LTS

Yea.. this team sucks.. I wish the coach and GM had a clue about how to make them competitive. The team is in a playoff position while everyone knows they still need another player. They are not Toronto who have too much money tied up in 3 players. They are not Tampa who have a ton of talent to sign and players with NMC/NTC littering their roster. I'd be really mad if the season finished like this and the team made the playoffs with this crappy coach and GM. ?

The real question is.. does the color of the jersey help hide the ball on handoffs to give Allen an advantage or is it just skin color that could do that? If you don't know what I am referring to: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28227397/49ers-suspend-radio-analyst-tim-ryan-lamar-jackson-comments Which, honestly, I don't think are that bad and have merit. Much like the questions of black stick tape helping hide the puck longer than white stick tape to give an advantage to shooters and so on -> https://www.nhl.com/coyotes/news/black-tape-vs-white-tape/c-428012 Anyway..

I understand the approach you have here. However, in the context of what the NHL (and at least USA Hockey) are trying to remove from the game, it's exactly hits like these. In today's game you just can't target the head and for Cernak it appears that's what he's doing. What's worse is that he just was suspended for targeting the head so it'll draw even more scrutiny. Frankly the hit is unnecessary if the attempt is to separate the player from the puck. If the intent is to hit the opposing player as hard as you can, then sure, it has merit. The game is not about that anymore however. Yeah, if you are Evander Kane you have a player who is known for cheap shots trying to line you up. You are exposed to the boards so you've gotta expect his hit. I think Kane tried to brace for it and Gudas goes a little lower so Kane bounces of the shoulder (slightly) a little and ends up hitting Gudas in the head. I can't fault Kane here, it's just an unfortunate sequence and in my opinion speaks to what freejame said above. Sometimes shots to the head will happen. I don't think he deserved a game on that and certainly not a fine or a suspension. I can understand why it was called a game misconduct in the normal course of play, but in slow motion i think it looks different. The biggest problem for Gudas is that he locks legs with Kane and that is what keeps him from staying upright enough to avoid an awkward impact with the boards.

I think what the public at large accepts is one thing. What the public at large finds time to care about and tacitly accepts is something else. Sadly, when it comes to politics, I think the latter is the most common scenario.

Franzen speaks up about abusive behavior of Mike Babcock from five years ago. This is evidence of Babcock being an asshat and bullying. You call him a snowflake and that you are not interested in hearing his whining over something from five years ago. I think this clearly demonstrates that you have a tolerance level for people who act like this. Because you didn't talk about Babcock, you spoke out against Franzen. Your next response speaks to it being five years ago and that people change. This seems to indicate that you want to put a statute of limitations on these things. Which may be possible because people do change. However, I argue that with Babcock is being accused of the same behavior more recently than five years ago. Chelios has spoken out against him, Marner, we've seen the players stepping forward. There's no evidence of Babcock changing, just that he's been an asshat and a bully for quite some time. So, is Franzen still the problem here for you? Is Franzen still a snowflake? Would that mean Chris Chelios is a snowflake as well? How about the other players who are speaking up? Are they snowflakes? I wouldn't want to insinuate how you feel about them. So, rather than hazard a guess based the words you use to state your position I will just ask point blank.

Well, this particular thread is about Democratic presidential hopefuls and not Donald Trump. There is no need to discuss him in this thread. Trump has a thread. It'll serve everyone better to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic candidates without bringing Trump into the conversation for anything more than "can they beat Trump in an election" question. Which is really still constraining the discussion to the candidates strengths/weaknesses. Going off on Trump's record is not relevant in this thread.

I didn't attempt to do anything other than to offer perspective on why someone might wait five years, which was directly responding to your point. I addressed your use of the term snowflake, which I felt did not apply. It was perfectly relevant. I did not attempt to bastardize your response. Your response stands and I refuted it with reason. Which, Eleven found enough value in to comment that it provided perspective for him. You then quoted Eleven in your below response that he had made to me. I would think that indicates it provides some value and is not a bastardization of your response. It's unfortunate that your response to someone refuting your points is to attempt to label them as unscrupulous. Your label does not bother me as it could not be further from the truth. Allow me to offer this. People can evolve, it does not mean they do. Said grown man was accused of the same behavior more recently. The information being provided by Franzen is an indication that Babcock did not just recently start engaging in this behavior but rather has an established history of behaving this way. Perhaps it does not mean anything to you, that's fine. It meant something Franzen, and that's what matters. Franzen lived with it, not you. Either way, it merely adds more evidence to the fact that Babcock is a certain kind of person, he was that kind of person then, he's that kind of person now. He may not be that person in the future. He might evolve, but that hasn't happened yet and at this particular intersection of his behavior and the league standard, it means that he's unemployed.

This is why I wish there was an ignore thread option. I don't ignore people, but there have been plenty of threads I wish I could ignore. ?

You love the term snowflake. You don't even know what was said. Are you advocating that people should be allowed to speak to others in any way they see fit? The issue at hand is that it appears that some of these "old school" hockey executives have a rather unprofessional method of dealing with players. It creates an atmosphere they do not want to work in. This, in any other corporate culture, would be unacceptable, and as such, it should be unacceptable in the NHL as well. Why five years later? Well, I think it speaks to the level of concern players have when it comes to speaking up about these matters. Perhaps they are concerned that "rocking the boat" will lead to them being blackballed by these "old school" hockey executives. This would then cost them millions of dollars and remove them from playing the game they love. There's no need to treat other people like garbage. No one has to accept it. Your insinuation is that you are allowed to say whatever you want to say and that if someone else doesn't like it, well, that's too bad. Well, if the extent of your interaction with that person is limited to that single engagement, then so be it. It's easy enough to chalk it up to you being an asshat and move on. If, however, it's an ongoing interaction, especially when the two have to work together, then it's very much a different story. You are still an asshat, but the other shouldn't have to leave their job just because you are the asshat. Johnny might be a snowflake if he can't handle walking his hockey equipment to the car after practice and he gets picked up at the door. Johnny is not a snowflake if his boss engages in verbal or physical harassment.

I think the "we" part of your post is what should be examined. There are those in this thread that are finding value in the discussion. So "they" are getting value. There are those, such as yourself, who apparently are not finding value. So "you" are not getting value. I'm not sure the "we" can be used to define everyone here. What you seem to be ignoring is the point that you don't need to read the thread and certainly don't need to crap in it. If you can ignore what others have said about your insertion into the "discussion" then you are capable of ignoring the thread.

Would definitely like to see the uptempo play I've been seeing from the team lately. Let's get a W.

As I ponder it, the only thing I can think of is a waiver situation. I am sure Lazar has to clear, I don't know about Dea. Could it be that they don't want to send them back down and risk losing them until they have their forward depth back?

Where does he take no responsibility for it? He hired a guy to do a job and the guy didn't do it. He trusted a GM to not be a dick and the GM was a dick. I can fault Berglund for hiring his agent in the first place? It's easy enough to say after the fact that I guess Berglund should have followed up with his agent, but I can think of plenty of times in my life where I trusted someone who was hired to do their job was going to do their job. I'm not a micro-manager by any stretch. Players trust in their agents and sometimes that does not pan out, but to say that the player is at fault for doing so is not somewhere I can get to. I agree with you. There is a distinction to be made somewhere between a temporary mental health issue that can be brought upon by situational stressors and the mental health issues others suffer brought about by other more deeply seeded means. Where that line would be drawn is beyond me. I certainly can't see why he'd not want to come to work every day. One could argue that he should have made the best of it, but I would counter that, in his eyes, he did make the best of it. He chose to walk away from a lot of money. That's something a lot of people would have a hard time doing. I think it speaks to the level that the situation impacted him and certainly how much it worked against what he found important in life. We can certainly see how much the situation still bothers him and how much he really doesn't want to discuss it anymore. I don't blame him. Every time i think of that jackhole boss that lied to me about a raise I get angry. Not so much at him but at the capacity for people to act in such a way that intentionally screws with someone else's life.

Well.. I'm not saying they can't be upset. Just because I can't find fault with the guy doesn't mean others are not allowed to do so. I simply state why I don't. That said, at the time, people didn't think he was producing, didn't want him on the roster, and were mad about the trade that brought him here. His leaving helped the Sabres free up cap space. So, if he had "stuck it out" would you have Brandon Montour now? Seemingly not, and Berglund would be one of the contracts you'd still want off the roster. So, I don't think Berglund screwed the Sabres over. I think Sabres fans continue to be upset about two things regarding Partrick Berglund: 1. He said he didn't want to come to Buffalo, and people don't want to hear that, despite fans on here every night talking about how much this team sucks. The classic, you can't diss my city and my team, but I can. 2. His face and name reminds them of one of the most controversial trades in Buffalo Sabres history and of another player who lost his love for the game while IN Buffalo and was traded, then found his love for the game again, but for some reason, Sabres fans give him a pass.

I mean.. most nights this year (and most nights last year) it seems like a good portion of the people on here want to put the Sabres on their no watch list. I recall being lied to about a measly $2k raise at a job once. I had been told it was in the works and by chance I inquired about it with the person who was above my boss and he told me had no idea what I was talking about. I explained the situation. Five minutes later I had a talk with my boss at the time. At the end of the conversation I told him to Go F himself and walked away. That was after 9 months of being on the job... a really bad job. Berglund had spent 10 years in a city and he effectively had it all taken away from him because of the actions of two people. The agent and the GM of the Blues who made the trade. I'm not sure I would have reacted any differently. Oh.. and Buffalo sure as hell would have been on my list too. If you are given a say in where you get to spend your life, you'd be pretty angry if someone else you paid and relied upon to make sure it happened screwed you over and it was taken away from you. I can't even imagine being mad at Berglund.

Oh... there's a game today. I hope they show up to play. I get to watch this one... maybe.

Remind me again which instrument you are on? This is really good by the way.

One could only wish for it. I weep for my own children who routinely just believe whatever they hear or read. Despite attempts to teach them how to think critically. Perhaps chess should be a school subject. Hell, start with checkers and Othello... throw in a little Mastermind. Sigh.

They are already open to foreign interference, even if they choose the highest bidder. No one develops code from scratch, no one builds chips from scratch. There are always attack vectors that are open to exploitation. Even if someone was to build everything from scratch their code would likely have even more vulnerabilities than using "off the shelf" code/components to build from. This is the illusion of security. Yep.. psychological manipulation. The only defense against that is critical thinking and intelligence.

It's almost as if his name is defining the kind of player he'll be?

Inside a big metal barn with pipes all over the place, usually the phone signal isn't that great. The wireless there is pitiful as well. But yes.. in this case I would rather watch his game than the Sabres too! ?

Aye. In the interest of being much clearer on initial conveyance I would probably say, "I've tapped/nudged guy with my foot while walking behind them on the bench to get their attention." Yep, I don't disagree. It was just your initial statement stating you kick them when in the context of the conversation Bill Peters KICKED players. So it came across, to me, slightly different.

Will miss this one... the kid's first varsity hockey game of the season is tonight (yeah, seriously, tonight). Hanging around Lake Shore rink in Greece tonight, what joy.... (I hate that rink). Good news is that we're playing Aquinas and there's a few kids/families we've played with and I've coached in the past so I always enjoy that. Not sure I care that I am missing the game. Just waiting for some malcontents to move on (intentionally vague).

I understand the frustration. Yet it seems like somehow that may have happened... or may not have. I suppose I should look at that bill, but security is an illusion, especially if its being peddled by the government. Yeah, I opened the bill and stopped almost immediately. I don't have it in me to read through a bunch of rambling legalese appropriating funds to some government contractors in attempts to provide an illusion of security. Let's just say this... non electronic voting has been compromised far too often, electronic voting is insecure by the very nature of it being electronic. System are insecure, especially highly desegregated systems such as voting machines. The biggest problem? Even if security weren't a facade, you aren't protecting against people voting because of psychological campaigns meant to steer people to voting a certain way.

Kicked players? Seriously? Why would ever kick a player? What is the intent of you kicking them?