17to85

What a guy who's made his living being on TV the last couple years sold himself well in an interview? The hell you say

how about Kyle Walters just does what every other GM in the league can do and find some pass catchers on his own from the states? There's only about a million of them down there. If they are that easy to find EVERY NFL team would have "perfect" pass catchers. Name a CFL team other than Ottawa that can't find some receivers that can play. It's a position that a GM should be able to find guys for. No one is asking for perfect, just good enough you can find someone without having to go into the free agent market.

how about Kyle Walters just does what every other GM in the league can do and find some pass catchers on his own from the states? There's only about a million of them down there.

Most likely they are taking all the circle jerking about themselves seriously and actually believe they are special.

The moral of the story is, don't give your family complete control of your finances. You can afford to hire a professional to manage your money when you have that much and it's worth every single penny if you hire one that knows his ****.

If by some chance you are serious, what should the Regina team have to give Edmonton for taking their Head coach? They gave permission though. Do you think it would be fair if Steinhauer quit and signed to coach another team despite Hamilton saying no way. You can't just allow people to ignore valid contracts. Morally Ottawa should let the guy go..legally they shouldn't. Except they gave the Esks permission to talk as well.

Honestly I'm thinking perhaps the Jets should trade Trouba. They can likely get a killing for him being so young and he just seems to have that attitude that the only way he stays in Winnipeg is if he's paid top dollar.

**** Ottawa.

Yeah like everyone said, get a good coach in there to fix the train wreck that Eakins caused. The best part of this streak is that they're doing it with their entire 2nd line on the shelf with injury. Hall and Draisaitl showing the kind of chemistry they have and with McDavid showing prior to his injury that he could take over games too the Oilers are a healthy roster away from being a hard team for teams to match up against because you are looking at the possibility of RNH and Eberle on a third line.

Why is Edmonton interested in Malkin when they already have McJesus, RNH and Draisailt who is currently ripping the league a new *******? The Pens problems are simple really, their defense isn't good enough. Letang is their best and he's A) one dimensional and not healthy. After that they're hoping for a bunch of rookies to develop.

Apparently you do need the science lesson because you're not getting it. And as far as insulting, you admitted that you haven't been paying attention so is calling into question whether you have paid attention really all that much of an insult?

What a ridiculous and childish post. You might be wise to remember that there is a very real possibility that the Bombers will be looking for a GM in the not so distant future and that Murphy will probably be at the top of that list. When that time comes, I can GUARANTEE that you will be here saying "the Bombers better get this done" as opposed to "Yeah, he's good. But I'd rather go with someone cheaper. We called out the Riders and their fans for spending money to get the best candidates last year. I really don't want to look like a hypocrite". no you missed the point. The point is let's all laugh at the hypocritical rider fans. Some of us remember the past and rider fans are acting like the people they once upon a time swore were the evil empire.

Rider fans, continuing to miss the point. Your franchise suffers envy of the esks and wants to be like them. All those cups they won and the fans screamed bloody murder about it because they had money to throw around. Now the Riders have money to throw around and don't give a **** about pissing people off to do it, ie. becoming the Esks, and the fans are all "so? It's no big deal, they hate us cause they ain't us" Just the biggest ******* hypocrites going and it's the reason no one likes your sad sack team and has nothing but contempt for the fan base.

and when there are two sides arguing about what the data means and one side has 90% of the support then you simply write off the 10% as quacks. Science isn't opinion, if the 10% had valid interpretations they would be taken more seriously. This is how science works. For a hypothesis, test hypothesis and data either confirms or refutes hypothesis, other scientists try and replicate the data gathered and determine if your experiment was good or bad. Science is always questioning everything and it's always adapting. That's why the ice age stuff from the 70s disappeared. Not because science is wrong, but because science is always searching for the correct answer. Always. Your arguments really do sound a lot like the creationists, which is arguing from a point of not understanding the scientific process. Well I suppose we could employ the "he who yells loudest is right" or the "I say you suck so Im right" methods. But realistically, there is science on both sides. if you're saying you'd write off 10% of scientific study or result, I'd say you're simply being very closed minded. Scientists can certainly tie lay people up in knots. But there has been plenty of easy to understand opinion and information in this thread that makes it pretty silly to swallow the Global Warning stuff without a second thought. By that token, if we were able to have this discussion in the 70's you'd be telling dismissing me and others when we questioned if we really were entering an Ice Age. You'd say ofcourse we are, the "scientists" say so. The world warms and cools. What is very disingenuous is the information provided to the general public does not generally include this information. It doesnt say "at some point, the ice caps will melt no matter what humans do, at sea levels will rise, and coastal cities will be under water. It is inevitable that this will happen at some point in the life of the planet. So anyway...we sill think we can hold that off for awhile by doing this...." they dont frame it like that. They frame it like "we can stop this from happening." You cant stop it from happening. So at what point do you think there is a limit to the expense of trying? Especially versus (as others have pointed out) saving lives right now at a fraction of the cost? Do you really think all life on earth will end due to man-made global warming in the next 100 years? I dont. I hope I live for another 100 years and you do too...so I can say I told you so. Are you paying attention? I've already said my piece on the idea of doom and gloom and the politicizing of it, but you really come across like you have no concept of the scientific method and how people can claim to have science on their side but are doing it wrong. Here's an example, first year chemistry lab we were doing an experiment meant to show the conservation of matter, well my results came back and the thing lost some matter somewhere. Now I coulda tried to say "see the principle is bunk, I scienced the **** out of it and here's the results" Instead the prof gave me a poor mark for ******* something up. This is why I bring up the creationist comparison. There's people who think they have science on their side when they say evolution doesn't happen, but it's bad science. It's the same when people deny that global warming is happening. Hell let's not even call it global warming, that's an old term, the correct term is climate change because lots of things happen when the climate changes it's not just warming. We can argue about the impact CO2 has on it, we can argue about what should be done about it, but arguing that it's not happening is a fools argument that has no sound basis in science. Here's the thing, the climate could start to cool all on it's own despite the increased number of greenhouse gases, that doesn't make the science wrong, just means something else happened.

This is why I mock the Riders for wanting to be the Esks. They cried the loudest about Edmonton buying cups back in the day, now they are flush with cash and are trying to spend their way to cups, including spending to get the entire Esks coaching staff that just won a cup. It's sad really the envy that organization has for the Esks.

and when there are two sides arguing about what the data means and one side has 90% of the support then you simply write off the 10% as quacks. Science isn't opinion, if the 10% had valid interpretations they would be taken more seriously. This is how science works. For a hypothesis, test hypothesis and data either confirms or refutes hypothesis, other scientists try and replicate the data gathered and determine if your experiment was good or bad. Science is always questioning everything and it's always adapting. That's why the ice age stuff from the 70s disappeared. Not because science is wrong, but because science is always searching for the correct answer. Always. Your arguments really do sound a lot like the creationists, which is arguing from a point of not understanding the scientific process.

It was as much a secret as Christoph Walsh being Blofeld in spectre. They tried to deny it but everyone knew the story before the movie came out.

Are you seriously telling me that because we didn't directly observe an event, we can't know anything about it? Evolutionary biologists, astronomers, murder detectives, and airplane crash investigators will be very disappointed to learn this. I welcome correction from the earth sciences people on all this, but we do have ways of measuring the evolution of glaciers by examining the sediments found within them. For instance, if you find a linear layer of ash from Krakatoa in your ice sample, you know that ice has been frozen in place since 1883. Also, you can examine the rock around the glacier and boulders that were transported and deposited by the glacier. When rock is exposed to the sun, it's struck by cosmic rays, which react to create very convenient isotopes that have known rates of decay. So by examining the prevalence of these isotopes in the rock, you can estimate how long the rock has been out in the open. Unless this is all a dirty lie, we can chart the rise and fall of glaciers. I am out of time and can't google it, but I suspect that we can know about how sea ice has evolved by examining its effects on coastlines. You absolutely can learn things by studying glaciers, a ton of climate research is done by examining ice cores from glaciers. There are all sorts of ways to learn about the past without being there. It's not just sediments either, you can determine what the composition of the atmosphere was at the time the ice was formed. The beauty of science, especially stuff like this is that every piece of data you collect allows you to make a better theory. Science is always changing as new information is discovered and that is how we know science is right, because it is never rigid in it's thinking. Research will always lead to incorrect ideas being removed and new correct ones taking their place. Climate study all in all is pretty new, which is why there was a lot of inconsistency at first, but a more clear picture is being formed.

And I really believe that is what the scientists studying things are doing... the media however, they like to whip people into a frenzy because alarm sells better than calm.

See I see it as he's the GM in waiting, they just want to let someone else do the rebuilding before they give him the keys to the team.

Dude, if we could terraform Venus then Terran climate change would be ... simple. Venus is a nasty place. It'd be easier to terraform the Marianas Trench. No kidding, Venus is the poster child planet for the greenhouse effect gone insane. It rains acid there for gods sake and is too hot for people to live there.

Wally was always able to replace guys, he let a lot of players go before their time was up, he was just always able to replace them so no one really cared.

I like Willy a lot but he's got a ways to go before he's at the level Pierce was when the Bombers signed him. Our receivers are a lot worse than they were when Lapo was here and it's up for debate how good the OL was because our qbs got the crap beaten out of them last year too so I don't know how you can sit there and say "we're so much better than last time!" We might be better, but a lot of that rests on the coaching, and Lapo has a bad record getting Bomber qbs killed. Pierce was broken when he got here.. He was a shell of his former self. I think willy has shown more then pierce did in his time here and was able to take a hit until the season ending hit. Re-read my comments. I said "I think the Oline has been upgraded, if only marginally" not a ringing endorsement is it? No where did i state that "we're so much better than last time!" But i did say the he had some talented recievers to work with.. i've only said that the qb appears to be dratically improved. Stop applying your own agenda/bias to other peoples comments. but it boils down to the same, you think the OL is improved I disagree because it's hard to say, they were some kind of bad last year, qbs we'll agree to disagree on, Pierce when he got here was still good, we broke him quickly, a concern with Lapolice back cause he got Khari broken as well. Even disregarding Pierce vs. Willy Khari Jones was better than both and I didn't like the offence back then either. Pretty easy to make plays when Roberts can make something out of nothing, or Stegall, or Sellers or Bruce. This Lapo hiring just reeks of people being overly optimistic and ignoring what's happened in the past. Pierce is being thought of as was always crap, all the anti-Mack sentiments are creeping in again. **** Lapo, he's got to wear his share of the failures here, enough with the excuses from everyone here.

So only scientists should have an opinion? There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know. the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate. So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. and yet there have been periods of time where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and yet somehow the world didn't experience the doomsday scenarios as forecasted by groups who directly benefit from people believing these doomsday scenarios, as their livelihoods and funding are tied to people continuing to buy the doomsday scenarios. And that, as they say, is a conflict of interest. Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving.

Well the sun has cycles that do impact it, there was one a few years back but it's over now and things are still trending warmer, sometimes the CO2 comes from other sources, sometimes it's from other greenhouse gases emitted by wide spread vulcanism. There really isn't a lot of opinion. The majority of scientists agree, it's just a few dissenters trying to argue a losing cause.