TrueBlue4ever

I will say we get through the whole playoffs if we get through the the play-in round. If this collapses it will collapse early, like MLB.

And?

Well, time to make our "second season" predictions. Pick the winners of the play-in round (and number of games if you want), and also rank the "top 4 bracket" results. EAST Boston, Tampa Bay, Washington, Philadelphia (rank 1 to 4) Pittsburgh vs. Montreal Carolina vs. NY Rangers NY Islanders vs. Florida Toronto vs. Columbus WEST St. Louis, Colorado, Las Vegas, Dallas (rank 1 to 4) Edmonton vs. Chicago Nashville vs. Arizona Vancouver vs. Minnesota Calgary vs. Winnipeg

Nah, this is inaccurate. I'm sure there are towns in the USA that are more disgusting than Harrison. And that is very telling given this display of filth.

Look, we are living in very charged times, where having a different political stance or opposing opinion makes you the enemy, and paints you as someone of poor moral character. I personally feel we need to rise above that. I think someone once posted here "your opinion is bad and you should feel bad". I have no issue with the first half of that statement, but it doesn't make the second half of that statement right. If you have a position that you know will enflame things, start by asking why it is contentious, and then ask why you want to post it. If the first answer is "it is contentious because it runs counter to everything else I have heard, and no one takes my side" then reassess if you are incorrect for having that opinion in the face of such overwhelming counterintelligence and maybe need to change your stance, or if others are missing something that you can provide. If the answer to the second question is "I want to post to poke the bear and get my opponents all triggered", then save your breath. But if you have a point to make, and feel you can validate your position with an articulate argument, and are prepared to take on those who challenge that opinion in a respectful manner (that's you being respectful - you can't control others' behaviour, so why worry about it?) then please go ahead and make it. If the response is "that's a stupid thought" then engage politely and ask the other side to defend their position as you would defend yours. If the response is "YOU are stupid" then shrug it off and re-direct to the issue at hand, not the content of your character. Don't take the bait and get into a name-calling contest, and don't bother getting into the "well if you attack me instead of my argument, you clearly have no defence" because that will be readily apparent to all, and only drags you down to their level of personal character assassination and gets off topic. We all need a thicker skin on internet chat boards, and only we individually can choose how to respond to what someone says about our point or our personal traits. Try to foster the former and tune out the latter. And if you cannot divorce the two, maybe this is not the forum for you. But if you feel personally attacked and still want to be involved in this message board, just ask the mods to take a look at the comments coming your way and let them police the site if they feel it needs policing.

Twitter trending that Stephen Miller’s grandmother died of COVID, Miller’s uncle blames the Trump administration, and the White House Says the report is false (She died of natural causes, not COVID) despite the death certificate saying it was COVID. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/stephen-millers-grandmother-died-of-covid-19-her-son-blames-the-trump-administration/

Any time the first offer is snapped up without a back and forth negotiation, it's one of two things: 1) the buyer is desperate, shows their hand that they are desperate and is overpaying, or 2) the seller has undervalued their product and/or shown their ignorance of the market demand, and showed their hand by making the first offer without assessing either of those factors. Any good negotiation will avoid these two pitfalls, and often a low ball/high ball back and forth will offer some insight into some of the unknown questions like "How desperate is the other side/who else is my competition/what is my alternative to buying or selling?". The players are in the same time crunch as the owners, and are basically saying they deserve more than 1/3 their normal pay for playing only 1/3 the normal season. Where's the blowback for their BS? Or is it just your pre-set hatred of Ambrosie that makes this (like everything) all his fault, always?

That's not anybody's way. Have you ever negotiated a contract with someone? It doesn't work like a Mr. Burns bet on softball: Rich Man: Would you care to bet a million dollars. Mr. Burns: Oh, if we're going to bet, why not make it interesting? Rich Man: What, a million dollars isn't interesting to you? Mr. Burns: Oh, did you say a million? I'm sorry, my mind was elsewhere. I thought you'd start with a small amount, then we'd slowly bait each other, and . . . well, you know how it goes. Yes, certainly, a million will be fine.

Maybe not (if I can speak for him), but in the same breath he also shorted McManus' time in BC, and Dunigan's time in Toronto, as well as the greatest player of all time, Doug Flutie, going from BC to Calgary to Toronto, so his point about following the money stands. And no one can argue that Flutie wasn't the elite of the elite, so even his greatness did not result in his team ponying up the cash to keep him, so degrading Allen on that basis does not really stand as absolute proof as bearpants would suggest.

Post pattern

Hope Chevy is prepping now for Hellebuyck’s next contract. Even at 4 years away, that will be some cap hit if he re-ups.

Interesting article on the psychology of the mask debate and why each side may be so entrenched. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/?fbclid=IwAR1_6eFdSBC4yMfMhKd-3ZK9t97-sx68Zq2u-EQmJrxa04f8dxe4cMKXG2U

So 2 days of over 900 deaths and they hit 140,000 today, a day earlier than my last projection. I guess it’s not as under control as suggested.

Laine? Offer DeMelo a new deal? Extend Pionk?

Some raw data to chew on, courtesy of worldometers.com: USA cases - Jan. 21 - first case Apr. 10 - 500,000 (80 days) Apr. 27 - 1,000,000 (17 days) (97 days for first 1,000,000) May 16 - 1,500,000 (19 days) Jun. 7 - 2,000,000 (22 days) (41 days for next 1,000,000) Jun 25 - 2,500,000 (18 days) Jul. 6 - 3,000,000 (11 days) (29 days for next 1,000,000) Jul. 14 - 3,500,000 (8 days) (on pace for 16 days for next 1,000,000 based on the last 7 days average) USA deaths - Feb. 29 - first death Apr. 4 - 10,000 (35 days) Apr. 9 - 20,000 (5 days) Apr. 14 - 30,000 (5 days) Apr. 18 - 40,000 (4 days) Apr. 23 - 50,000 (5 days) Apr. 28 - 60,000 (5 days) May 4 - 70,000 (6 days) May 8 - 80,000 (4 days) May 15 - 90,000 (7 days) May 23 - 100,000 (8 days) Jun. 2 - 110,000 (10 days) Jun. 13 - 120,000 (11 days) Jun. 30 - 130,000 (17 days) Jul. 13 end of day - 138,247 (based on the last 7 day average of 750 cases per day, will hit 140,000 Jul. 16 or 16 days later; based on last 2 day average of 430 cases per day, will hit it Jul. 17) Deaths always lag behind cases. Waiting to see if death rate will spike due to capacity in ICUs as is being reported in many states, or if treatments have improved. But some commenters who said it looked like the US just up and quit trying to protect against the virus as July hit may be on to something.

You know, it would be nice if just once everyone who gets so offended by a team nickname that they fill pages with outrage on social media devoted the same vitriol and energy to speaking out (or helping fix the problem) against the rates of poverty, lack of clean drinking water, and no road access to many northern reserves.

Because it is a fake.

The words are facing the tower so that when Trump looks down from his penthouse he can see the words upright and not upside down. Although of you believe the rumour that he is illiterate, right side up vs. upside down really won’t make a difference to him. Either way, this is more about taking a shot at him rather than sending the over arching message about black equality.

Careful throwing around the "stupid" label. That is unnecessary in my view. We are allowed to express opinions and should not be slagged if it differs for another's. There are people who believe in vaccination, but some who don't. Should we automatically change polio and measles protocols for kids because some are offended by vaccinations? That could be a parallel to your position. (I exaggerate of course, but the way to win that argument is to back up the scientific evidence pro and con in the vaccine discussion, rather than throwing out the "stupid take" vitriol as a fact when it amounts to opinion only). How about discussing why someone else's point of view may be misguided, not just calling it an incredibly stupid take because you don't see things that way. Cite the people who are offended and why they are offended, and not just assume they must be because you have decided for them. Discussion, not name-calling please.

The bolded part is an open question I have. Who really are the "many who seem to think" that the name is offensive? I hear a lot of social justice warriors (Troy Westwood springs to mind) claim that the name is offensive to many, but have the actual potentially offended group actually been asked? Here is what Jordan Tootoo, Inuit NHL player, had to say, and it's a lot more eloquent and thought out than most people on either side of the debate who have taken a hard stand have presented: My position is this. We should all understand what the term means to the Inuk people. My father’s generation connects this term to describe who they are. He would refer to himself as an Eskimo. My generation refers to itself as Inuk. What is important to me is that people understand this. And, when referring to the Inuit people to the Inuit people, they respect that we refer to ourselves today as Inuk. I understand there are names of sports teams that bring back feelings of oppression for people and I can see why those names should be changed. So, this makes me ask the question, does the term Eskimo for the Edmonton franchise bring back feelings of oppression for Inuk people? For me, it does not. That is NOT a reason to keep the name. There could be others for whom it does create those feelings. But for me, it does not. I encourage the franchise to explain why they chose the name Eskimos in the first place. Was it racially charged, or, was it because of admiration for the ability of the Eskimos to thrive in cold climates, for their mental and physical toughness and for their resilience? My point is that context really does matter. And, they need to be honest with themselves and with the public. Truth goes a long way. In closing, the name of the Edmonton Eskimos is not objectionable to me. This does not mean they should keep the name. But, I think the discussion should be around how the Inuk people feel about it. Some might feel pride. Some might feel hurt. Either way, that is the group that should be consulted. My opinion is that the discussion is important, but that we should not knee-jerk react because someone tells me that others are offended without hearing from the supposed "offended" group, and I do see a lot of that happening. When North Dakota looked at the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, they actually talked with the 10 Native tribes in the area, and apparently 8 of the 10 were happy with the name and saw it as a sign of respect bestowed on the local indigenous peoples. Two did not share that view, and the name got changed. No one died as a result of the debate either way, so in the end this is not a big world issue. My concern is the slippery slope. Does Fighting Irish stereotype a sect of society? Yankee is considered a derogatory term for northern U.S.'ers from the south (or for the U.S. as a whole from foreign nations), but since the North won the Civil War, does it get a pass since the North is not marginalized as the victors? Or because Yankees are seen as mainly white people, and have not been subjected to institutionalized racism, so slang words for them are not deemed offensive? Canadiens either singles out French Canadians, or excludes English-speaking Canadians - either way you are marginalizing one group. Canuck was a Dutch term meant to insult French Canadians I have read somewhere, and it is often used by Americans as a jokingly derogatory term for all Canadians (oh those Yankees!), but if we are in on the joke, does that matter? The UN Human Rights Code describes discrimination based on its effect, and not its intent, so even if no one sees derogatory intent in the nickname "Canuck", even those it would want to disparage, I guess according to the UN that doesn't matter. But how far do we take all this? And the last time I checked, Native American groups in the US are fighting for their land and opposing an oil pipeline, and had to deal with systematic extermination from the white settlers, aided by the US Cavalry and cowboys, and that doesn't seem to garner the same concern as the name Fighting Sioux did. Perhaps we can fix the real problems and not get in a twist over the dog and pony show of team nicknames so we look like we are socially woke? I'm not saying "well we can't fix everything, so why fix anything?" and willing to ignore this issue, but let's be grounded in our discussions and not assume what others think, and deign to speak for them.

All I said was Dunigan was not in my conversation of all-time best of the best QBs . Speed's rebuttal was to highlight one game. He was more than a one game wonder, less than the all-time top tier in my view.

It was next to the Steinbach Credit Union at McGillivray and Kenaston, in the same block as the Canadian Tire. Went once, was very underwhelmed. Montana`s was way better, if I was to vote on it.

Oh please. Alfred Jackson once had 308 receiving yards in a game. Fred Reid had 260 rushing yards. Sean Salisbury once threw for 454 yards and 6 TDs in a game. Danny Barrett hit 601 passing. David Archer and Kent Austin each had a season of over 6,000 yards passing. Would you put any of them in the "best of the best" category? One big game (or season) does not make an all-time elite.

I would not actually put Dunigan in that conversation of “best of the best”.