Volourn

"Oddly enough Volourn is psychic however as my wife went into false labor last night so I spent the entire night in the hospital, and sadly that means no more sex for me for a few months. Atleast, with her that is." .... "Bonuses are not part of salaries. That is why they are called bonuses, and they are not part of salary caps." Irrelevant point.

"The best players in hockey make around $10 million though" Actually, only a handful of them do, and one of those who make that much actually suck. "The average NFL starter makes around $2 million a year. The average NHL starter made around $2 million a year." No. The average NFLer - starter or not - makes more money than the the avergae NHL player - average or not. This is a fact as it should be since the NFl has money. Heck, Peyton Manning's 34$ mil signing bonus is gonna to be almost enough toc over a maxed out NHL team now. Sorry, the NHL salaries aren't even in the same league as the NFL. R00fles! And, let's not mention the MBL (with no salary cap) or worse the NBA even with its 'salary cap'. The only troll here is Enderwiggin who whines and cries like a little baby becaquse mommy said no more sex for him. Ha.

"players decided to waste a full year of hockey" No, they didn't. That was the owners' decision. It was a lock out. Not a strike. Know the terminology before you start posting. "but the NHL players made approximately the same amount of money as the NFL players." No, they don't. They'r enot even in the same league. Hahaha. A funny. I'll try to find that articvle from yesterday. The NHL isn't even in the same stratosphere as the other majorleagues on how much their players are paid (nor should they be since theya re the least profitable). "I mean, even if the owners were cooking their books, there are other means to see if the league was in a financial sane situation." Yeah. Attendance was, by and large, up across the board. Merchandise was selling as well as ever. The only weakness was the tv deals because of Bettman's poor negotiations. If the NHL was losing money, I BLAME him. "Moose is good." Best. Player. Evar. "Boo to hold outs" yeah. It's ok for teams to throw players in the trash when they underperform; but woe to the player who feels the team isn't paying him what he is worth so he asks for money. Talk about double standards. I say one thing, it's no wonder the oweners are billionaires, as they got the fans beliving their crap as gospel. Pathetic.

Why should they salvage anything for a group of dinks who hate their guts and are soa rrogant that they think the players should be their slaves to their every whim. Quite frankly, what Jeremy Roenick said a few eeks ago was too soft. "Fans" are skum, pathetic, and morons. Skum = their arrogant stance against players out of sheer jealousy because players make way more money than them Pathetic = these are the same fans who try to place those same players on the pedestal of perfection and then turn around and wonder why players are 'arrogant' Morons = The fans about high prices for tickets yet will go and buy them, anyways. Fans.. urgh...

"Players should have been more aggressive in pushing for lower ticket prices if they got lower salaries." Nice. Blaming the players for somehting they have no control over. Hell, the players couldn't even a great deal for themselves yet you trust them to negotiate for the fans? Heck, if they did, fans would like be forced to pay thousands of dollars to watch one game. R00fles! The owners control ticket prices. They deserve 100% blame for it.

Congrats to JE for semi returning to the nest.

"If it doesn't solve nothing, then it must solve something! " Meh. Poor wording aside, you know what I meant. <_< "How much sh!t would the league get in if they had doctored books?" If proven in court a lot. Oh yeah, just a word to those who hate the greedy players for forcing high ticket prices on them; this new deal isn't gonna be seen by fans as chances are tickets prices are rising. This is almost guaranteed with the Toronot Maple Leafs. It's not the players' greed one has to worry about; but the owners' greed.

"The NHL offered to give access to their books to an NHLPA auditor, and they declined." Doctored books don't count.

"Where's that Witcheta module?" On my hard drive. On my disk.

"If the NHL wants to have a diverse market exposure (which they do if they want to make more money), a salary cap helps this. Without a salary cap, players follow the money," Isn't that the way it should be? If I'm a player or a prospective employee, I should have the right to work where I would be treated the best. Salary is always a major part of that. If a team is only willing to spend $2 mil and another $10 mil on me then damn unless the one offering $10 mil is a really horrid place to work than damn it would be STUPID not to sign with them. The big market teams should NOT ahve to babysit the small market teams just like Sears should not have to babysit Pa and Ma store down the street. "I honestly would have preferred that the league fold permanently and a brand new league form." That would not solve nothing. I may hate the way the new agreement has been worked out; but at least it's settled . It's also not like the players didn't get nothing out of solid - they get higher minimum wage which is good for the crappy hanger ons, and retirees get moolah too.

Interesting. Odd, that's the first time that's been mentioned. Either he's full of it, or something odd is going on. My point ultimatelty stands, If the Rangers cna't make money, they can either shape up or ship out. If they can't make good business decisions to stay afloat then they don't deserve a NHL team. I got no mercy for NO ONE when it comes to business. No one.

"Really? If the players signed, there would be no lockout." It was a lock out. This is a fact. This is undisputable.It's not an opinion. "The owners had no money. Most teams in the league lost millions every year, and Ottawa officially declared bankruptcy." Some made money. Some didn't. Ottaw should not exist, and you are gonna be unpleasantly surprised when Otta doesn't make any money this year either unless they raise ticket prices. "Financial analysts said that 90% of the teams in the league simply couldn't afford one single year under the old plan." Yeah. Finanical analyists paid by the owners said that. I don't believe them AT ALL. "The owners were to blame for over-spenind in the first place, but every single league without a salary cap has faced the same problems in the first place. The owners knew they made a mistake and attempted to rectify it. Players had to know they were overpaid, and refused to play." The BA has a salary cap, and guys like Shaquille still get paid 25$ mil a year while the highest paid NHL players are 10-11$ mil. The problem isn't the existenc eof the salary cap; but ehe retardedness of the NHL owners paying what they can't afford. The Rangers did NOT overspend. They spent what they can afford. Theyw ere intelligent (thoguh dumb on which players they spend their money on). It's teams like Ottaw who overspent. The owbers didn't try tor ectify; they used bully tatics, threats, and intimidation, and insults to get what they want. If they wanting tor mectify the situation there was an eaiser way - use self control and don't spend more moeny than you have. It's called common sense aka good business sense. If your team has $40 million dolalrs in the account, don't go and spend $50 million. It's just plain retarded. The players were not overpaid, theyw ere paid what the market place warranted. And, the players did NOT refuse to play. the owners told them tog o. The owners refused to let them play. "If the players refuse to play, how is it an open-and-shut case that the owners locked them out?" Do you even know the difference between a lockout and a strike? Gee... Even Alanshu knew he used the wrong words here. The players didn't refuse to play so it *is* an open-and-shut case that the owners locked them out. It was the onwers' legal right do so, and though I disagree with the decision it was their decision to do so. The players also had the right to strike but they DID NOT. "When neither side is contracted to work with the other, and neither side will agree on anything, then you can't point the blame solely at once side." It was a lockout so I cna. Next. "The players never agreed to a salary cap until the end." False. False. False. Players proposed a salary cap way back in December or Janurary.Don't make crap up. "The proposed revenue sharing, and pay cuts, which the owners hadn't pushed for initially. Now the owners got revenue sharing, 24% pay cut across the board, and a salary cap." Don't get me started on revenue sharing. It's even worse than a salary cap. A team like the Rangers shouldn't be forced to pay for the Oilers' team. "Only to take a much worse deal later....smaaaaaaaaaart." I never said they were smart. In fact, they are dumb for the predicament they're in now. "Edmonton did make money in the last two seasons." Then there's no problem. Edmonton makes money and moves on. Good for 'em. And, they did this as a small market teams, no salary cap, and were still competitive. Go figure.

"I guess strike wasn't the best word. But the players still weren't signing the deal. It was their choice to not accept it." Them not signing a new deal is irreleavnt. It was the owners who locked them out. As i recall, the players offered multiple deals including a salary cap very close to the one they got now awhile back. Either way, the players didn't walk out nor did they close the leage down. That was an owners suggestion. "I guess you'd rather the suits be the only ones that enjoy the game. Never mind the fact that Edmonton had >100% attendance one year (thanks Heritage classic), and the fact that other teams and people have considered them to be one of the more exciting teams in the league. Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before posting. Teams like Edmonton and other smaller market teams are finding it harder to hold on to players. You get these garbage teams like New York, that buy so much talent that they become boring to watch, as it's a bunch of shmucks who have no idea how to work as a team. But I guess you'd rather have teams laden with players that don't mesh and all want ice time. Look at all the high spending did for New York. When was the last time they made the playoffs again? A team like New York can continue to make money because they have a market large enough to charge $1000 dollars for a seat. Some big suit's still gonna buy it, just because." Running a sports team is,a nd should be treated as a business. If you are losing money, you should either sell it to someone who can run it better or close down shop. Period. And, the Rangers' problem wasn't them being boring as theyw erne't. They were very entertaining to watch. The problem is they weren't winning. And, the fact they were still making LOTS of money despite their losing ways and high contracts shows that they have every right to do what theyw ere doing. They did nothingw rong with spending the cash (except with some awful deals they made)). Don't makes exuses. Edmonton doesn't make money and hence can't afford to stay in business. Rangers make money and can. In the REAL world, that's the way it should be. However, people want a false Utopia where every NHL team is created equal. this isn't so. Remember, the salary cap is 20-25 mil minimum to 40 mil or so maximum. You can bet that Edmonton will be at the lower end, and the Rangers will be at the high end so, in essence, this has not changed one damn thing except allowing the owners a much higher profit. Good for them. Still bad for the Edmontons of the world. "Clearly people agree. That's why they're tuning in to the NFL, MLB, and the NBA." Before the lockout, the NHL was as popular as it ever was. The NHL was never as popualr as the other leagues, and it likely never will be no matter what because of the size factor between the US vs. Kanada. People should just accept this. "Then why didn't they sign the first deal? Or why are they signing a much worse deal now?" Ask them. Obviously, at the time it wans't to their liking. Now, they are just depserate to get it over sincemoronic fans like yourself were blaming the players for the league's problem when it was 100% the owners' fault. Period. "Name one time the players said they would play if the owners allowed them to play. The players said they refused to play by the existing agreement, and would not sign a new one. Clearly, it's a one sided situation where the owners locked them out. " All of them. Hence the fact it was a lock out. It's not like the players just decided not to show up for work. They were told to go home. Period. Stop kissing the owners' behinds.

"They held out as much as the owners locked them out." It was a lock out. This is undisputeable. It was the owners led by Bettman who said that they were closing down shop. They players weren't the ones who made the decision. Do not blame them for the lock out or league close down. Blame them for not bowing down right away; but not for the lock out. Afterall, there is a huge difference between a lock out, and a strike. The players did strike in the early 90s; not in 2004.

Huh? Where did you get that assessment from that statement? I think you have lost it.

"He's also the same guy that said lets strike, this deal sucks." You should know what you are talking about before posting. The players didn't strike, the owners locked them locked. In essence, contrary to popular belief, this new deal is bad for the NHL. Instead of making retarded deals that help NO ONE the NHL should be throwing out the trash - ie. teams that don't deserve to be in the NHL. The Carolinas, the Ottawas, Calgary et all should all be thrown in the garbage. They are waht bring the game down. Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, and Red Wings along with their large contracts is what mkaes the game better. How cna I say this? easy. Even with their huge salaries those big market teams STILL make lots of dough. That's right. The rangers can spend tens of millions of dollars, and suck on the ice yet they will still sell out the arena and make cash. It's the pathetic markets like Ottawa that ruin the game. This new deal along with the new rules thata re proposed are really going desroy the game. The game doesn't need more scoring. It is the most exciting game on earth. Period. Goodenow deserves to be fired for being a coward who couldn't stand his ground even though his side was in the right. Salary caps, afterall, are an embarassment to a socity that should be about a free market. Bettman should be fired for being a punk who has ruined the game with expansion into cities that don't deserve teams, allowing teams that can't handle exisiting to remain, for locking out the player unnessarily costing the league BILLIONS of dollars, stealing money from players, and for all these new rules that will likely make the game worse not better.

NumbersU is trolling again. As for old games being remade? None. I play them in the past. They wer efun in the past. It is time to move on.

Which doesn't chnage the fact that there are different attacks.

"You better see the post where I clarified my stance on the area attacks and power attacks." I did. I chose to ignore it just as you ignored the fact that there are three different attacks in the game. There are many things about JE one can criticize and one can disagree with the criticism (length, dialogue combat, character, plotline, etc.) as those are all debateable aspects of a game; but arguing about how many different attack (buttons) there are is just silly since it is 100% factual that JE uses 3 attack buttons.

"I haven't even heard Bioware suggest there will be a Jade Empire 2, though I thought I heard Microsoft say the franchise would move to the 360" Then, obviously, you haven't been listening to Bioware. They have every plan to make bopth their original properties - JE and DA - into full fledge franchises. The only thing standing in their way is if the games bombed which, of course, JE didn't do. "honestly was disappointed that there was only one button for attacks," You better play the game again.

"How was Morrowind buggy? I played it a long time ago, but I don't remember it being buggy." I played the game for 3-5 hours. In that time, it crashed at least 10 times, often times I saw my character walking on air (without the fly spell), and enemies would walk through cave walls, and that's just for starters and the eaisly noticeable ones...

No, it wans't. It was always scheduled to eb released before Christmas. Mismanagement is what brought the problems on; not a rush. This has been evidenced by the fact that Obsidian now admits they need to have their own inside QA team. Good on 'em!

KOTOR2 wasn't rushed.

Of course, you don't visit the entire empire. Haha. You trolls, of course, miss the point as usual.

"There are basically two towns in the game" Proof you ahven't played the game since there are two towns and one city in the game. And, it's 20-30 hours of actual gameplay which not counting KOTOR2's awful inventory maze is about the same length. The same goes for KOTOR1.