Shipychov back to the KHL

[Jouko-Pouko]

You are making this a US vs Foreign issue and its mostly not. Its a Shypichov issue. And your perception of people in the US is completely misguided and uninformed. I am among the least bias people you would ever meet if you knew me. Trump as President? That has nothing to do with me or this situation. I didn't vote for him.

You are also conflating bias reporting with actual experience. There's a huge difference. You are making an assumption based on little experience and a public figure. I'm making observations based on vast encounters, conversations and experience. I have no actual bias as my observations don't change my notions about individuals. My observations about individuals are based on relations and come with no judgment based on large scale differences. My only judgment of individuals is based on their actions and what they have said. If you don't see the difference that's a shame.

While your judgments of individuals is largely based on the actions of a few. Trump really doesn't represent the majority of Americans. That's clear. As he lost the popular vote. Which means the majority of Americans didn't want him.

Anyway, that's vastly different from pointing out cultural differences. Which are actually documented and analyzed. There's also a huge difference between a judgment and an observation.

It's clear you don't know anything about the US or it's people. Your experience in dealing with the US and it's people seems minimal. Meanwhile, I have direct and vast experience with Russian culture, people and the differences.

I'm making this a US vs Foreign issue? I didn't even know you were from the US. I was making this a "Vegas is a very badly run organization" issue, nothing else. I don't care if that team is in the US or in Canada - if they make stupid mistakes, I'm not afraid to say so. You were the one making assumptions about Russian players who are not going to win anything because they won't accept everything badly run organizations throw at them.

But sure, I don't know anything about the US or its people while you know everything about Russia. I don't know how that's relevant to this topic at all but let's just go with that.

[rangerdanger]

You spoke for Americans as a collective (IE, a generalization), based on your experience. You don't know all Americans, so you made a generalization on a small sample size. You then made a generalization about JP based on your experiences with him in this thread, IE another small sample size. YOu don't even understand your own actions.

There are things you could or could not say about JP, but "uninformed" is not one of them. There is a large sample size of data that suggests:
1) America in general does not like Russia, save one current political party (ya know, wars and stuff)
2) European players get less leeway for behaviours or traits than North American players do.

His generalizations may or may not be correct, but they are neither misguided nor uninformed.

No, it's not a small sample size. It's a large sample size. A large sample size isn't all, it's just many and I clearly have experience with many Americans. No, I made an observation about an individual based on the actions of that individual. And I said he is showing a bias which was an observation based on a specific set of experience. The only generalization I made about the individual was based on a specific topic regarding the individual which was based on statements from that individual about that topic. In statistics, a large sample size is generally anything over 1000. You can make informed generalizations about a group based usually on 1000 or more data set. As long as that data set represents the range of the population. You can make an educated generalization about 100000 people based on a broad range 1000 people. You can't make it based on 5 though.

A small sample size would be 5 people on a message board. A large sample size would be knowing 1000 Americans and hearing the opinions of multiple thousands of Americans.

You also cant compare the observations made about an individual with those made about a culture.

Actually you are wrong about those 2. And yes, I can say it's uninformed. "America in general does not like Russia" That is simply not true. America in general means most of Americans and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is correct. If you are using the fact that Trump and his party seem to dislike Russians, then its still misguided. Because Trump and his part still don't represent the majority of US citizens. The majority of US citizens that voted actually voted against Trump. You also can't use claims by the media as claims by the media have no statistical authority and often no actual evidence but is often pure conjecture. Again, i have the opinion on hundreds of Americans about Russia through all demographics. That does not suggest America in general does not like Russia.

Your statement that European players get less leeway is also uninformed. There is no actual evidence to suggest that. There is just anecdotal evidence which is very different. That is a generalization based on specific incidents. But not a broad range of incidents that would suggest a full data set and sample size.

Both of your claims are stereotypes but not statistical evidence. Meaning, there is absolutely no proof or study that suggest those 2 things. While there is plenty of evidence and research to suggest certain cultural traits.

And by definition a wrong generalization would be misguided and uninformed. A correct generalization can only be based on statistical analysis and actual research and experience with a large sample size.. And by that I don't mean the conjecture of a bias media. Further, just because I claim there is a bias liberal media doesn't mean I agree with a bias conservative media. I was just pointing out the rhetoric of the liberal side of the bias media. There of course is the bias side to the conservative media but that is inconsequential as those opinions are not based on that conservative media, but the liberal one. I also gave no opinion where I stand on either side of that. Personally I have a distaste for both the liberal and conservative ends of the media spectrum because it's largely BS and conjecture.

Any of my statements about Russian culture are largely based on research about Russian culture before and after the Soviet era and a large sample size of Russian immigrants that I have dealt with. Meaning hundreds in person and thousands through research. I did not talk to 5 Russians and come up with a pointless theory about Russian culture. It's also not a judgment but an observation showing differences between cultures. These are completely documented and studied traits. Further I specifically pointed out that a cultural generalization does not identify those traits in every individual or even most individuals. There is a difference between an individuals perception and beliefs and the culture at large.

THe idea that Trump represents American culture is simply not true. He represents an aspect of American culture but certainly not even close to the majority. Certainly, the minority.

[rataylor22]

No, it's not a small sample size. It's a large sample size. A large sample size isn't all, it's just many and I clearly have experience with many Americans. No, I made an observation about an individual based on the actions of that individual. And I said he is showing a bias which was an observation based on a specific set of experience.

A small sample size would be 5 people on a message board. A large sample size would be knowing 1000 Americans and hearing the opinions of multiple thousands of Americans.

You also cant compare the observations made about an individual with those made about a culture.

Actually you are wrong about those 2. And yes, I can say it's uninformed. "America in general does not like Russia" That is simply not true. America in general means most of Americans and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is correct. If you are using the fact that Trump and his party seem to dislike Russians, then its still misguided. Because Trump and his part still don't represent the majority of US citizens. The majority of US citizens that voted actually voted against Trump.

Your statement that European players get less leeway is also uninformed. There is no actual evidence to suggest that. There is just anecdotal evidence which is very different

You can know 1 million people and that is a small sample size, relative to what your making generalizations on. I feel very comfortable in guessing you haven't personally talked to 1 million Americans on their feelings towards European hockey players. To properly sample, you need to take samples from multiple different areas: IE, sampling 1 million white, democratic, 2 children homeowners who live in New York is not a proper sample. You'd need to travel all over the country to determine a proper "sample" of America. I feel even more comfortable that you haven't traveled all over America asking different subset cultures of American citizens, numbering in the multiple millions, as to their feelings on European hockey players. So yes, your generalization was built off a very small sample size.

I'm also very comfortable saying you don't have any idea on what is going on within your country's political environment. That part you've made very clear lol.

I furthermore do not think you know the meaning of the terms "uninformed" or "evidence", and my evidence of that is you using them incorrectly throughout this post. There is not quantitative evidence about how Americans feel towards Russia, but there is qualitative evidence, just as there is qualitative evidence that Europeans are not given the same concessions for behavior or personality that North Americans are, within the hockey world. It would appear you have a hard time grasping the concept of qualitative evidence, but it is a very necessary component of evaluation, specifically when quantitative evidence is lacking or non-existent.

[rangerdanger]

You can know 1 million people and that is a small sample size, relative to what your making generalizations on. I feel very comfortable in guessing you haven't personally talked to 1 million Americans on their feelings towards European hockey players. To properly sample, you need to take samples from multiple different areas: IE, sampling 1 million white, democratic, 2 children homeowners who live in New York is not a proper sample. You'd need to travel all over the country to determine a proper "sample" of America. I feel even more comfortable that you haven't traveled all over America asking different subset cultures of American citizens, numbering in the multiple millions, as to their feelings on European hockey players. So yes, your generalization was built off a very small sample size.

I'm also very comfortable saying you don't have any idea on what is going on within your country's political environment. That part you've made very clear lol.

I furthermore do not think you know the meaning of the terms "uninformed" or "evidence", and my evidence of that is you using them incorrectly throughout this post. There is not quantitative evidence about how Americans feel towards Russia, but there is qualitative evidence, just as there is qualitative evidence that Europeans are not given the same concessions for behavior or personality that North Americans are, within the hockey world. It would appear you have a hard time grasping the concept of qualitative evidence, but it is a very necessary component of evaluation, specifically when quantitative evidence is lacking or non-existent.

No, that's just wrong. Again, in statistics 1 million people would be an immense sample size. Far more than is necessary for a statistical analysis. You aren't using qualitative evidence. You also don't seem to know what an actual large sample size is. And yes I said as long as it's from a broad range of demographic. Further more I have traveled all over the world. I have spoken to thousands of people in my life across the globe let alone America. And further, I have read and researched opinions on many matters from a broad range demographic and a large sample size. But your claim that you need to talk to millions of people is just wrong statistically. That can't even be argued. Any statistician would tell you that's wrong and no statistical study that I am aware of, bar the census, actually uses a sample size of 100000 or more. Most are under 10000. Most actually are probably under 5000.

This isn't me bashing you or making a judgment. It's simple fact. Everything you are saying now is assumption and conjecture. If you think 1 million people is a small sample size then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[rataylor22]

No, that's just wrong. Again, in statistics 1 million people would be an immense sample size. Far more than is necessary for a statistical analysis. You aren't using qualitative evidence. You also don't seem to know what an actual large sample size is. And yes I said as long as it's from a broad range of demographic.

This isn't me bashing you or making a judgment. It's simple fact. Everything you are saying now is assumption and conjecture. If you think 1 million people is a small sample size then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

If you want to to make a generalization of population, you need an appropriate sample of the population. 1000, or 10000, or 100000 is not an appropriate sampling to make a generalization on 330 million people. Even if it was, you wouldn't have properly sampled subsets, so again, understand statistics or like...don't I guess. Saying "thousands" is a proper sample for "hundreds of millions", is assumption and conjecture. You're making yourself look worse and worse. You're making it clear you don't understand statistics and sampling. You're making it clear you don't understand evidence, and you're making it clear you don't really understand what you're talking about.

[rataylor22]

No, it's not a small sample size. It's a large sample size. A large sample size isn't all, it's just many and I clearly have experience with many Americans. No, I made an observation about an individual based on the actions of that individual. And I said he is showing a bias which was an observation based on a specific set of experience. The only generalization I made about the individual was based on a specific topic regarding the individual which was based on statements from that individual about that topic. In statistics, a large sample size is generally anything over 1000. You can make informed generalizations about a group based usually on 1000 or more data set. As long as that data set represents the range of the population. You can make an educated generalization about 100000 people based on a broad range 1000 people. You can't make it based on 5 though.

A small sample size would be 5 people on a message board. A large sample size would be knowing 1000 Americans and hearing the opinions of multiple thousands of Americans.

You also cant compare the observations made about an individual with those made about a culture.

Actually you are wrong about those 2. And yes, I can say it's uninformed. "America in general does not like Russia" That is simply not true. America in general means most of Americans and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is correct. If you are using the fact that Trump and his party seem to dislike Russians, then its still misguided. Because Trump and his part still don't represent the majority of US citizens. The majority of US citizens that voted actually voted against Trump. You also can't use claims by the media as claims by the media have no statistical authority and often no actual evidence but is often pure conjecture. Again, i have the opinion on hundreds of Americans about Russia through all demographics. That does not suggest America in general does not like Russia.

Your statement that European players get less leeway is also uninformed. There is no actual evidence to suggest that. There is just anecdotal evidence which is very different. That is a generalization based on specific incidents. But not a broad range of incidents that would suggest a full data set and sample size.

Both of your claims are stereotypes but not statistical evidence. Meaning, there is absolutely no proof or study that suggest those 2 things. While there is plenty of evidence and research to suggest certain cultural traits.

And by definition a wrong generalization would be misguided and uninformed. A correct generalization can only be based on statistical analysis and actual research and experience with a large sample size.. And by that I don't mean the conjecture of a bias media. Further, just because I claim there is a bias liberal media doesn't mean I agree with a bias conservative media. I was just pointing out the rhetoric of the liberal side of the bias media. There of course is the bias side to the conservative media but that is inconsequential as those opinions are not based on that conservative media, but the liberal one. I also gave no opinion where I stand on either side of that. Personally I have a distaste for both the liberal and conservative ends of the media spectrum because it's largely BS and conjecture.

Any of my statements about Russian culture are largely based on research about Russian culture before and after the Soviet era and a large sample size of Russian immigrants that I have dealt with. Meaning hundreds in person and thousands through research. I did not talk to 5 Russians and come up with a pointless theory about Russian culture. It's also not a judgment but an observation showing differences between cultures. These are completely documented and studied traits. Further I specifically pointed out that a cultural generalization does not identify those traits in every individual or even most individuals. There is a difference between an individuals perception and beliefs and the culture at large.

THe idea that Trump represents American culture is simply not true. He represents an aspect of American culture but certainly not even close to the majority. Certainly, the minority.

Ah right. I forgot. We're talking to the Russian historian, who has done deep research into Russian culture. I'm sure you're published on it. That's amazing! Can you link me to some of your work? Also amazing you've had time to do all of that on Russian culture while simultaneously doing all the statistical sampling you talk about that you've done within America on a completely different topic. Truly incredible, even the most devoted researchers only have time to devote to one topic.

So laughable and embarrassing.

[rangerdanger]

If you want to to make a generalization of population, you need an appropriate sample of the population. 1000, or 10000, or 100000 is not an appropriate sampling to make a generalization on 330 million people. Even if it was, you wouldn't have properly sampled subsets, so again, understand statistics or like...don't I guess. Saying "thousands" is a proper sample for "hundreds of millions", is assumption and conjecture. You're making yourself look worse and worse. You're making it clear you don't understand statistics and sampling. You're making it clear you don't understand evidence, and you're making it clear you don't really understand what you're talking about.

Listen, you don't have to take my word for it. This is something you can easily look up. This is not something you need to "feel" or "think" it's simply something that is or isn't. It's not something worth debating or that even should be debated because there is clear fact. It's standard practice in statistical analysis. You seriously should do that before making these claims.

You don't know what a proper sample size is. I am just trying to relay the facts to you. Think what you want. No where will you find that a necessary sample size is in the millions regarding population. No where. You are telling me it's clear that I don't understand statistics and making myself look worse before even finding out the facts. I wouldn't be saying this if I wasn't certain. You are further making it clear you don't know by making this personal. You seriously can't embarrass me and your claims are nonsense.

All I am saying to you is look it up. Simple as that. Because right now you think you are correct without actually knowing. And how do you know what I've properly sampled? How do you know what subsets I have experience with. You are trying really hard to defend a point of view that simply can't be defended. You are going to great lengths to discredit me before even finding out the facts.

I know you think you are correct. In a way it makes sense, if you don't understand how statistics works. But please, for your own sake, look it up. Because you are absolutely wrong about all of this.

[rangerdanger]

Ah right. I forgot. We're talking to the Russian historian, who has done deep research into Russian culture. I'm sure you're published on it. That's amazing! Can you link me to some of your work? Also amazing you've had time to do all of that on Russian culture while simultaneously doing all the statistical sampling you talk about that you've done within America on a completely different topic. Truly incredible, even the most devoted researchers only have time to devote to one topic.

So laughable and embarrassing.

Again, making claims attempting to discredit me without any substance. A last dash attempt to prove your points? Attacking me personally won't change the facts of the matter, that you are wrong. It's not even like we are discussing something abstract that can't be discerned by math. We are literally talking about statistics and data here. We are talking about the basis of the most concrete and definitive subjects that exists. I never claimed to publish anything. I never claimed any of these thins you are attempting to insult me with. I am simply claiming experience with these subjects, and more specifically statistical analysis. You can believe me or not. It won't change the facts of the matter and it certainly won't change the statistics.

This has just become a childish exercise and completely absurd. You are taking a great chance attempting to use these methods before actually knowing what you are talking about. At this point, I am not even attempting to argue with you I am simply trying to educate you and correct you on something very easily found out.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a complete moron. Please, look it up. And let's end this nonsense. You don't even have to come back to tell me I'm correct. I really don't need to hear I'm right here.

You are correct that it's laughable and embarrassing. However, before it gets any worse I suggest you just google it. I am quite amused to be honest but it's starting to become a bit tedious. This has gone beyond hockey to a place that is completely unnecessary.

[rataylor22]

This conversation is hilarious.

All of the proper points have been proven.

None of them are yours.

[rangerdanger]

This conversation is hilarious.

All of the proper points have been proven.

None of them are yours.

*sigh* this is just sad man. You're going to look back at this whenever you learn the truth and feel pretty silly. I'm going to get something to eat. I've tried to educate you. Not about the hockey even where there are points of legitimate debate. Simply on the matter of statistics and math. I'm sorry you refuse to look it up. Your attempts to discredit and prove me wrong are just.....really really silly at this point and they are having no effect. I wish we could go back to discussing hockey at this point, but clearly you are going to double down instead of attempting to educate yourself. And really, this would be hilarious if it hadn't gotten to the point where it was just sad. Are all Albertans this dense? See , that was a joke about generalization.. get it?

Oh you got me I guess. Look at me and how wrong I am about everything. Clearly you are the superior intellect and far more educated than I. I guess you win. I'm sure you will want the last word to prove your dominance in this debate. Sooo I will leave it at that. Goodnight.

[Axeman33]

*sigh* this is just sad man. You're going to look back at this whenever you learn the truth and feel pretty silly. I'm going to get something to eat. I've tried to educate you. Not about the hockey even where there are points of legitimate debate. Simply on the matter of statistics and math. I'm sorry you refuse to look it up. Your attempts to discredit and prove me wrong are just.....really really silly at this point and they are having no effect. I wish we could go back to discussing hockey at this point, but clearly you are going to double down instead of attempting to educate yourself. Goodnight. And really, this would be hilarious if it hadn't gotten to the point where it was just sad.

You'll learn soon enough that "discussing" issues with rataylor is like pissing in the wind. Don't take it personally.

[rataylor22]

*sigh* this is just sad man. You're going to look back at this whenever you learn the truth and feel pretty silly. I'm going to get something to eat. I've tried to educate you. Not about the hockey even where there are points of legitimate debate. Simply on the matter of statistics and math. I'm sorry you refuse to look it up. Your attempts to discredit and prove me wrong are just.....really really silly at this point and they are having no effect. I wish we could go back to discussing hockey at this point, but clearly you are going to double down instead of attempting to educate yourself. And really, this would be hilarious if it hadn't gotten to the point where it was just sad.

Oh you got me I guess. Look at me and how wrong I am about everything. Clearly you are the superior intellect and far more educated than I. I guess you win. Goodnight.

Your statistics and math are super super super wrong. Like incredibly wrong. Your lack of understand of proper sampling size and diversity is laughable. I tried to educate you. It was hilarious. It's fine to not understand statistics, but to keep pretending like you do when you so very clearly do not is not sad it's hilarious.

[rangerdanger]

You'll learn soon enough that "discussing" issues with rataylor is like pissing in the wind. Don't take it personally.

Thanks for the encouragement. I feel bad at this point. Like, it's not even worth discussing because it's such a concrete fact. Not even talking about hockey at this point. Just simple Statistics 101. Like. I tried I guess. The fact that he refuses to even look it up baffles me. I guess it makes him feel better. Maybe it will help him sleep. Pissing in the wind indeed.

[rataylor22]

Thanks for the encouragement. I feel bad at this point. Like, it's not even worth discussing because it's such a concrete fact. Not even talking about hockey at this point. Just simple Statistics 101. Like. I tried I guess.

Yes. It is simple statistics.

[rataylor22]

You'll learn soon enough that "discussing" issues with rataylor is like pissing in the wind. Don't take it personally.

2 people debate. Neither changes their stance. "Yea f*** that guy, you can't discuss anything with him. I am the REASONABLE one."

Hypocrite.