LTS

I just want to say... If energy is neither created nor destroyed... And if we are comprised of energy... Then when we die, our energy is transformed... And we are reincarnated into whatever feeds on that energy... After enough cycles, perhaps that energy reassembled itself enough to feel as though you've had a past life... Because your energy has been around for eternity.

This is perhaps the most common way trials work these days. This is also why subscription buying is the trend. People buy everything via credit card and don't bother to look in detail at the transactions. So a little $10 here, $140 there and people miss it and forget about it. Everyone thinks they need Netflix, but if they were to truly look at their viewing habits they might be surprised how little they watch at times. Some people watch a ton of it though.. but those who don't end up paying a lot of money for only a few hours of entertainment.

No. I also don't see colors when I hear sound. I'm not sure why you chose to respond that way. If you did not understand my point it would have been better to just say as such so that I may attempt to clarify for you. Super simple version: Entity A sucks at A,B,C Entity B sucks at A,B,C,D Entity C sucks at B,D,E,F,G,H,I The order in which the issues above appear are their importance to each other. Each letter is the same in each group. As such, "I" is not as important as "B" however, and "D" is not as important as "A". However, Entity B sucks that much more than Entity A and Entity C, while doing A and C well, apparently sucks at a lot of other things. Now, if you applied a general value of importance to each you could calculate just how much it matters. Which is to say, if "A" had a value of 100, but "B" was 10, and the remainders down the line even less.. then Entity C, while doing more things wrong actually sucks less than Entities A and B because at least they do the really important thing right. See, it's easy. I can use colors if you want. ?

In your circles I can believe it.. you might unconsciously distance yourself from the kind of person that would believe the NE.. but people did. (I also was not around people like that). The only.. ONLY way this falls apart for the Republicans is if the constituents in the states of the Republican senators begin to show signs of not supporting their Senator for re-election in 2020... otherwise it's party line all day long... despite the obviousness of what has happened. In the end it's not even about whether or not Trump did something wrong and broke the law. The GAO has already basically said he did. It's a question of whether any of the 53 Republican Senators will actually vote to the law as opposed to the party line. Sad does not even begin to describe our political state at the moment...

Well.. let's think about that for a moment. Let's say other teams make the mistake, but overall that misspelled nameplate is only the 7th finger you can point at that organization. Whereas, with the Sabres, it might be the 14th finger you could point at them. So yes, it's way down the list... the list that is longer than most other teams when it shouldn't be. So, in one way, it's less important than other issues with the Sabres, but relative to other teams, it's worse because it adds on at #14 and not #7. They may share in some incompetencies, but they exceed them overall. Not the race you want to win.

So if you never ate it... are just judging the concept of it? Are you dismissing it by simply looking at its packaging? Are you being prejudicial based on its appearance? Are you not even willing to sample it so you can definitively say that it has no redeeming value? I mean.. it is one of the worst things ever invented.. but it's also kind of good. I'd eat that over vienna sausages all day long. or Spaghetti-O's... w/ hot dogs... ohhh now I am gonna be sick.

53-47. It's all you need to know. And yes.. it's all complete BS, but people in this country have been eating up made up news and information for decades. National Enquirer anyone? We're doomed, but it's cool, no one believes it because people on the TV tell you otherwise.

I'm surprised the alumni even agreed to wear those sweaters... maybe they never looked at the back? No way I'd accept that. Terrible.

Yeah.. there's a basic distance calculation that tells you what size is optimal. I was replacing a 55". Technically 58" would have fit, but they stopped making those. If I had a long room I would go in for a much bigger screen, but too big and it's actually a bad thing. It's the same number of pixels, just spaced out more. The detail if you are too close really suffers... even at 4k.

Nice.. the forest trail will be amazing I am sure.

I upgraded my main TV to 4k in December when I got Disney+. It was so worth it. I kind of wish I was constrained to buying a 55" screen, but the additional money to revise all the surrounding furniture would have negated the value of the screen itself. Still... wow. I don't even game on it (no 4k console anyway), but yeah.

The second game in the Dad's trip and last game before a 10 day break. The Sabres are in Nashville, where you won't have to see Peter Laviolette's face behind the bench. They've won a few in a row and it would be great for them to win tonight so the Sabrespace happy meter is high enough to withstand 10 days of no hockey. You've got long way to go to hockey tonight... pace yourselves.

You know Duffer and Biron have some information people should hear. This way, no one was late to the game. (tag me next time I make a mistake you fool) ? True... that said, the Sabres have won 2 games this week... I don't know who started those GDTs... but it seems to be working. ? Well, at least he would have done something. That's what people want right? Do something? Anything? ? Only caught periods 2 and 3.. looked like a typical Sabres game. Ullmark has to stop pulling himself out of the crease so far. It looked like he was going for some kind of ego glove save on the one he missed and ended up in his net. At least the team responded... Good stuff. Let's go to Nashville.

Sabres gotta play the Sabres for that to happen.

Paging inkman...

Look... if I can pull my lazy arse out of bed on a snowy Thursday morning and wander downstairs by 8:20am... I might as well get this day started right. Truth is.. I have not even had coffee yet (it's brewing). But.. the Sabres are in Dallas tonight. They're wrapping up the last few games before the All-Star break by playing the Stars themselves... the good news is that these are not the All-Stars even if they are all Stars. Commence discussion... And, yes Sabrespacers... the future is bright, even if some of you keep trying turn off the damn lights.

Cool.. so he's good enough to score 50 and set up another guy to score 50... ?

You can't judge on one season either. Vigneault's history says he's not a difference maker. Quenneville? Maybe. Keefe.. way too early to give him credit. Fair... but I think he's HC bound. Trotz is a good example, but he's just one and he had already shown how he turned around Washington. That said, I believe there was some skepticism when he was let go from Nashville. I think Trotz has made the Islanders better.. he made Washington better. Most coaches don't fit that bill though. I don't think Gallant does either... not based on what we've seen to date.

Look.. it's important that you get 50 goals... that's a requirement. So much so that the only true snipers in the league since 2010 are: Ovechkin x5 Stamkos x2 Crosby - x1 Perry - x1 Malkin - x1 Draisaitl - x1 Those guys grow on trees.. you can get them anywhere. ?

Honestly think this assessment is a bit spotty. Could be a reach.

It was a slight typo. First year - cup final. That team had no worries. No expectations and they played that way. It was predicted reality would set in.. it did. Second year - circumstances.. they lost. So be it. You can't project past there, because they lost. You can try, but they lost. What else do you want? My kid comes home from his games some nights and tells me "We should have beat that team." My response? "You didn't. So apparently should doesn't give a damn about what you think." It is a result oriented game. Third year - they are not winning. My point is not that he's a bad coach. It's that a coach does not make a team great. So, don't overvalue a coaches ability to turn a team around. It takes talent and coaching, and mostly talent. This is why McLellan has not made a difference in Los Angeles This is why Babcock was not the saviour he made out to be. This is why Gallant ain't as amazing as people think. This is why Laviolette isn't going to change things. This is why _________ won't make Buffalo better than they are right now. I don't think Vegas should have fired him, but that does not mean the Sabres should hire him to replace what they have.

Yeah, I remember when Babcock was our lord and saviour as well. How about McLellan? There is a truth to "just make a change, because the next coach can make Evan Rodrigues an all-star" mentality.. it doesn't work that way. Too much value in coaches... too much. I'm hardly out to lunch. I'm not saying he's terrible. I'm asking if he's really as good as people think he is... because he's not proven much to me. His history certainly doesn't dictate it.

Sorry just skimmed the thread.. did I miss something? Is it that they use horses? (Yeah.. just bein' snarky) ? Good game though eh? Didn't see any of it.. sigh.

So he's been bounced twice, unceremoniously. The Panthers have done nothing to really improve. He went to Vegas, had a great year the first year then the team was playing with nothing to lose... and then what? First round loss and now fired. Why do people want him here? What has he proven? Nothing to me. It's just a case of "gimme anyone who can stop the losing" I think. But you bring Gallant in here and I don't think anything changes. At least not record wise... It's not the coach... coaches don't take bad teams and make them great. They take pretty good teams and make them great. They can always take a great team and make them bad.

True. I get it. I agree. I think everyone agrees. The question I think that drives debate is how much of it is on the current management (other than the owner) and how much of it is purely the mistake the decisions made during the first few years of the current ownership group. I don't want to hash that out here (plenty of threads for that!)...