LTS

From this article This triggered a thought inside my head. Twice in my life I have had the fortune to work underneath (not directly, either) a leader who reminds me of this quote. Even though they might be someone you interact with once every few weeks it felt like you interacted with them every day. They remember everything that you tell them. They ask about things in your life and prove it's not just passing conversation when they recall that information and then follow up on it in later conversations (weeks later, months later). They do this with everyone they interact with. Why is this important? Because those two leaders were people that everyone wanted to work for. Their people wanted that leader to succeed and the feeling was reciprocated. I had many conversations where I was given advice on how to improve my approach to things and it wasn't until a few days later you realized that you had been given the advice. The way it was delivered just bypassed every rejection mechanism and you adopted that improvement without thinking about it. In continuing my above story, the two leaders I referred to always seemed to know about everything. They weren't going to win the nobel prize (well, okay, one might have had a chance) but they were never ignorant of a subject. They were informed and could speak on seemingly everything at a colleague type level. Granted they were also utterly brilliant in their specific field, but seemingly could understand anything. While we have no experience with Krueger yet, the big difference from what I am reading is that Krueger appears to be more intellectual than Nolan when it comes to the game. I'm not trying to sleight Nolan here, but he was largely known for getting a lot out of his players without having a real hockey sense. He was motivational but not really strategic. It seems that Krueger has a better head for strategy and perhaps understands the game and the mechanics of it at a higher level. In this way he can relate to players who think the game that way and in ways perhaps Nolan could not. We shall see. As for Keefe, I think it's premature to assume they did not inquire about him. It may also be seen that he really wants to take over Toronto. Finally, the stuff regarding his past, no matter how we feel about it, may be enough to red flag him with the organization. Right or wrong, it may be that they don't want to risk something bigger coming to light once he's a head coach. I'm not saying that's the case, of course I have no idea. I am merely stating that I don't think there's enough evidence to pass judgment on what did or did not happen with regards to Keefe. ---------------------- I have no idea how this hire will turn out. However, given what I've seen of this roster and its star players it seems clear that getting them to play together has to be a top priority and the past few coaches have not been able to do that. The team has the appearance of being together but its play on the ice suggests otherwise. I can only hope this is a step in the right direction.

Corrupted in less than a page... sad. I'm not a Bills fan any longer. I'm not even a football fan. The dude certainly put his heart and passion into the team and the sport. He's too damn young (everyone is, every time). We should all be so lucky to find something we can be that passionate about in life. When I see this story (and have seen the past updates) I simply look at it as a team and a fan coming together when the fan needed it more than ever. It shouldn't be hard to find the good in that.

I love how much debate there is over a guy who might not even be interviewed or offered a spot as a coach. People on here almost ready to drop the gloves. Y'all are nuts.

The coloring sounds accurate and mockingbirds are pretty nasty too.

Most likely Blue Jays.. they are highly aggressive around a nesting area. They'll buzz anything and everything. Growing up we had a nest in the pine tree in the neighbors yard and we had to run to get into the car before they hit us.

Everything old is old still.

Just read it. Thanks for the summary too. It helps. I had to read about "FEE" as I have no background on the group providing the report. Seems like good news overall. The metrics on unemployment have certainly looked good without a doubt. Perhaps I have to read again because I don't recall them discussing how prices for goods have been rising as well though. Earning more money because you have to spend more money isn't really all that great of an improvement. However, it's still better than not earning more and still having to spend more. ?

I have not read this, but can you provide some summary or position on why you posted it? (granted the title has an obvious statement in it). I'm heading out the door, but I will look at it later. It just helps if there is more than a link.

Better to despise them all.

I refuse to submit to the pessimism. I'm not really an optimist either but I just don't want to be negative. There's enough of it out there. I am hopeful the Sabres can turn things around. Mostly hopeful for those who have a hard time remaining positive in times like these. For those who allow the team to get them down and seemingly ruin their day, week, month, year, etc. I'm going to Sweden to watch this team next year without knowing anything of what will be done between now and then. I'm fine with that decision.

You do that one more time and Josie is going to need a new person in her life... ?

Sounds like a perfectly good plan to me.

The Sabres might not do better. But I wouldn't have wanted any of those guys as the HC of this team. Assistants is another story.

Well... if you watched the Spider-Man Trailer #2 today you got some pretty big clues to where things are going.

FWIW - I have no idea what you are referring to as I have never seen an episode of the series and pay no attention to it. But I'll go with it I suppose.

More people talk about Game of Thrones than presidential elections and you are surprised about this? You've much to learn. ?

Your response is really over the top and incredibly presumptive. Bringing fire to a subject matter that is prone to exploding isn't always the best choice. I will admittedly say that I rolled my eyes at that moment in the movie. The reason? It was simply too contrived. In that way I feel that it undermines the message it is supposed to send. The message they had been building through a few movies up to that point. If they had simply let the scene come together organically without stopping to call it out and almost make it completely separate it would have been that much more powerful. Instead, it leads to these kinds of discussions where people mock the scene because it feels out of place with the flow of the battle. It's almost like someone thought, "we better throw in a scene to placate the people who think women superheroes are important". In that way, it cheapens the overall message. They could have accomplished more by creating longer engagement between Thanos and Captain Marvel and Scarlet Witch. They could have made some of the "bigger" battles involving females. They could have done all that and sent a far more powerful message than just creating a single scene that would be so obvious that it would not need to called out and then they went ahead and called it out anyway. I really enjoyed Captain Marvel, and Scarlet Witch has long been one of my favorite heroes (pre-movies). In fact, I want more from her, because she's seriously kick ass. That said, let me ask you about the statement I bolded, and it's just something to consider. In giving praise the your friend's fiance do you not also provide justification for the male mindset? She related to Captain Marvel, so suddenly she cared. She did not care about the male superheroes. In that way, she's saying that unless they are like me, I'm less likely to care about them. Males relating to male superheroes and not caring about female superheroes would be the equivalent. I understand that your response may be "well, there are so many more male superheroes." That's a true statement, and in that way there is an inequality. However, that blame can only be put on those who create the superheroes and not those who choose to like one superhero over another, correct? Note: This is different than people who say a female can't be a superhero. I feel I need to make that point abundantly clear. That sentimentality is beyond absurd. It's an interesting, fairly well thought out, theory. If that were to hold it would speak to incredible planning on the part of the Marvel Studios. For those who wanted more from some characters, I still maintain that those with reduced story points are the ones who will carry MCU Phase 4. There will be a Dr. Strange 2, there's already Spider-Man (which officially ends MCU Phase 3 and transitions to 4). There will be Guardians 3 (Asguardians? Either way). There's undoubtedly more Captain Marvel (she should be one of the main characters from here on out). The questions I have will be, how much more Black Panther will there be? Will they move the Earth bound characters to simply fill the "TV series" role on the Disney+ streaming service?

His defense was terrible in Game 4. Not sure any goalie was bailing them out.

I think using the phrase percentages was the easiest way to convey that the relative expense and revenues should align. For example, the Beauts don't play in KBC so their operating cost for the Arena is lower. They play at HarborCenter where the seating is proportionate to the number of fans they bring in. That of course is one of those major differences that drives the overall revenue. Each ownership situation is different, but if you look at the Beauts, the owners own the rink. There are costs associated with that rink that will be incurred regardless of who uses it. The question is can the Pegulas use the HarborCenter rink for another purpose that drives more revenue than the Beauts? This isn't the same for all owners, but it does change how the costs need to be allocated. There is the additional cost of "producing" the Beauts game (staffing concessions, ticket takers, etc.). There's no way you are going to pull in enough money from playing 8 games at HarborCenter to pay the women playing enough money. But at the same time, they are only playing 8 games there. Your first sentence is factually incorrect. There are people who care. As such, you are incorrect in saying "nobody cares". You probably mean, not enough people care, and that's absolutely true. The teams also have "real leagues" in that they play "real schedules" officiated by "real official" watched by "real fans" and played by "real players". As others have pointed out, if you are only there to watch the fastest, quickest, most athletic people on the planet, then you must only watch the top tier leagues. You must never watch high school, college, semi-pro, or minor league games of sport. Of course MLS is the top tier soccer league in the United States and it is barely successful despite it having male athletes. Sports is about watching people compete, at the levels they are supposed to compete. I appreciate sports for that. However, it's not about men or women, it's about whether that version of the sport can draw enough interest to support the salary level desired. It may be that at some point in time these sports do begin to draw enough, but it isn't today. Even the top professional sports had to grow their game. The problem that women's hockey will face specifically is that they are now competing against a far more complex field than the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA ever did. Today's viewership is drawn between not only sports, but other television programming, streaming video, streaming gamers, video games, etc. The amount of competition for money and eyeball time has increased exponentially and the amount of time or money to spend has not. It might even be said that the major sports could see a snap downturn in revenues in the near future as e-sports continues to rise. People already speak of major league sports basically becoming a corporate venue.

If you take a step back and really examine the situation, do you continue to believe that there is "the coach" out there based solely on either being the up and comer, or the re-tread, or the guy from another league? People talk about the "great coaches". Who are those "great coaches?" Every "great coach" has failed and continues to fail. I would argue that the "great coach" is not really a great coach but the right coach at the right time. I would define a great coach as a coach who can take ANY mediocre team and make them better. A great coach is one who can join a team and bring improvements to them immediately and then continue to keep them at a high level despite adversity in the roster. Great coaches should last longer than 10 years with a team. There are coaches who are bad. But there are a lot of coaches who are good enough to be the right coach at the right time. I'm not sure how many coaches are truly "great". A few years ago people were so upset about missing out on Babcock. He was the answer for the Sabres. Now, a few years later, people are waiting to see if he sticks in Toronto. Is he a great coach? Is a coach who wins 3 Cups with a single, very talented team, a great coach? They were probably the right coach at the right time. Because that coach, as soon as the roster stopped producing, was fired. He hadn't seen the Cup before that... will he this year in Florida? The up and comer might be the next great coach. Housley was widely lauded as an up and coming coach as well. The praise was higher than the criticism, to be certain. He flamed out here. The Sabres need the right coach. It probably won't be a "great coach".

It should be easy enough to look at both games and the percentages of how things break out and see if anything is out of line and fix that. But, if the percentages are in line or they are brought in line and the revenue is still not there then it's not a problem that boycotting would help. It's simply a need to market the game and grow it in its popularity so that more people want to see it more of the time. If the percentages are messed up then you can say it's not being equal for women and I think it's right to fix it. Otherwise, you have to play and pave the way for the next generation to benefit. The path of sports is such that the early trailblazers usually don't make the money that others in the future would make (even relatively speaking). It's the pain of being first. I'll be curious to follow this situation.

For those lamenting the Sabres game.. Keep in mind that the teams in the playoffs never played this way during the regular season, at least not on a routine basis. The level of intensity that goes into the game during the playoffs changes every team, every year. It's what makes the playoffs so much fun and the regular season, well, not as much fun.

You should enjoy it. You said "questioning" which is the act of raising the question, which implies that my action of questioning is silly. As such, you are implying that my actions are silly. You didn't say "it's a silly question" which would be different. But yeah, I made it personal. Use sunscreen, you are already a little orange.

You could rebut the point without telling me that I am silly for questioning it. I know you don't care, but it's what sets people off about you. I'm glad after all I wrote that's the point you wanted to debate. Congrats, I'll concede it and move on. Hooray for you.

Ahhh, where to start. There were a lot of "jokes" that just didn't need to be in there. No one needs commentary on Captain America's ass. We didn't need a FortNite reference. We don't need Lebowski Thor (although Stark's reference to him as Lebowski was classic). Thor was tiring in the movie and irrelevant. But, I think that's the point here. The movie had 3 main focus points. The closing of the story with Captain America, Iron-Man, and Black Widow. As such, the movie, overall, was going to focus on those three. It did so with what appeared to be pointless scenes. Captain America's therapy session - underscores his entire struggle. He's always telling people they need to move past things but as he said, he never could. In the end, he moved past it. Iron-Man/Tony Stark - always needed to make sure he left the world a better/safer place. His struggle was always "how" to do it. The scenes with his daughter set the path for his end. The conversation with his father sealed the deal. His father lamenting he was too wrapped up in things other than his family. In the end, Pepper tells him everyone will be okay and Tony can finally end his internal conflict. Black Widow is a tough one. Truthfully, if Barton is that which she loved most then what was with the whole Hulk romance angle? If Barton truly loved Natasha then how does he live his life out with his wife and kids when he's overburdened with the love of his life being dead? Perhaps we are to believe it was a different kind of love for each other? That aside, her moments on basically taking over for Fury were what set up her end. She's uncomfortable with being in that role and she's realized she's no path forward. When she dies, she dies. She can't have children. She's had no family other than the Avengers/SHIELD. The battle is outpacing her with the onslaught of other world creatures. So, yes, Captain Marvel was an afterthought, but she'll be a core component of the 4th phase of the MCU. Thor and Hulk will be the ones who carry the link between the two just as Iron-Man and Captain America did from 2 to 3. The next movies will likely really challenge people's loyalties because they will stop being about Earth and be more about the Universe. I'm sure there will be Earth angles thrown into the mix, but it's Asgardians, Guardians of the Galaxy, Hulk, and Captain Marvel. I'm sure you'll get some Earth stories with Hulk, Spider-Man, the new Captain America (Falcon), etc. I won't touch on the time travel aspects. I think there are some nuances that are not fully played out yet. My guess is that the movies may deal with repairing of the fractures in the time continuum. Keep in mind that Loki from 2004 used the tesseract to disappear. So, while he was killed in Infinity War, he prior self has forked the timeline at the Battle of New York. The tesseract that Captain America and Stark retrieve is from 1970. So, in theory, that's where Captain America returned the tesseract they stole. So, there's a timeline fork (according to their time travel rules) that occurred with Loki. One comment on the Time Stone. The time stone allows travel forward and backward along a given time thread. Sort of like a DVR. It clearly allows the person who knows how to wield it to basically see all the options along any number of "choose your own adventure" paths, but there is no indication that it allows people to jump between them. Just that they can see how time plays out. So, it's not necessarily possible to use the time zone to simply jump around in time. Keep in mind in Dr. Strange he uses the time stone like a DVR to replay the same moments over and over again to get a different outcome. He basically stops time on that timeline and repeats it. This would be different then moving back in the timeline while time continues to move forward still creating new events. Overall, I think the value of the movie will hopefully be increased with what comes next. It was still entertaining, but there were some humor parts that I felt detracted from the film.