LTS

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?

If you haven't noticed Ristolainen has checked out on this team. He doesn't shove guys in front of the net, he doesn't hit anyone. He's not interested in putting himself out there anymore. He clearly wants to leave and I believe the Sabres want him gone, time will tell if they will have to give him away for nothing.

First bolded: I don't blame Russia. Interference in election politics has been going on longer than the Internet has existed. It's just easier now, because the world is collectively much more ignorant now. Second bolded: Thank you. I guess now, see below and let me know what you think. It's stuff like this that always makes me pause. I have no idea on how to interpret the information below. On the surface, it lends credence to the notion that they did not get the picture and it addresses why they didn't just print one. And the show goes on...

This is not asking someone to stop acting like a snowflake. It's name calling and has no place here. First bolded: I fear you are incorrect here. I only need to look at my community Facebook page to know that people, despite the obvious truth in front of them, refuse to believe it if enough people tell them it's not accurate. It's a sad state. Second bolded: perhaps I missed the full outline in the initial post. If so, my apologies. It seemed like the initial take was "they make sure these are distributed immediately" and "I have been in X number of location over Y Presidents and they've always had the picture." I used generics because I don't recall the number. I didn't see the part about her not making sure it was up for about a year. See my first quoted post from you above. Your first comment was indeed as you say, the second, not so much. The second paragraph can be handled elsewhere. --------------- In general, I love when people post quotes from the "founding fathers" and frankly from political texts of years gone by. Politics were so much more philosophical than matters of law. Exercises of thought. I suppose that's what had originally enamored me with politics.. and then I studied them and learned it just wasn't true anymore. Sigh.

Ahh, I thought Stephens was a F. I suppose Spencer could be a different kind of D.. who knows. I'll be quiet now. ?

Actually, it could be logical. If there was an established pattern in history so obvious that it never happens, one might be inclined to simply not mail a picture knowing that people would never believe that one was never sent. As such, you can claim that the person did not hang the picture, as is protocol, and remove them. This entire discussion is exactly what the outcome of that would be. He said, she said, and no proof, but the person is removed from the position. As you have admitted, this President has done many things that prior administrations have not. I would not use the actions of the past to confirm those of the present when the current administration has been routinely engaging in activities that no other administration has even approached. There is no proof of this, as I said above. You believe they are lying. Objectively, there is a perfectly good possibility why they could be telling the truth. There is no irrefutable proof of either position, only the outcome.

Interestingly enough, this could be one of those moments where analytics screws over the eye test. If analytics said their PP was lucky you'd be inclined to correct the "luck" before the "regression to the mean". However, in the off chance that their actions were redefining the model, the analytics would not match up with what was happening on the ice. Hey, who knows. Frankly I don't buy into it. The PP looks the exact same as it did at the beginning of the year, teams are still pressuring the Sabres PP because they stand around too much and they rely on cross-ice passes to one-timers. Those passes are routinely blocked. The only thing that is completely different is that they've gone back to having Eichel try and rush the puck into the zone during which 8 times out of 10 he turns the puck over or they do not gain possession.

Who knows what will happen... but.. Spencer is brought in as a D, so that a D can be called up to Rochester, because a D from Rochester will be needed in Buffalo because a D in Buffalo is getting moved out. This is why I don't crap on things until they get a chance to play out.

It seems to me that the NHLPA should be more involved in helping the NHL hand out longer punishment for this kind of stuff. I am sure the NHLPA, overall, doesn't care as much because their members still get paid. However, it's not good for the game. I think in instances where the infractions are egregious, players, even without a prior record, should be sitting out for weeks.

Is he the top 6 forward they need? I would worry about his injury history, but at this point, it seems every Sabres forward is going to be injured.

Perhaps a problem... I'm really curious how a coach gets players to not pay attention to the ice though. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it seems like you continually hear coaches from youth on up preaching that you have to be looking for the guy without the puck, he's the most dangerous guy on the ice.

Obvious to some... are they the same ones who were mad that Gilmour was sent to Rochester? Are they the ones who want Reinhart traded? Are they the ones who think some other GM wants Ristolainen so bad that they'll give up a top 6 forward for him? I've seen what people find "obvious" around here. What's obvious is that we don't know much about much, but like to pretend we do. You don't have to be content, by all means continue to get all worked up over the things you can't control. Fight the air to your heart's content.

Man.. I can't even imagine.