Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,139 Excellent

About LTS

  • Rank
    Won't be around much for awhile.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Elsewhere, not here.
  • Interests
    Hockey, hockey, hockey

Previous Fields

  • Test
    this is a test!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks, I try to ignore most everything that idiot says so I don't always see the references. I had not seen any headlines referencing it either. I simply cannot listen to him, at all. I'd rather listen to 100 hours of nails on chalkboards.
  2. Can you please reference an article or some other content when posting an item of this magnitude?
  3. This one is going to hit hard for a lot of people. You hope a 4th Republican can be found who believes no decision should be made until after the election and the United States has spoken. Naturally the push will be on to get someone slammed through. She battled the hell out of that cancer.
  4. LTS


    Is it fair to say that a person with mental health issues has control over whether they are "jerks" or not? In your statement you are implying that someone a persons attitude is somehow a separate function of the brain that would not be impacted by a disease that impacts the brain. I don't agree. It's great that the people you know aren't "jerks". I certainly have known quite a few who would balance the equation. You are right though. He's not a Sabre. He's a human.
  5. LTS


    You were getting on people who didn't have a heart for those with co-morbidities. Yet, you have no heart for a guy who has mental health issues.
  6. Staal, every day. He's proven. Also, if things don't totally pan out in Buffalo, he's worth more at the deadline than Johansson or Bjugstad. He'd net a return just for his leadership and experience. Why does Minnesota want him gone? He's not a Guerin guy and Minnesota is about to rebuild, hard. They want something younger.
  7. Consider you probably have to give up Jack Eichel, another roster player or high prospect, and a 1st or two to get him.. does that make the Sabres a playoff team? I mean, adding McDavid for nothing? sure.
  8. I think they all do at some point. They have to in order to get other inside information later. Do a favor here, get a favor there... sorry favour. 🙂
  9. Eric Stall Cheaper Bigger Veteran Former "C" Stanley Cup Champion Cozens is a young 6'3 center. Staal is 6'4. I could see similarities in their games and I bet it doesn't hurt to bring him in to help mentor the young kid. I love this move.
  10. LTS


    Right, well perhaps you didn't use that word. I can dig up all the other colorful words you use to indicate just how much you care about him. Want to summarize it here? I can go pull the numerous times you've colorfully displayed your "disdain" for Lehner and his mental health issues and stated just how much he deserved no remorse. No, I don't think a higher level of coordination was needed. This is an inconsistency within a single state. A state that is largely lauded on how it has cracked down and kept infection rates low. But the "rules" are a little odd at times.. they might not be as protecting as people think. Here's the question, is NY safe or is just not exposed at a high level again? There's a difference right? So, will NYS continue to see its low infection rates because its residents are shut-ins.. or will things open up, there'll be some exposure, and then boom.. NYS has an outbreak because no one was exposed and now they are.. or, will people have just been exposed with no symptoms and so no one really thinks anything about it any more. How do people want to live their lives? The long-term health implications, are to me, much like dying from it. My point being, COVID-19 will impact each person in some way. The way it will impact that person will most probably be the same whether they are exposed today or in six months. There's talk of a vaccine, but a vaccine has never existed for a coronavirus before and even if they develop one here it might be 50% effective (as projected). What if the 50% of those protected would have been the group that would have been asymptomatic and the other 50% were ones who had increased risks? It really isn't doing much, especially if its shown that while I had the vaccine and I am not infected I might still be able to carry it around and infect others.
  11. Gotta love the media being the shills for players or organizations.. who's angle is he working here.. Pietrangelo, Blues, Leafs or Knights? Guaranteed he's floating that for someone's benefit to circumnavigate NHL policies.
  12. Haha.. I would say the same thing. Go back 20 years (sigh.. 20 years) and i was actually part of a global competitive team playing Counter-Strike (before it became what it is today). We trained 3 times a week, working on strategies, communication, etc. I made no money. Of course there was no money to really be made then. These days? I can't compete with these kids, not even close. I can hold my own in NHL franchise, but the best players? I'm not even Matt Ellis to them. I like that break. If you can tell someone else what to do, it's not a sport.
  13. LTS


    Extraordinary? yes, certainly. In no way do I say the virus is not severe or irrelevant. The question at hand is how at risk are people in society. Do I stop the guy from eating his 4th cheeseburger because he's 450lbs and can barely stand? People want to simplify the issue into what is "easy" and "avoidable" except it's absolutely not "easy" or "avoidable". NYS, the best place on Earth to be safe from COVID (due to our incredibly low numbers) has allowed youth hockey to have non-competitive practices. They cannot play games. Seems logical. Except they can go to out of state tournaments as long as that state is not on the list. That's the kind of stupid at play here. It's the kind of garbage that makes you wonder what's really at stake? What's really being protected? So, my kid (who was going to Cleveland next weekend until Ohio went back on the list) was going to go to Cleveland, and come back and then go to school. You'd argue that he should not. He might carry it back from Cleveland, come to school, pass it to Susie, Susie might have someone in her family who is at risk. Yes, that's possible. Is it probable? No one knows. Says the guy who hates a goaltender for his mental health issues? Exactly. What people also fail to take into account is that a virus that spreads widely and can cause death such as COVID-19 should have higher death rates early on. Those most vulnerable are going to die and those who are not will survive. As time goes on and the numbers/testing/whatever play out, the overall death rate has gone down. Because a person who gets it and does not die will contribute to that. Smoking in public is not illegal. Smoking in public places may be, depending on where you live and it may be illegal to do so close to an entrance. That said, smoking bars are allowed, would you walk into one on your own free will? You know people drive drunk all the time, do you choose to not go on the road? We all go out in society accepting risks. Laws don't prevent everyone from doing something that could cause you harm. Laws prevent people from texting and driving, but you still go on the road and one person ignoring that law could kill you. Again, how much risk do you personally want to take on in your life? You want everyone else to accommodate your level of risk. Why do they have to do that? Why are they not justified telling you to stay home if you don't want to be at risk? What's the acceptable amount of risk? That's the problem, it has been the problem, and will continue to be the problem. You say it's obvious, they say it's obvious. Clearly it's not obvious.
  14. LTS


    This is the real key and along the lines of what I mentioned months ago. There are people who are at increased risk to this virus. We don't necessarily know who is and who is not (although some people are definitely more readily identifiable). That said, we've accepted this behavior in the past with the other coronavirus outbreaks, with influenza, with other communicable diseases that posed a risk to others in society. Just like some people have a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, etc. It's genetics (or in some cases self-induced) but it's also life. We're not all equal and unfortunately some of the "weaker" people die. Yes, some. I know the response "How many is too many? What is acceptable?" You know what, I don't answer that question, Mother Nature does. Not everyone can be saved. Healthcare systems are not overrun at this point, so if a person contracts the virus and is treated but still dies, who do you blame? And as always the question goes back to... how much should others be required to inhibit their behaviors to protect those who are at risk? I'm not advocating any particular stance, I've been wearing a mask, avoiding contact, etc. That's my decision, but I do have a hard time telling others how to live their lives without also looking at the guy eating fast food every day who barely has a job and thinking "This dude is a poster child for government healthcare which will be taxed out of my income. Why can't he be responsible with his health?" Slippery slopes..
  • Create New...