...

You live to correct every post I make.

You keep referring to the "rape kit" which is inaccurate, based on what we know. It is only the evidence bag, empty. Otherwise, I'm not paying attention to your argument above, no offense, the things we know are already intriguing enough. Just trying to help you remain accurate in whatever it is you're trying to say.

For it to be a convincing forgery, it'd have to be pretty accurate. So those things you are describing need to be absolutely correct anyway.

If you haven't seen Terminator, then you can't fully appreciate the references to "Skynet". Same as referencing "Big Brother" without having read 1984.

What are the odds one of the bags/kits is a forgery?

I like this. It's how the scenario is forming in my mind, as well. I would not be surprised that some pro-Kane person, un-related to the investigation, found the bag, somehow, and is trying to intimidate the accuser.

Let's be clear, there was no evidence, just the bag for the rape kit, which was empty.

WHACKO! Holy crap this is bizzaro.

This is one of the "tape delayed" games on the NHL Channel, init?

I have great disdain for all of you who changed your user names to something completely unrelated to what your former user name was leading me to not know who it is I'm communicating with.

Wow, you guys are really high on Larsson. I see the role y'all are slotting him into, and he's obviously not a top 6 guy, but either I missed stuff over the summer, or you folks are reading a lot into the final few weeks of last season. I wonder if he sees himself in the grinder role long term, or if he thinks he can be more of a skill guy. We've been down that road of trying to force a player into a role he didn't want to accept.

I suppose he needs to be told by Bylsma that he's on the team.

Shyts and gyggles.

No, no. Dig it: Andrew Peters, as a colour guy, reminds me of Mike Robitaille. And I think he and Dunleavy sound great together.

No, no...

I'm going to say it, and I know some of you are thinking it, too...

There's our star.

There's our number one line.

I've never heard "tree" used. Must be some cheap &hit.

I have to say, Peters is doing an excellent job as a color guy. Rob Ray better look out.

Were Nazi's and toilet paper mentioned in any of that? I didn't read it.

Hockey talk. Okay, Sam looks beastly these days. I think he eventually centers the second line, but can't begin to guess where he (or Eichel) will start. I expect a slow start from him and Jack, but believe by December both will have soundly found their sea-legs. This will coincide with the forwards and coaches figuring out each other and chemistry developing.

Do some YouTubing of Vincent Dooly. He's like the next Andy Kaufman.

See, you guys can have this incredibly detailed and oddly polarized conversation about how you think people ought to be, how sex and sexuality should be this delicate thing that people dance around for the sake of all that is moral and pure, and then I run across this video while looking for something else (which I will post in the awesome thread after I post this): BTW, it's NSFW... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ENv7Dac7w So, whatever. Chicks dig sex. Guys dig sex. Chicks can and do flaunt their sexuality, same as guys. There is nothing wrong with it. If a foreigner completely unfamiliar with our culture were to read this thread, you would leave them with the impression that nearly all American men are predators, and that nearly all American women have to utilize ninja skillz to so much as go out shopping. It's like the media trying to convince us all that homosexuality is everywhere and is mainstream, when it actually only comprises 3.8% of the population. WTF is that all about. Truth is, like anything else human (and otherwise), there are aberrations of behavior. People are violent sometimes. It's like every time a pit bull bites someone, it's news, but all of the other dog bites are ignored, because it's not a pit bull. Aggravated assaults occur with, arguably, alarming frequency...those are pretty traumatic. Why don't we have an aggravated assault thread going?

I should have taken a picture when I saw it first. I checked after I posted the first time, but that was like an hour ago. Obviously in that hour the planet has rotated, because the stars I used to mark the "object" are no longer in the same position. Where I live, I can see the plane traffic lanes clearly; for the sake of description, the following distances are arbitrary: The planes coming in to land at the N.F. Airport/Airbase at 10k ft. which travel, usually, south to north. The planes landing at BNIA at 20k ft. travelling from the west south west to east north east. Then there's a lane that's travelled mostly east to west way the f*ck up there at 30k ft or higher. I have a great view of the sky for being so close to the city and can see the major constellations, among other stars. So, I'm used to looking up at the sky, I know what twinkling stars look like normally, and I know the various forms a plane at night can take - their patterns and the freaky way they look coming head on, etc. I have no idea what the hell I was seeing hover due north about 10 degrees off the horizon at 11:40pm. I thought at first it was an aircraft, but it wasn't moving, in any direction (and trust me, I can tell). I then thought it was a bright star, the view effected, as usual, by the atmosphere (causing the twinkle), except the twinkle was clearly red, green, blue and yellow - flashing not unlike a plane coming at you in the night, except really bright. I finally thought, and perhaps this is closer to the truth than not, that it was a "close" star, whose twinkling and color was enhanced by the aurora borealis, seeing as it was due north. The challenge that last explanation has is that the "star" is completely gone now.