities (blacks, hispanics, Asians, etc.) or JUST Asians because Canada has wayyyy more of one than the other. If you just wanted to compare Asian Americans to Asian Canadians, I think your argument then really falls flat. Recent studies have shown that Asian immigrants and Asian Americans in the US are doing extremely well, and those jobs you listed aren't that hard to obtain for Asians in the states. We're grossly overrepresented in most of them in fact. If you wanted to compare hispanics and blacks between the two countries, well then uhh that's hard to do when the history is SO different and we have nearly 10x more blacks and hispanics than you do in Canada (percentage-wise). There are so many things you aren't considering it's silly. I'll just briefly touch on a few. We have 10x as many hispanics and a lot work illegally because they cross the borders illegally. They are usually uneducated and do not have professional skills. That limits them in the types of jobs that they can access. Canada does not share a border with Mexico (surprise!), and due to its location, most immigrants who go there have the MEANS to get there. It's a filtration system. Asians in America are really successful, but in large part because the ones who immigrated over were the educated/well off ones in the first place! That's why southeast asians do so much worse in the US. They come from poorer countries, are generally unskilled laborers and are uneducated. The ones from East Asia tend to have graduate degrees. Canada is in a position where it really will only get one rather than the other because you don't have hispanics trying to leave crummy situations in their home country (for a better but still bad situation in the states) due to your geography, and you don't have the history of having enslaved African Americans and having to try to re-integrate them into US society (that's good on you I guess, but technically most blacks in the states are not "immigrants" at all). And before you do more ass-backwards talking, there is no quota for Asians entering colleges. That's actually illegal :O And I'd love to see how many Fortune 500 execs are white in the US vs. the Canadian equivalent. I'd be shocked if the %s were not similar.
Let's talk BASKETBALL. Take your politics and essays regarding racism in America to the DND where it belongs! http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=252660
Do you share this account with someone else? Your tone is very different from the laid back person that was posting earlier. In any case, you are angry with me, so I'll stop. But I don't think you completely and thoroughly addressed some of my points. For instance, it's widely speculated that the ivy leagues have a quota that is obviously not disclosed but well known within their administration (check the %s, its alwats around 20 max). Or when you said Asians are grossly over represented in those good jobs, what does that have to do with equality. The best people should get the best jobs. No one complains when caucasians dominate all F500 companies. You did bring up alot of stats on ethnic composition but I wasn't really talking about that, I was just saying the culture in Canada is much different and that's not captured in stats.
I don't think I am any more laid back or not. The only difference is whether I was agreeing with you or not. I am not in agreement with you on this topic. The more ridiculous the poster is, however, the more incredulous my response. Note some of my shorter comments on prior pages and you'll see that personal flair lol. That being said, are we really going to get into a whole discussion about equality in this thread? Is everything in America perfectly equal? Of course not. Is it in Canada? No! The issue that I, and most others I believe, are offended by is how you can pretty much insult a whole country and claim to be right while having almost no evidence or even personal experience (which would be flawed, but at least SOMETHING) to legitimately back it up. It's poor form for arguments. The ivy leagues do not have an actual quota. Does it work out in a way that may make you think that way? Sure, but it is not some policy where they say you can only have x% or x number of y ethnicity in our school. They can take a holistic approach, and sometimes that leads to such things, but it's very different. Again, ILLEGAL to actually have a school that has a policy of quotas for races. And being overrepresented in a profession absolutely has to do with equality. Is it the end-all-be-all? No. Is it relevant? Of course! I know that while you were making your argument about our lack of equality, you certainly mentioned certain races were LACKING representation in specific professions. You can't then say my response back that this isn't true suddenly has nothing to do with equality. And your notion that the "best people" should get the best jobs is a bit too callow. If it were that easy. There are millions of factors that go into play. Please tell me how one determines the "best people"? I have yet to figure out any metric that would adequately test this concept. You can't possibly just mean the people with the best test scores should get all the jobs because there are a LOT of traits that certain jobs need that many tests do not capture, even professional ones. And Caucasians are still 73% of this country. They also start with more resources than the average immigrant or minority in this country. To say they represent a greater portion of CEOs at the top companies in the country sounds pretty common sense. Your whole claim that Canada's culture is different is what is laughable. You aren't some person who has spent 30 yrs in the US and then 30 yrs in Canada, intermixed through the years so that no one stay was the continuous 30 yrs. In that case, I'd put more weight on your lofty generalizations...yet even then, it would still only be anecdotal evidence. But you don't even meet that minimum threshold. For you to see so sure about the culture and attitude of a whole country you are not a part of is both asinine and presumptuous. I don't go around claiming to know how the culture of Canada is as a whole just because I've visited and spent some time in Toronto and Vancouver...
ok fair enough, there's too many layers for me to get into. the odd thing is you seemed to agree with my earlier posts before doing this 180. Anyway, did you enjoy your visits to toronto and vancouver. Im gonna go out on a limb and say you did.
It's because it is a very, very complicated issue. As such, the more sweeping your generalizations got, the more incorrect (and at times insulting) they got. Any agreement I had before were on whichever specific points I agreed to. For example, my comment about human nature. But that's not an American thing -- that's a human nature/I am a cynic type of thing. And yes I enjoyed Toronto and Vancouver. Don't remember Toronto that much tbh as I was younger, but I tend to enjoy most places I visit/travel to. Can't say I am a fan of very cold weather, however.
The problem with lin is most people expect linsanity from him. That a not him. If people take lin for what he really is (a good sixth man) life becomes more enjoyable
Nice, glad you enjoyed it. I often go down to NY. Shopping is so much cheaper down there. Thank you economies of scale
Well as rox fans let's hope Lin turns it on during these finals series. He's an integral part of this team and we ain't going anywhere without him playing well.
No big surprise. About what you'd expect from a backup PG. I had much higher hopes for Lin when we signed him, but at this point, he is what he is. Let's hope Beverley is near 100% in a couple of weeks.
So you created this thread only to bait? And then people like you are always wondering why a player like Lin gets all the attention here.
Actually you're wrong. Out of Lin's Top 6 games in terms of Minutes Played, only 2 games were actually classified as great. The other 4 average out to 15 ppg, 5.25 apg, 3.5 turnovers pg, 3.25 rbg on 38.6% FG, and 17.6% 3FG. So your statement that Lin played more minutes only because he played well is basically wrong. Below are 10 of his most played games, go ahead and look at the numbers. <PRE> Opp GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS GmSc +/- PHI L (-6) 1 48:37 10 19 .526 9 15 .600 5 6 .833 0 5 5 11 0 0 8 5 34 23.5 -10 TOR W (+6) 0 45:52 10 17 .588 3 6 .500 8 9 .889 0 5 5 1 2 1 5 3 31 21.4 +7 SAS W (+7) 1 44:03 5 13 .385 1 5 .200 7 7 1.000 1 2 3 8 0 1 3 2 18 14.7 +7 WAS W (+7) 1 43:04 5 11 .455 0 3 .000 8 10 .800 2 0 2 8 2 0 3 5 18 15.5 +18 LAL W (+14) 1 39:21 4 12 .333 1 5 .200 4 7 .571 0 4 4 4 1 1 4 3 13 5.5 +14 ATL L (-3) 1 38:55 3 8 .375 1 4 .250 4 4 1.000 0 4 4 1 0 0 4 3 11 3.3 +2 TOR L (-4) 1 38:52 6 18 .333 3 7 .429 1 2 .500 1 0 1 7 2 1 2 4 16 10.1 +15 NOP W (+3) 1 38:41 6 12 .500 0 3 .000 1 1 1.000 0 1 1 4 1 2 2 4 13 8.9 +11 OKC W (+4) 1 38:08 3 11 .273 2 6 .333 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 1 4 8 2.7 +3 WAS W (+1) 1 37:20 5 8 .625 3 6 .500 3 4 .750 0 1 1 5 0 0 5 3 16 9.6 +1
OP's post displayed stats that were not put in proper statistical context, for instance not taking into account MPG or FT% or how much FT's. Torocan criticized the post and suggested that TS% and per 36 numbers provide a more accurate picture. Multiple posters immediately write off his posts, citing that because he is a Lin fan, his posts must be agenda driven and therefore offer no value in any discussion, some going as far as accusing him of being intentionally deceptive by "splicing the stats" and "cherry-picking." Really? Suggesting TS% and per 36 numbers as a better way of evaluating player performance is cherry-picking? Isn't that a valid claim regardless of whether the player being evaluated is Lin or any other basketball player in the league (not playing limited minutes)? If a pre-2012, well-respected veteran poster suggested the use of TS% and taking minutes into account for a better picture, would the same accusations be made? I honestly find it disheartening that many Lin critics, even some of the older and more rational posters on this forum, sometimes choose to completely avoid engaging in discussion with posters if they so much as give a hint of resembling a Lin fan or apologist (or whatever label is more fitting here). Not all Lin fans are irrational, super fanatics who are incapable of an ounce of objective thought. Yes, I get that there are many LOF's who fit that profile who bring the quality of this forum down. But if a perceived Lin fan/defender/apologist appears to be trying to engage in a rational discussion, making arguments or assertions that may actually be logically sound, or is taking the time to actually back up his arguments with evidence (statistical or otherwise), writing them off entirely just because of some "LOF label" is honestly doing a disservice to this forum. If you disagree with what you label as an "LOF post" that is actually well-written and thought out, why not actually engage in discussion with the poster, and explain why you disagree specifically? For example, if you believe torocan is wrong about TS% and per 36 numbers being a better way of evaluating player performance, why not offer what you believe is the best alternative and why? This adds a lot more value to the discussion, and can prove enlightening. For example, someone argued with torocan that maybe PER or xRAPM or something is a better measure, and torocan offered his rebuttal. That kind of discussion can prove be very illuminating (but it's a shame that it ended right there). Regardless, it is certainly more useful than just saying "Oh he is presenting an argument that may make Lin look better, therefore I will ignore everything he says"
Of course he isn't Linsanity. Because Linsanity was a starter who play lots of minutes, gets lots of touches, spams P&R, unscouted, and had different teammates.
