Hal Johnson

So, let's say he's right about the bylaws and wishes to complain...does he have to condemn the architecture of the entire city? I recently moved to rural NS from southern Ontario. Let me tell you something - the architecture here sucks in comparison. Do I write long winded letters to the local government telling them so? No. And if I did, I probably wouldn't preface it with, "I moved here from Southern Ontario and I just gotta say...", because people who do that are the assholes. I would write a letter stating that the bylaw is being undermined and as a tax payer I deserve representation. Does this make me a bigger asshole?

I for one hate it when people from other places come around and start yappin about how terrific everything is where they're from. "I'm from Europe and our architecture is waaaaayyyy better than yours, you should rebuild everything". The guy lived in Switzerland and Germany! Judging from the pictures I've seen of those places, pretty much everywhere else in the world pales in comparison when it comes to architectural design. Sounds to me like the letter writer is just pissy over the building being built in front of his house. Sorry about your luck!

Hey Roller, you watched that too?!?! It was fucking awesome! I had a feeling the kicker for MAC would miss that first FG at the end of regulation. Glad he got a chance to make it up. Mac's QB totally deserved the win too, he's really good.

Do they stop play when that happens?

Have anyt of you guys seen this? Its about two Americans who travel the world playing pick-up soccer games. Its a good little flick. You should check it out. http://www.pelada-movie.com/about/index.html BTW, the girl's voice is terribly annoying, you just gotta get past it.

mmmmmmmmm.....Bacon Lube..... http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1087104--canadians-don-t-have-to-choose-between-bacon-and-sex-anymore?bn=1

I've often thought this myself. It's so easy to slow things down on replay and make it seem like the guy had all the time in the world to make a decision on whether or not he should follow through with his actions. I'd like to see a study done on how possible (or impossible) it is for guys, skating as fast and hard as they normally do, to change direction or hold up when an opponent suddenly puts themselves in a vulnerable position.

Ahh, gotcha. But Fraser's opinion isn't just about headshots, its about the idea of having the guys on the ice police the game. In that sense, i though it was a half decent counter point. But Im guilty of picking the first half relevant thing I found on the net . I'm sure there's a better, less long rebuttal out there somewhere.

Hey wait a minute. You quoted Friedman did you not? Friedman basically said that if there were no instigator rule, as per HOFer Mark Howe's (WTF?) observations, then players would be able to "police" like they did in the "good old days". Well, Fraser responded to a question that was very similar. It makes sense to me.

Why is the instigator always the deciding factor in these arguments? What's an extra 2 minutes? Aren't tough guys supposed to get penalties? I find it funny that they're like, "I'd kill him, but the instigator penalty won't let me". Your supposed to be tough. Fucking kill him! Who cares about the extra two minutes? You kill him and go sit on the bench for an extra two. its a fair trade off. They will stop running your goalie and all it cost you was two minutes. Anyway. I can't switch to full reply for some reason, but I think this is a good response to Friedman (letter to Kerry Fraser): "First of all, I would like to say that you were one of the best referees in the NHL and it was a pleasure to watch games officiated by you. Recently, with a large amount of head injuries occurring in the league the instigator rule has been discussed in hockey circles as one of the causes of these type of injuries. Based on your on-ice experience, do you feel that the instigator rule should be removed so that players can "police" the actions of those that deliberately injure other players? This blog has been great and has given NHL fans some insight into the officiating in the league! Thanks, Steve Ajax, ON Steve: There are some who might suggest that like a fine wine; I am getting much more palatable the longer I sit on the retirement shelf but I sure thank you for your kind comments. I cringe when I hear the “cavemen†who suggest that removing the instigator rule would reduce hits to the head. Why don't we remove seat belts from cars and take the visors and helmets off players while we are at it? Maybe people would drive more slowly and without head gear players wouldn't play so recklessly. The suggestion that we reacquire the prototype “6'5†goon†that takes up a roster spot on the end of the bench to go out and fight his counterpart on the other side when liberties are taken is preposterous. How would this reduce head shots? Two monster gladiators banging each other in the head repeatedly during a staged fight until one submits, is knocked unconscious or they fall to the ice can only have grave repercussions to the combatants brain grey matter. The end result, given the new NHL protocol, is they will both likely spend at least 15 minutes in a quiet location under the stands being evaluated by medical experts. Have we already forgotten the irrefutable evidence of CTE found in Bob Probert's brain dissection conducted by the Boston pathologist? While our opinions might differ on whether contact to the head should be allowed medical evidence is not open to debate. The key word that you mentioned in your question Steve is “police.†Self policing by players isn't the answer. The reduction (and hopefully elimination) of contact to the head of an opponent requires responsible “policing†of the game by League administrators (including the NHLPA) and game officials. Some positive advances were made through the crafting of Rule 48—Illegal Check to the Head--which provides for a major penalty and game misconduct to be assessed for lateral or blind side hits to an opponent where the principle point of contact is the head. We saw suspensions and fines result from the enforcement of this rule by the on-ice officials and Colin Campbell's supplementary discipline process this season. While it was a great beginning to the NHL's attempts to slow one aspect of this dangerous culture of hitting, it is head and shoulders away from addressing this terrible problem that faces the game and its players. The North-South hit to the head of an opponent that is deemed legal (most of the time) and some special hitting zone where the ultimate receiver of a head shot is somehow held responsible is incomprehensible for most. I always thought that the “hitting zone†was 200 X 85 feet and the manner in which one player hit another and not the location on the ice constituted an infraction or a suspension. We have seen some confusing happenings during the Stanley Cup Playoffs to this point. Raffi Torres hit on Brent Seabrook was officially termed a “good hockey play,†while Steve Downie's launch on Ben Lovejoy of Pittsburgh resulted in a one game suspension. In case you forgot Lovejoy was aware of the impending hit and Downie didn't make contact with Lovejoy's head. Seabrook on the other hand was looking back for a slow rolling puck behind the net and didn't see Torres on the train tracks. There's that old victim should have known theory. Problem is that the inconsistency with which this situation has been handled off the ice results in confusion on the ice for players and referees alike. In Game 6 of the Chicago-Vancouver series Bryan Bickell, listed at 6'4†and 224 pounds, left his feet and clocked Kevin Bieksa where the principle point of contact was to Bieksa's head. No penalty and certainly no suspension or fine occurred. I don't blame the referee one bit on these calls or non calls. Are we left to assume this was just another “good hockey play†in that same “hitting zone†that Torres and Downie ventured into? In attempting to figure out what is legal I came to the conclusion that you can hit an opponent in the head in this special area only if he isn't looking (Seabrook) so long as you kept both skates on the ice (unlike Downie); that was until Bickell destroyed this theory by leaving his feet and making direct contact to the head of Bieksa. Mixed signals like this make it impossible for the referees to assess these hits on a consistent basis. The only deterrent will be when players are held accountable (mandatory suspensions = loss of pay) for hits to the head of an opponent. Before that happens it will have to be determined what is allowed and what isn't. We can only hope that G.M's such as Jim Rutherford, Darcy Regier and others have a voice to redefine legal checking parameters. Stay tuned over the summer because at this point no one really knows for sure."

:drinks:

Viva Zeppelin! (I'd post it, but it won't let me "Switch to Full Reply".)

Fucking horrible. The way they (Paterno and the athletic director) down played it is disgusting.

As far as the "you can't make this shit up" stuff goes, that's pretty good.

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/god-says-lions-mocking-tim-tebow-was-pretty-fuckin,26519/

How easily they forget that Bo knows fucking football!

Man, listening to american sports radio sucks ass. All they talk about is the NFL. It wouldn't be so bad either if they actually had decent conversations, but the whole Tebow situation exemplifies why it is so horrible. For weeks leading up to his first game ALL they talked about was him getting his big chance. He finally plays, against a winless team mind you, and pulls off a victory. Well, wouldn't you think he slayed Satan himself. Straight to the hall of fame for this kid! Meanwhile, Cam Newton is putting up ridiculous numbers and getting half the attention. So what does Tebow, the golden child from god do the next week? I think we all know the answer to that. And don't even get me started on how in love they are with the freaking Cowboys and Tony Romo. Its not even a roller coaster. The guy sucks, always has. Every year they have Dallas winning the NFC (hell, they probably still think Dallas has the NFC locked up) and every year they SHIT THE BED. They are a bad team and he is a bad quarter back who has an average game once in a while, its time to accept it and move on. /End rant.

Sheds some light on the subject, thanks :thumbup:

Working in municipal recreation, I just learned this morning that I am to host an LED light exchange this Xmas. Efficiency Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Power have sent me a list of common questions that you guys might find rather, well, illuminating (sorry). Unfortunately, it doesn't touch on the issues Jaimoe brought up, and I was kind of hoping it would. Anyway, might help with Dinghy's decision making. "1. Why should I switch to LED Holiday lights / Why are LEDs better than traditional lights? LED (Light Emitting Diodes) holiday lights are a better choice than traditional lights because they: • Are more energy efficient. • Use 90% less electricity than traditional glass holiday lights. • Last at least 10 times longer than traditional bulbs. • Produce very little heat, reducing the risk of fires • Contain no glass, making them durable and safe. 2. How long will they last? LED lights last at least 10 times longer than traditional bulbs. Some manufacturers rate the bulbs for up to 20 years. (They often have a rated lifespan of up to 100,000 hours, and typical holiday usage is about 200 hours per year.) 3. How often do I have to replace the bulbs? LED lights are permanently attached in their sockets and are not changeable. However, if one LED fails, the others still work. 4. Where can I buy them, and how much do they cost? LED holiday lights are widely available at local major department stores, hardware stores, supermarkets and pharmacies. Each LED set costs approximately $10 - $12 on average. Sets vary in string length, bulb size and colours (some even change colour) and costs will vary, so shop around. 5. What is the LED Holiday Light Exchange program? The LED Holiday Light Exchange program is sponsored by Efficiency Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Power to encourage the use of energy efficient holiday lighting. Residents bring two strings of traditional glass holiday lights for free recycling to tree lighting ceremonies across the province and receive one string of LED holiday lights in return – a gift from Nova Scotia Power and Efficiency Nova Scotia to help you on your way to energy savings. Please note that quantities are limited, based on a first-come, first-served basis; one LED set per person. 6. How long has the program been running & what has it accomplished? The program began in 2005 with six exchanges and has grown every year, with 91 exchanges being held in communities around the province this year. Some of the successes we’ve seen in the past include: • 156,000 people have attended the light exchanges • 38,220 sets of LED lights have been given out to replace old inefficient holiday lights • Enough energy has been saved to power 135 homes • The emission of 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases has been prevented 7. Does it cost anything to exchange my old lights for the LED lights? The LED Holiday Light Exchange program is completely free. For bringing in two strings of traditional glass holiday lights, you will receive one free string of LED holiday lights in return – a gift to help you on your way to energy savings.

Hey, good story man!

Ya, that game was allright.

Someone has to. I need sleep dammit!

BERKMAN!