Trettioåtta

TBH, not that it has ever affected me, but i always found the pledge to be rather weird - seemed too right wing

What did she say?

Well said - i agree completely. Andrew Amerk, i'm not sure how what you said is ever seen as an acceptable thing to say. But i hope something that fundamentally doesn't matter to life in anyway happens and you over react and your red neck justice causes you to go to prison. Chara should have been suspended, but the assault charges were ridiculous, it was a hockey play, however, if Kaleta runs Thomas or hits a player in the face with his stick, that is hard to justify as a hockey play. Quite frankly the more i think about it, the mre confused i am about how they did not suspend Lucic. It is ridiculous. It was a late play anyway, but the fact they are trying to get rid of concussions means you think they would suspend anyone to sends a another player to the hospital with a concussion

I agree. I prefer women's football for that reason

Hrm, okay after some very quick internet searches, it seems most guys carry it on their hip in a holster. Maybe it is just me, but i find it quite disturbing that a portion of the population walk around armed. Especially if alcohol is involved. So obviously most crime happens at night, which in my mind means you are probably either coming home from work or going out for a meal etc. fairly trivial activities where you have your wits about you. However, would be carry a concealed weapon if they were drinking? A lot of crime involves one of the parties being drunk (i.e. stupid or vulnerable), which to me means things could escalate quickly. Somehow, i feel more okay about a woman carrying a gun in her hand bag jsut because there is that longer time to get to the weapon than i do about someone carrying it on them. Also on a side note, if i lived in a city/place where i fundamentally felt the only way i could be safe was to carry something designed to kill other human beings then i think i would move. Is America really this dangerous? That even just walking down the street in a standard city there is the risk of needing to use a firearm? I'm also slightly confused as to the situation in which it would be used. Obviously there is these recent events where you might have time to pull a gun out and shoot the guy, although if you are carrying i would expect the person to have regular practice on the shooting range, otherwise you are probably as dangerous randomly firing off shots as the guy trying to shoot people. However, presuming most people carry it not because they are worried they will be in a room that is stormed by a mad man, but for the far more common event of being mugged or beaten up etc. Surely, if you are being mugged and guns are freely available then the mugger probably has a knife or a gun, either way would you have time to grab the gun and fire before they ahd time to shoot/cut you? I guess i'm just not really sure what event people imagine that having that gun would actually be a benefit to them? Anyone care to explain? I am not trying to be rude or patronising, and whilst i do not see a need to carry a weapon and so think it is wrong, i am genuinely trying to hear the other side of the argument. The closest thing i have found it people comparing it to how we wear seat belts, but i hope i don;t have to point out that is a moronic analogy

What?

Well it seems a bit red-neck/gangster to just walk round with a gun stuck into the back of your jeans and it seems a bit professional to walk around with a holster under your suit/on your hip

Is legal to carry a concealed weapon? Also, if you are a man, how do you concealed carry?

Buffalo Daggers or Buffalo (Sabretooth) Cubs or Buffalo Calves....you get the idea :P

Hope is fit. I was checking the US team out, there are some good looking girls on the team. I feel sorry for women athletes, i defiantly spend more time selecting the fit ones than appreciating the sport :P

Lidstrom is the perfect example of your argument, he used his stick to get the puck, which meant he never put himself out of the play or in trouble physically; he also never really got hit because his method meant he didn't need to scrap in the corners. However, he was also a top 3 all time D-man, so perhaps it is unfair to expect players to play like him. However, give me a Lidstrom over Stevens any day. You don't need to be physical for guys to back up and fear you. Whilst we have got bigger/tougher these last few years, we have also got slower. Our skill guys aren't even as zippy as they used to be. I think that you put too much emphasis on the physical side of hockey, Deluca, never letting your opponents touch the puck is more effective than punishing them any time they touch it

Haha impressive yes, i presume you cycle lots? However, it is the shape that most disturbs me - the muscle sticks out and then sort of disappears instantly, there is no nice curve as there is with the bicep. I think the main issue is the muscle stops half way down the leg. I purposefully don't work out my calves so they don't look like that :P It sort of looks like there is something stuck beneath the skin. Like you have got a hip flask stashed down there

The calf has to be the ugliest muscle in existence. It looks like a late stage tumour stick out the back of people's legs

I'd settle for looking like one of the female swimmers :P

1) Yeah, i doubt him and Price are that tight, but maybe it is a courtesy visit 2) True, he could have grown up a fan. But i always wonder how much that affects professional athletes. But always a possibility. 3) If they send Gomez to the minors that is a straight swap :P

I don't get why he is looking at Montreal. We are closer to a cup than them

I might be wrong, but i thought Olympic athletes agreed to play as hard as they could and to the best of their abilities. Even if that isn't true, that is certainly the spirit of the Olympics and all these athletes did was embarrass the nations they represent and the sport they play. I do understand your point about the system being there to be played, but there is a difference between the British athlete who competed slightly less hard to get an outside lane in the swimming final and throwing a game completely. I think what makes it worse is that it wasn't even subtle. They just hit their serves into the net or put ridiculous power on their shots so they overshot the baseline. The equivalent in the NFL would be if you signed a beer team and put them out as your starting line up. Also, i don't quite get the favourable match up thing - is there one team who is a beast and those 4 were trying to get the draw that meant they could have a chance at silver? Or were they scared of a couple of teams? They should have played hard and hoped that they would be rewarded for their dedication rather than cheat. It also angers me because some people paid $200+ for those seats and they got to watch that....

Miller is a middle of the pack goalie :rolleyes: - that is all I dunno Pommer has been our most consistent and durable two way forward and our captain. Trading him would imply nothing you can do can keep you safe

I really hope this is a joke! Simmonds got 49 points, Voracek got 49 points and Ryan got a whopping 57. This is ridiculous, they might as well ask for Crosby and Malkin. Ryan is not a superstar, he is an average top line player.

No, delivering a hard legal check is different to running a goalie.

Anyone wanna bet me that when Doan signs the NHL's pun will be "It's a Doan Deal"?

Damn those Chinese are good at diving. Happy for the Mexicans though, both male and female went for flare and it worked. Two gold for china and two silver for Mexico

I'm not gonna join in this cultural deconstruction, however, i don't think most brits hate ice hockey. I think that most Brits know of it and know f the fighting in it, but the reason they don't play it is: a) No history of it - very important when you look at which countries play which sports b) Not cold enough - no frozen lakes to play on in winter, no ice rinks in the garden possible c) Not able to watch a decent league at a decent time - i.e. you are unlikely to stumble across it

I agree with you about the concept of change and humans. However, if you change too much then you can suck for the first little while due to lost chemistry. I think Ryan is a lateral move. This team doesn't need a 30 goal scorer if it costs them a 30 goal scorer (Vanek) or a 20 goal scorer and a hefty chunk of their future. Our prospect pool is not exceptionally deep, outside of Armia, G1, G2, McNabb, Pysyk and Foligno. To lose a 1st and a prospect to gain 10 goals (but only 7 points) seems pointless.

Vanek has better stats than Ryan and he is only 3 years older... His contract is 1 year shorter and is more expensive. This doesn't make sense to me, we get 3 years younger, a little tougher and some cap room in exchange we lose point production from an offensively anaemic team, a first rounder, and a prospect. If the prospect is a random AHL scrub then the deal makes a little more sense, but i am presuming when they say prospect they mean Pysyk, McNabb etc. Also Vanek doesn't appear to have attitude problems Ryan is not a fantastic skater and neither is Vanek - Ryan might be a bit better. Stylitically they are different, V scores his goals from standing in front of the net and tipping whilst R scores his goals by driving to the net.