How will The 2007 Maple Leafs Look?

Not to beat a dead horse, but we’ve all heard many times how Toronto will be one of the busiest teams in the NHL this summer. They missed the mark last season and now JFJ will be busy making key personel decisions and deciding who to keep, who to let go and who to sign as UFA’s.

The real question is weather they can make enough changes to get the team into the playoffs next season.

The first strike against the Leafs is that the NHL has this new schedule which has teams playing their division rivals 8 times each. Right off the bat this puts the Leafs behind the 8 ball for the next few years while their younger players develop.

Montreal & Buffalo are good young teams who are just a few seasons ahead of the Leafs in the “re-building” phase. In addition, Toronto seems to have the least amount of cap room to work with as far as addressing the several areas that need improvements. The good new is that Boston will most likely be at the bottom of the pile again next year, the BAD news is that Ottawa will still be very strong (even without Chara or Redden).

Sundin will be back for now, but still doesn’t have premier wingers to flank him. This has been the story for ages now. Sundin is only getting older with each passing season and It’s safe to say that his prime is past. Adding some solid star wingers could help him flourish, but if they spend on high price FA’s then the Leafs will have NO depth anywhere else and still struggle to make the playoffs because of it.

Tucker & O’Neill will be back. Although both these guys can play, they are not the calibre that Sundin would like to see on his wings. Ponikarovsky had a decent season last year, but the reality is on most NHL teams he’s a 3rd line winger. Kilger & Domi are signed as well, and bring very little to the table. Kilger can kill penalties, while Domi can hardly keep pace with the new NHL.

The brightest point for the Leafs are all the youngsters who should perform well under Maurice (as long as they are given a chance). Steen & Wellwood looked great last year. it will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve. Stajan should also play a larger role. Antropov did better than expected last year, but again a 3rd line winger on most clubs. The Leafs therefore have several positions up front to fill. They can’t go on a spending spree so look for a much younger & inexperienced squad to be iced next season. Unfortunately this inexperience will most likely lead to more losses.

Defense was terrible last year for Toronto. There looks to be no imporvement thus far. If the McCabe deal does get done, he and Kaberle will log the majority of the ice time. This will be great for the PP, but 5 on 5 and PK will have trouble. It will also be interesting to see if McCabe can put up those numbers again…my guess is he won’t. Belak is no more than a 6th D man and then there’s a squad of talented youngsters. Again, if JFJ can’t get some veterans out there they back end will be VERY inexperienced (and the 2 experienced players are not great defensively). Also note that Belfour won’t be there to bail them out.

This leads to Goaltending. Belfour is gone. Toronto is now left with Tellqvist & Aubin. Leaf fans are high on Aubin because of the last 10 games last year. Please remember that 10 games does not make a season and this guy has had 9 seasons of up & down hockey between the NHL & minors. He’s never shown he can carry a large load. This team really needs a solid veteran who can stand on his head and give them a chance to win every night. Tellqvist certainly won’t provide that and Aubin will most likely not cut the mustard either. Again if the Leafs go after a goalie, they won’t have money left to sign a top winger or some depth players.

Unfortunately for The Leafs, their options are limited.

My final comment is this. The positives that will show are 1) Paul Maurice. Quinn has a good history as an NHL coach, but the team really needed to start moving in another direction to build with young players for the future. 2) although less experienced than last season. The Leafs will have young legs and SPEED. This has proven to be key in the “new NHL”. They may lose some games, but should be exciting to watch. As long as the Leaf fans have patience, they can watch their young players grow and develope over the next few years.

My question to you readers is this. If YOU were the GM for the Leafs, do you keep Sundin and his 6.33 Mill, or trade him?

I would also like to add that although I am a Habs fan, I am writing this as a hockey fan and just trying to state the obvious about the Leafs current situation, I’m not trying to offend any Leaf fans out there….we all know how touchy you guys can get :)


96 Responses to How will The 2007 Maple Leafs Look?

  1. 92-93 says:

    its not a ‘how-dare-he-be-criticized’ rhetoric youre hearing from me, i am just amazed at how you’ve already put his Antropov-status after one year …

    considering he is clearly way more skilled then Nik and has only played ONE YEAR. granted, Nik has faced some tough injuries, but he’s a guy that hasn’t fulfilled his potential, Steen wasn’t even expected to make the team last year!!! and he ends up with 45 points.

    i mean, some perspective is needed here.

  2. the_word says:

    13th were you get a good prospect and a top quality prospect for a top quality draft pick. Give up what you got for the same and lose your first round draft pick for it. If you post expect for it to be open to criticism.

  3. 92-93 says:

    fine you want to be blown out of the water with specifics.

    lets bring in some context:

    Steen is not used to playing 82 games … like, lets say Wellwood, because of his play in the European leagues. so a drop-off in play was expected around January-February – which happened. HOWEVER, after those months, Steen regained his play in March and April. Up until January, Steen had one of the best +/-‘s on the team, right up there with Wellwood. His sense of how the play is developing and his vision of the ice was among the best on the team according to both Quinn and Acton – and they said this right out of training camp. guys who have played beside him – including Sundin – marvelled and were thankful to play with him because they knew that when there was a turnover he was one of the first to backcheck.

    He’s proven that he can pass and handle the puck in tight quarters – both in the offensive and defensive end, that he can score some beautiful and ugly goals.

    so to review:

    his on-ice awareness is amazing, can play a physical game and is a great two-way player, has great hands and creates opportunities offensively everytime he is out there. finally, by many people’s assessments, including those scouts that drafted him, he moves the puck well and has great vision on the ice.

    and to dismiss Steen’s numbers because he had the unfortunate luck of being in this year’s crazy-good rookie class is asinine to no end.

    and if you don’t like my take on Steen you can read any report on the guy by thehockeynews, hockeyfuture.com (if they still have his profile up), tsn, nhl.com – futures section, etc etc.

    but whatever. it seems like you’ve made up your mind about the guy.

  4. 92-93 says:

    i guess McKenzie and the myriad of other commentators who loved Steen’s play this year all work for MLSE.

    why would you assume that i think all the problems with the leafs – or MLSE for that matter – are reducible to McCabe and Berg.

    do not put words in my mouth.

  5. 92-93 says:

    of course if i post i should expect criticism.

    but i expect intelligent criticism as well.

    so far i dont agree with any of your points on NOT trading Pogge and the 13th pick.

  6. 92-93 says:

    a retraction – not saying that your criticism of my suggestion/speculation is not intelligent, i just dont agree with it and dont see how dire it is.

    i think its more dire to have no all-around depth in your organization.

  7. the_word says:

    I don’t expect you agree with me, just be an to address criticism

  8. the_word says:

    He looks better than he is because he has some offensive talent. If everyone marvelled at this guys play on the top line, they why were they also saying ‘get someone to play along side of Sundin’. They said this becuase Steen isn’t good enough to be on a top line in the NHL, he’ll be a good third line/second line player, he’ll never be a consistant top six foward. For reasons I’ve already mentioned he’s not a solid two way player despite what TSNHockeyBuzzQuinnMSLEMarketingLeafsTV have to say about him. Rookies always get talked up at training camp to bring hope for the future, to give a guy confidence and to attempt to sell a future star (they all said the same thing about Antropov).

    Conclusion:

    We’re at the romatic stage of this guys career where you want to focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. This guy is never criticized although he deserves to be. I hope you do have a long memory, when Steen is finally put under the microscope his shortcomings won’t be news to you.

  9. the_word says:

    They all loved Antropov. nuff said.

  10. FlyersfanKyle says:

    didnt they ask him to waive it last year though?

  11. DJTOKid says:

    I’m not your fan, I read everything so does that make me evryones fan? Steen is going to be gret cause he has roots. His dad was very good player in the nhl and has passed down his skills and then some to his son. Antropov has never scored as many goals in any of his seasons as Steen did this year. I would rather have one of the goalies(pogge or rask) and the fourth pick in this years draft then both of them and the thirteenth pick.

    What about pogge or rask and the 13th pick for eric fehr and the 4th pick?

    p.s. im going to the daft so if you got any messages you want me to yell at jfj let me know.

  12. DJTOKid says:

    You buy him out cause he doesn’t even deserve 4 minutes a game. He does nothing for the leafs and has to go, any rookie or free agent is better then Domi. Completely useless. If they can spread the $800,000 some odd thousand over two years then its totally worth it to buy him out.

  13. DJTOKid says:

    They say find someone to play with Sundin, cause Steen is a natural center, He’s out of position and he still managed to play as well as he did. When he gets his own line he’ll improve defensivly and his offense will still be as effecient.

  14. the_word says:

    You’re my fan, if your argument is that Steen is gonna be great because he’s a second generation player, thats pretty weak.

    Tell him to trade Pogge and his 13th pick for Washington 4th pick, so when TSN breaks down what a bad trade that is, other people on this board could finally accept the truth of the matter.

  15. the_word says:

    yes, the point is they have to ask him, he said if they didn’t trade him at the deadline, then he wouldn’t waive it again. But you never know, the thing is they can’t shop him around, they can only hear an offer and then consult Sundin about it, thats not something they’ll do on a consistent basis.

  16. the_word says:

    Ok, Steen is awesome, he’ll be the future #1 center for the Leafs. He’ll win the Sekle year in year out. I’m just being realistic about his potential, he overachieved this year, he’ll be a 25-40 points per year player for his career. I’m done with this, time will tell and I will say I told you so.

  17. DJTOKid says:

    Steen will have 25pts before december

  18. the_word says:

    Typical west coast attitude, just cause a guy fights means he doesn’t belong in the game.

  19. 92-93 says:

    really? well, for you to peg him as not good enough to play beside sundin, after his (very good) rookie year, is once again asinine.

    too dismiss every hockey media outlet as a somehow run by MLSE is retarded and inaccurate – and i DO know how the media works and the media mergers, etc. so dont go there.

    the positive talk about steen continues to this day and is not limited to training camp.

  20. 92-93 says:

    your arguments are getting pretty vague now … now that you’ve lost the plot completely.

  21. FlyersfanKyle says:

    why would tampa want antropov

  22. DJTOKid says:

    Cause he’s cheap and has some decent experiance and skill and Tampa needs to save as much money as they can.

  23. Oley says:

    hes gonna turn out like ward, I swear this is his 1st season and people were refering him to be like a young brodour

  24. the_word says:

    You might want a take a look at your argument first. ‘The TV and radio said Steen is gonna be good, how could TV be wrong?’, when my point is the guy is overrated I’m disagreeing with the media bs that surronds Steen.

    When you say ‘how could the media be wrong about this guy’, I counter with well they were wrong about Antropov, thats a sufficient response to your shallow argument.

  25. DJTOKid says:

    Fighting doesn’t win games and you only need one of those type of players and if the leafs aren’t gonna get rid of Belak then Domi is a complete waste of time and space on the ice for Toronto. The time and opportunity should go to a youthful player that needs to develop in the NHL.

    The west coast doesn’t have anything to do with my opinion on that its just a simple fact. The leafs are better off to get rid of him and get some more youth in there too mke something out of the ice time used.

  26. 92-93 says:

    what?

    i never said what you just posted – try using my actual words next time … you couldnt … and you had to (inaccurately) paraphrase my words and, once again, put words in my mouth.

    i never reduced Steen’s value as a player to just what this VAGUE and gigantic entity you refer to as ‘the media’ or ‘tv’ has stated about him. for you to reduce all of my own points to just media speak is not a sufficient response.

    MY arguement may be backed up by both credible, hockey experts or pseudo hockey expert-idiots but my opinions are my own. and so far, nothing you have said about Alex Steen has been backed up … by additional sources, by statistics, by anything … other than this very specific, yet at the same time, vague comparision of Steen to Antropov and his inability to clear the puck out of his own zone.

    both of which are entirely inaccurate.

    it makes me wonder if you watched the leafs at all last year.

  27. the_word says:

    ” I guess McKenzie and the myriad of other commentators who loved Steen’s play this year all work for MLSE”

    “MY arguement may be backed up by both credible, hockey experts or pseudo hockey expert”

    Apparently becuase TV ‘expert’ like Steen that validates your argument. Again I’m a disagreeing with them (I don’t care if Bob McKenzie likes him, that does hold any weight)

    I broke down specifically why he is a defensive liablity, you want to reduce that to my perception, but the truth is I watch hockey and you let the ‘experts’ of the game interpret it for you, you watch the game looking for Steen to prove why they say about him and not watch his play with a critical eye (he’s a rookie so just look at the positives right). The reason I have to say this is, you’ve only echoed the covention newspeak about Steen’s play, you dismiss my argument because its simply you haven’t heard it before, you’ve taken it as false before even giving it any thought. I on the other hand form this argument by seeing that what the experts have to say about Steen and his game don’t match up.

    My criticism of Steen’s play isn’t obivious because most people aren’t paying attention to simple basics (i.e. the defensive breakout), you have to look for the suttleties to understand if a player has a sound game or not.

    If you think that expert opinion valiadates your argument, then Antropov was given the same stamp of approval that Steen is now getting. So, I’d take what the ‘experts’ have to say with a grain of salt. The only decent statistic Steen has is 45 points, thats not something I’d like to hang my hat on to claim that he’s a great player.

    Look I’m not saying that Steen doesn’t belong in the NHL, I saying a doubt he’ll be anything more than just a guy who puts up insconsistent numbers (a few offensively productive weeks a season), for the rest of his career. I don’t think that assesment is far fetched. What do you think will become of him?

    I hope the detail in this post is to you’re liking, at least this time you can’t accuse me of pharaphrasing.

  28. 92-93 says:

    “but the truth is I watch hockey and you let the ‘experts’ of the game interpret it for you,”

    the truth of the matter is you do not know how to read. if your standards were applied to essay writing or sound debating strategies etc, you would not allow the student/debater to bring in any outside sources whatsoever. how intelligent and narrow and limiting is that??!!

    all i did was introduce my argument and my points and referred to outside sources. now you are wiggling and weasling out of a poorly argued position on your part – by simply reducing all my points to the media.

    for the record, people are allowed to used outside sources to back up their position.

    Steen’s game – for a rookie – is quite good. notice that i took THE CONTEXT of his play (re: rookie season, used to playing half of the 82 game schedule, etc.) into consideration. your arguments are presented in a vacuum and you make vague and inaccurate comparisons (re: antropov).

    i’ve heard criticisms of Steen’s play before on this site and have agreed with them – especially when they were presented during Janurary and February in this Leaf Rumors section.

    good for you, you don’t agree with the experts … you have an independent mind … too bad you have to learn to formulate arguments better.

    there is no need to tell be to take the experts opinion with the grain of salt, i do that regardless. it just so happens that agree with what a lot of people say about this player. have you ever, EVER read any of my posts critiquing the opinions of Simmons, Strachan, McKenzie, and Cox? nope? well then i suggest you read the numerous posts i have written before you go on making assumptions.

    finally, and perhaps most importantly, in order to construct arguments you need to really stop making inaccurate assumptions about people … re: i’ve never heard anyone critique steen, the fact that my opinions run parallel to others in the media means that i am brainwashed by the media to believe what i believe …

    because all of this reflects badly on you.

  29. DJTOKid says:

    Pogge should and probly could play next year.

  30. FlyersfanKyle says:

    i was just wondering cuz i dont follow the leafs

  31. FlyersfanKyle says:

    true but i think they’d want somthing alongwith antropov

  32. the_word says:

    Ya, I guess when I was accept to do my masters degree in philosophy the fact that I can’t read or form a cogent argument must have been overlooked. All of my professors must be idiots too, because they’ve been blindly handing good grades on my essays for 4 years now.

    You’re ridiculous, you make Ad hominium attacks on others rather than address them. My comprasion to Antropov were a result of you and DJKid comments that he had a good rookie by the fact he was given praise and had 45 points, suggesting that is promising so he surely will be a great player.

    Again you want to make this a personal attack and have me respond to your juvenile bullshit. At when I insult someone I do openly, unlike you who simply writes in a condesending tone to hide the fact that he seldom addresses the issue being discussed.

    I haven’t read all of your posts over the six months, but fro those that I have read one thing is common to all of them. You’re the only one impressed by you supposed writing and arguments skills. And you constantly accuse others of not having the ability to read or from arguments. You also like to interchange the words opinion and argument when it suits you. So keep up the sophistry coming.

  33. navajo says:

    lol. Not to mention he seems worse than Lindros with injuries. He takes a puck off the wrist he’s done for 2 months.

  34. FlyersfanKyle says:

    mabey try to get jordan tootoo

  35. 92-93 says:

    sorry buddy – lets not start comparing academic guns here – something that i have always avoided here on HTR because it betrays a lot of negative characteristics about people … but if you want to get into that, you can ride that philosphy MA for all its worth, but you don’t know anything about hard work until you’ve actually completed that MA and a Phd (Media Studies specializing in political economics).

    one thing i’ve learned from my school years is that an MA or PhD or good comments from professors and TAs and Second Readers doesn’t amount to a good argument on a hockey trade website LOL.

    i’m critiquing your argument and the way you laid it out … if that amounts to a personal attack then so be it. i think its just the TA in me coming out perhaps. hey, you use the word ‘sophist’ every second word, i think i recognize one of your essays!!! lol

    what part of the issue did i not discuss with regards to Steen? i actually addressed his skills where you focussed on one part of his game and made a bad comparison. i’ve considered things in context whereas you’ve considered Steen’s play in a vacuum.

    speaking of making insults and running away, was it not you who stated in another thread – “I just figured I’d attack everyone I could for the mere entertainment of it”?

    its good that youve formed your own opinion about the way i post on HTR, but the fact that you havent considered how i’ve used other media aritcles in my responses betrays the fact that you probably havent read many of my posts.

  36. the_word says:

    Sigh…. No one is comparing academic guns, but the fact that I was able to successfully complete an undergrate degree in a program that is chiefly concerning with constructing an argument qualifies me to write on this board.

    “but if you want to get into that, you can ride that philosophy MA for all its worth, but you don’t know anything about hard work until you’ve actually completed that MA and a PhD”

    So no one is able to post a cogent argument unless they’ve gotten an MA or PhD, and only 4% of North America knows anything about hard work. Wow impressive argument, your years of experience are shining bright here.

    I used sophist twice on HTR including this time. You’re the one who constantly accuses others of not being able to understand or form an argument rather than actually arguing, that’s sophistry Dr.92-93.

    I like how you quote me from another thread, that’s obsessively cute. This thread = this context, so lets keep focus here (but I guess that’s the TA in me coming out).

    I didn’t realize I had to read every single one of your other posts to put everything you say in context, that is convient way to duck the issue. You must be proud of those posts, I’m glad you feel you can rest on those supposed laurels.

    If you’ve noticed I’ve responded to everything you have to say and not once have I talked hockey.

    I don’t see how the Antropov comparison is vague in the context I put in (the experts are hard for him). I’ll even so a step further to say, I think Antropov showed more promise in his rookie year as he was less polished that Steen. I don’t see Steen get much better than he already is. Again I pose the question and maybe you could try not to ignore it and simply accuse me of being illiterate (sophist). What do you think will become of Steen?

  37. 92-93 says:

    so, judging by your first sentence,

    “but the fact that I was able to successfully complete an undergrate degree in a program that is chiefly concerning with constructing an argument qualifies me to write on this board.”

    … people with an undergrad degree (especially) qualifies you to write on a hockey trade website.?!?!?!?

    geesh!

    my comment – “but if you want to get into that, you can ride that philosophy MA for all its worth, but you don’t know anything about hard work until you’ve actually completed that MA and a PhD”

    … had NOTHING TO DO with posting on HTR. i was – clearly and plainly and in a different sentence referring specifically to your MA comments and the process of going through an MA. … again, nothing to do with hockey … learn to read. … example:

    “one thing i’ve learned from my school years is that an MA or PhD or good comments from professors and TAs and Second Readers doesn’t amount to a good argument on a hockey trade website.”

    i’ll use your past comments on other threads anytime. … and by the way, the history of your comments are totally IN CONTEXT especially when YOU are the one posting them. why would the comments that YOU made in another thread not count here? clean slate everytime right? just because the subject is different, doesn’t mean – i’ll add one of your impatient, intolerant, academic ‘sighs’ here – that your previous comments and sentiments do not apply here.

    what do i think will come of Steen?: I think Steen will be a first or 2nd line left winger or Centremen that will consistently put up about 50-70 pts a year. he’ll be a Selke candidate at least twice in his career and he (and Stajan) are going to be two of the most well-rounded forwards on the leafs squad for years to come.

  38. the_word says:

    You focus on the writer rather than what is written.

    You’re the only trying to make all of your post a coherent work from every thread (good for you), but other threads = other context, so yes clean slate deal with the issue at hand.

    ” people with an undergrad degree (especially) qualifies you to write on a hockey trade website.?!?!?!?”

    It qualifies me to make an argument regardless the subject. So I am able to construct an agrument qua subject. I never said I was especially qualified, I am qualified though. You constant accuse of ‘learn to read, you don’t know how to write etc..’ is juvenile and blantant sophistry. See the diffence with my criticism is I don’t accuse you of being not being able but of being manipulative to serve yourself rather than logic (which you seem to him is your exclusive property).

    Your suggestion of Steen winning a Selke and posting 70 points a year? Thats a generous estimate and not realistic.

  39. 92-93 says:

    i consider the writer’s history – what his or her discourses have been in the past – and what their current discourse consists of.

    the issue at hand has been dealt with over and over again. the questions you’ve raised have been answered. i simply used one of your comments on a previous thread that addressed the way you make an argument … a totally VALID thing to do. if you are not held accountable and can run away from anything you’ve said in the past – regardless of the subject – then what credibility to you have. you can say whatever you want, totally contradict yourself, be hypocritical … and not have to worry about others identifying and confronting you about it.

    “It qualifies me to make an argument regardless the subject.”

    oh boy… so your degree qualifies you to make an argument. well, here is some news for you, EVERYONE IS QUALIFIED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT – re: free and responsible speech. the question i guess then is … does it make you MORE QUALIFIED … and that is precisely what you are implying. and no i am not putting words in your mouth. i dare anyone to read your statement without getting the feeling that you are saying that your degree makes you more qualified to argue a point.

    so youre qualfied, what makes you more qualified then muckies, Jannetty, or any of the other braindeads here on HTR? it doesn’t. they are ‘qualified’ just as much as you or i. of course, you’ll run away from this one as well a with your “I never said I was especially qualified” comment. you dont need to say it – you IMPLIED IT.

    telling you to read my posts correctly and to not put words in my mouth – which you have done repeatedly – is NOT sophistry. its advice.

    my Steen prediction – which is precisely what you asked me to make – might be generous, but in my opinion, its much more realistic then your Antropov-3rd-liner estimate.

  40. the_word says:

    “you dont need to say it – you IMPLIED IT.”

    I didn’t imply it, you take this as a departure to reconstruct what I have to say in an attempt to discredit me. All I said was I capable to construct an argument and be accountable for it. I did this in response to you saying I cannot make a cogent argument. But now apparently anyone can (make an argument), which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

    I never accused anyone of being unable to form an argument or questioned their ability to read.

    Let me be clear on Steen comparison to Antropov, if you want to site outside sources such as what Bob McKenzie has to say, then I may show that to be a weak claim. In comparing that logic to what was said of Steen, then what was said of Antropov early in his career is a fair point.

  41. 92-93 says:

    again, i re-state: i dare anyone to read your statement without getting the feeling that you are saying that your degree makes you more qualified to argue a point.

    and yes i can have it both ways – YOU cannot construct a good argument, and ANYONE can construct AN ARGUMENT – good or bad. how is that having it both ways again?

  42. smooth4488 says:

    Aetherial,

    Always enjoy reading your posts because great minds think alike. I agree with everything you said. None of these kids are going to be superstars (possibly Steen…) but will form a solid nucleus.

    I think as far as the free agency route goes, offer two to three year deals for cheaper UFA’s. Langenbrunner is an option but could become too costly due to the fact other teams will want him as he has always been a very solid two way player (Maurice type of player). I would go after McKee (no more than 3 million). I would leave Frantisek Kaberle alone as he may command quite the salary being a Stanley Cup champ but if he’s under 3 million, then maybe I would do it. I think a veteran goaltender would be a “nice to have” but really, we are not winning the cup this year.

    Good move for JFJ in regards to Maurice. I think he will thrive in a youth movement…..

    Your thoughts on Free Agency and more importantly, who do they draft at 13? Besides the playoffs, the draft is my favourite time of the year…..

  43. the_word says:

    (rolling eyes), I give, not because I’m wrong, but whatever I write is just gonna change to something along the line of what you think I intend…..

  44. 92-93 says:

    whatever bud, i’ve made my points pretty clear, if you disagree with them – of course that’s fine with me.

    i dont see why i have to keep embarrasing you everytime you make a dumb or fuzzy comment and then run away from it later on.

  45. the_word says:

    ok, whatever you say you’re as infallible as the pope.

  46. 92-93 says:

    again, never claimed to be infalliable. just pointing out the flaws in YOUR argument … which doesnt automatically imply that i dont have any flaws.

    take the criticism or leave it. but i have a feeling that we’ll be doing something like this all over again … i.e. a) i present a point, back it up or critique a point that you make and b) you cant seem to back up your points with anything or clearly/effectively communicate them.

Leave a Reply