LTS

It might predict failures in other groups who are not aligned with the direction the company is heading. It doesn't mean there's a problem, it just means things are changing. (I'm not sure we know enough to identify WHAT is going on however). No, but accepted culture change sure. I'm dealing with that right now. We have a team of 15 developers who signed up to do "start up" type work and are struggling with the changes that are being made as we go from "start up" to productization. The more rigorous controls and timelines we need to put on them are not settling well. At this point we expect them to leave. We're not forcing them to leave. We don't want them to leave. We'll take a hit if they do leave. However, we also need that team to operate differently than they have in the past and they might not be capable of doing so. Could be this. When our company was going through downsizing and everyone feared for their jobs there were many who just up and left. Get out while you can kind of thing. It might be that those 3 people end up starting their own company. I've seen it happen. I think, overall, there are clearly changes being made in PSE and those changes are net settling well. It could very well be that Terry and Kim are the worst to work for. We've certainly seen their public statements demonstrating an air of "let them eat cake". I'm not totally inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose when it comes time to spend my money in a way that would benefit them I will consider the value of their enterprises and decide then. Until then I will read the tea leaves with everyone else.

I agree, there's no mathematical precision. However, each time it happens the discussion on WHY and at WHAT point the conversation crossed the line might help indicate to others. it might not. As for people leaving because things got heated... I agree with this. That response was packed with more (far more) than the prior discussions had provided. That was the dam breaking.

There is a top I could put on my weber smokey mountain that is designed for it, but I'm not sold on the quality yet. In THEORY it could work, but I really think you need the closeness of the heat source and the weber is better suited for long, slow, burns over short, hot ones. Now I want the damn wood fired pizza... at 10:20am.. awesome.

I can google that and I see a lot of information, but a child abuse ring is not quite the same as the widespread actions you are describing. Child trafficking, sex trafficking happen in all countries and when a "ring" is discovered/arrested it's certainly shines a light on the problem, but I don't equate it to people not women not being able to walk down the street. I'll read more if you share. You know the US news doesn't cover much of anything internationally.

NYC could never adopt that pepperoni. They barely like cheese on their paper crusts. That pepperoni would destroy them.. how do you fold a slice when the grease will run all over your hands? Not a chance.. I continue to have that desire to build an oven... or buy one.. And this is why.. even your "non-aesthetic" pizza looked amazing. It also tastes incredible. My friend who's a rather big foodie in Buffalo has a Ooni or something like it. https://ooni.com/ - he loves it.

On a side note, one of my favorite scenes from that movie.

I understand the point you are making but the problem is there's a point in the discussion on the actions of the NHL players where you are saying it belongs in the politics club and I'm not sure that people agree with you on where that point is or where it should be, let alone agreeing with each other. If we are to discuss "Around the NHL" then the players taking a stand against police violence is part of that discussion, because it's happening "Around the NHL". This is why I suggested that if you want to draw the line you draw it at, discussion in the sports forum is strictly related to the sport on the ice and the business surrounding the sport on the ice and anything not related to actually playing the game (social issues, commercialism, etc.) ends up elsewhere. I'm not saying I like the idea, but without that we are left with a subjective point to "migrate the conversation" and it will continue to ruffle feathers. Perhaps the line is drawn at discussing the NHL players not playing but if the conversation extends to the event(s) which led to the NHL players not playing then it belong elsewhere. In this case, we can discuss the impacts of them not playing the games, but if we want to cover the extent to which the police were justified/not justified in their actions that belongs elsewhere. I'm not sure of the right answer, but these events are likely to increase before they decrease so I'm just hoping to improve the forum understanding. I sure as hell hope so. The lack of strict hockey subject matter is has taken its toll on those of us who allow hockey news and events to have such significant value in our lives.

This is widespread? Is there coverage of this? It seems like there would be some level of coverage on this.

It's the kind of pepperoni. Google "cup and char" and your prayers shall be answered.

So, I think to be clear then. It should be stated that sports related, and more to the point, NHL related political issues do not belong in the primary forum but should reside in the politics club. So, when a player makes a political statement, or a network cans a personality over non-NHL related issues, it belong in politics? I think the line has to be drawn because right now people are not sure. The idea is that athletes are becoming involved in political issues and as such you have the juxtaposition between sports and politics, so things kind of fit in both places. It was I who created the club. Shall we rename it? Well, people get fed up. You don't have to necessarily get to the "politics" of it, but it happened because the NHL dove into the "politics" of it. I don't know about True and Hoss, but Flagg decided to go off on how non-intellectual people on here are and proclaim himself the superior. Whatever. As I said at the time, he was clearly hanging on by a thread every time the simpletons didn't understand the math. And the Sabres vs. Bruins after the Boston Marathon bombing? It was absolutely political. 100%. Perhaps people feel there's a difference because it was a unified display of patriotism? I don't know. It's still political. You are correct.

There are always extreme movements going on somewhere. That's the problem with extremism. The very nature of being 'extreme" means that it is not part of the mainstream, or it would fail to be "extreme". As such, equating the two is quite literally not possible. You speak of "sharia law being in effect for years". I am presuming you mean that there is a large cultural population in that area and they choose to live in a way that is not aligned with yours. However, you also speak, quite generally, of Muslims harassing women walking on the street. Harassed about what? Where are they being harassed? On all the streets? For what its worth, your post is loaded with inflammatory generalities that commonly occur with those who are extremist themselves. They lack specifics but instead declare without a doubt that heinous and nefarious actions are occurring everywhere and people are choosing to "put their head in the sand". Your post, to me, as a non-European, non-Islamic, person comes across as one of strong prejudice and a lack of understanding of cultures different than your own.

I do appreciate the clarification. I might tend to have a discussion further, but given current tension in this thread and well, generally throughout society, I think it's best to let it go for the time being. Perhaps over a bourbon at some point in the future, without the Internet getting all the in the way. Wow. So, thanks for that. It's probably good that I don't define myself by how you see me. Glad you got that off your chest though. it's unfortunate that with all that intelligence you claimed to have you lacked the wisdom you required. Frankly I had thought you better than your post, certainly not better than anyone else however. You might have had some talking points in that diatribe; but your ending really ruined it for me. But tell me, are you more upset with those who cannot process complex thinking or at yourself for not being able to tolerate the midwits? It's a shame their experiences in life, viewed from a decidedly less complex world than the one you've created might also provide insight because the points they see aren't always between numbers. Feel free to DM, or if you don't come back... best of luck. I hope you find the wisdom you require.

great stuff.. and it also makes me think about when RJ won't be calling a game.. and I don't like how that makes me feel.

This is a heated topic and statements can be taken out of context. Would you please expand why you use the term "government sanctioned"? In my eyes that equates to the government telling police officers (all of them) that they should be killing.

There are days I sometimes wonder why I never tried drugs... And then things like this thread happen... and I no longer wonder.

Damn shame that the GM is gone eh?

I mean, I wouldn't join as a matter of principle for sending such an ignorant email. Frankly don't care if they fire the person or not. That's up to them on how they want to run their business. Milbury does have a bit of a history of doing absolutely idiotic things that should have kept him from a place in the media anyway. Not sure the person who wrote that email would have the same history. That said, it speaks exactly to the kind of thinking that people are working to change. People are more vocal about it these days because they finally feel as though the need for change is getting through to enough people that they have support to be more vocal.

Uhhh.. new strength and conditioning coach?

The issue at hand is that you are applying your ideals and values to the situation. That's fine, but it doesn't make it right. "People need to toughen up and get over themselves" is the very mantra that causes many problems in society. When is it inappropriate? Where is that line? The problem being that the line isn't clear. Whether you feel it is or it is not does not define it for society. There are women who believe what he said was unfair. I say that because you think NBC exercising its right to remove him from the broadcast was unfair. To be a complete jerk about it, why can't I say to you, "Get over yourself, why are you letting what NBC does with Mike Milbury bother you?" Why does it bother you that people get upset over things like this? it's the opposite side of your opinion right? People feel like they should be allowed to get upset over this because they do feel that statements like those have to be shown to be unacceptable and you can't do that with a passive tone. You need to make a statement. You are making a statement as well. You feel like they should just let it go. It's not that big of a deal. Who gets to decide that?

I understood the overall point, but I find the linking of the two incidents to be a significant stretch. Milbury is capable of being an idiot all on his own, but what he said was in not in the same league as Roenick. I think if Harry Neale had said the same thing on a broadcast with that reach we'd be talking about it. If he had said it on a Sabres broadcast we would be talking about it, but perhaps with a slight delay while the hype train got going. I guess I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Milbury was naturally there to provide commentary but to do so in his style. His style would naturally grate on some people, but having that edge might appeal to the fringe hockey fans who are attracted to that kind of commentary.

And Jim Gaffigan doesn't need to swear for his comedy routine. The point being, however, that you hire a persona to deliver a certain type of product. You don't hire Milbury for the same reasons you hired Lorentz or Neale (although I would suspect they may have said some things in their time as well). This is meant neither to support or not support Milbury just to point out that there are different methods of performing the same job. This is stretching it quite a bit is it not? Roenick talked about having a threesome, etc. He was specifically discussing sexual acts with specific co-workers. Milbury simply discussed generic male hockey players getting distracted by women. Again, I am not here to weigh in on Milbury's comments as right or wrong. But I think it's a stretch to say they approach anything close to what Roenick said.

The reason I ask is that the Sabres made it to the Cup finals in 1975. Would it have been okay if they had won that series then? I realize we're not at that point with Vegas, but I was just curious on how you might compare the two situations. Naturally you can't add the additional years of not winning to the evaluation. In 1975 the Sabres were in their 5th season... not a lot of suffering had gone on (they weren't perennial playoff performers, that's true).

Doesn't the GM usually hire a coach that will implement and focus on a system that the GM believes should be played? I realize it's not that black and white, but the GM doesn't usually go out and find a coach that is not in line with some level of the philosophy of the GM on how to win in the NHL. The GMs of the two organizations are the ones who set the vision, acquire the players, etc. They take input, but the coaches don't run the show. But, frankly, I think after experiencing Taylor for the beginning of the season my guess is that they knew they were going to get rid of him. Last season was a throwaway season. (yes, another one). It was acceptable from the owner standpoint to allow them to assess their organization. I am sure they don't love being criticized, but in the long run if they do what is right and build a winner in a few years then no one will care enough to worry about 2020. If they don't? Well, they get to try again or sell the team... People like to think that businesses don't intentionally lose money, but that's simply not true. Of course it might be more accurate to say that a business owner is okay with not maximizing revenue for a period of time to allow for foundational initiatives to take hold. It's the same as intentionally losing money, but it provides a reason. I'm involved in a project right now that is losing money for the company, a lot of money, and they are willing to let it go because of the promise of the better tomorrow. I think the Pegulas are at that point, or were at that point, with the Sabres.

The more you talk about him, the more you legitimize him. ?

Hmm. Perhaps in open ice, top line speed... But he's a damn good forechecker and that's usually on account of the ability to quickly get to a spot and win battles for pucks. Extremely slow players aren't usually capable of that.