alanschu

No, and it sucks. Grrrr... :angry: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Am I the only one that has no problems ignoring them? I rarely turn them off because I don't really read them anyways.

I tried to keep my faith in Ty, as I thought he played well for us down the stretch in 2003-2004. But after a bit I found myself laughing at most of the goals he let in.

Anyone saying Conklin wasn't that bad with the Oilers wasn't really watching the Oilers. The save percentage, as horrible as it was, doesn't tell the whole story. The guy frequently let in BAD goals. Ignoring the giant mishap that happened in Game 1 of the Finals, the joke was that he was pretty much guaranteed one bad goal per game. And silly stuff, like not hugging the post properly and having some guy come in and shoot it from the edge of the boards, and have it squeak between his pads and the post....numerous times! Little flutter pucks that would barely make it to the net were mishandled and let in for freebies. I still laugh when I remember Brendan Morrison coming in towards Ty all alone chasing a loose puck, and when Ty got to it, he cleared it right off of Morrison's chest and gave him a free goal. Fortunately we won that one in a 7-6 gong show, thanks to a breakaway goal by Peca in OT. It got to a point where in press conferences, MacTavish was talking about how he was going to start focusing more on shotblocking (at which point we ended up becoming I think the second best shot blocking team in the league) to overcome medicore goaltending. When Dwayne Roloson came to town, there was an adjustment because Dwayne wasn't used to the playstyle. He wanted the Oilers to allow the shot from the outside, because he'd make the save. They didn't have to overcompensate anymore.

GG Joe!

You can't get rid of subtitles in NWN2?

Hey, I won't dispute that my Mom may be wiser than me at some parts of life. She's simply more experienced than I am (being 30 years older can do that to a person).

Yes, this is high school. Society is constantly in pursuit of being more cool.

Sooooo, using Azarkon's perspective, is it not hypocritical for the native americans to demand reparations when they themselves did the same thing?

Wowzers, Allan, you have teh same birthday as teh me! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I knew there was a reason we got along!

Facts? My Mom reads waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than me. But no offense to me mum, I demolish her in overall intellectual ability.

Killing someone in the defense of others or in self-defense isn't murder. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's true. But there's no contradiction. Tarna says Which does not presuppose killing in defense. For example, tarna might want to kill a father who beats his children every day such that they are in constant danger of being killed. and Metadigital says which supposes that tarna's intent to kill, regardless of good or bad reasons, is tantamount to support of murder. I was trying to point out that this was not necessarily the case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, but you said: So, when you say something like "On the contrary, there is not a vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere," and then start talking about how "Most people would agree that certain people deserve death, and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or others" is moot, since apparently, you weren't relating the idea that there "is not a vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere" to the concept that people would "make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others. When trying to illustrate your point about whether or not the vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere, there's no point in talking about a supposed exception of self-defense or provocation. Because if the death of someone was a result of self-defense, then no murder occurred. There can be no exception for self-defense when a murder occurs, because it goes against the definition of what a murder is.

I remember my first playthrough of Torment ending short. The opening conversation with Morte was a bit eye-opening because I was not expecting to do quite so much reading. As I heard more and more about the game being les awesome, I gave it another try. I'm glad I did, because I really did enjoy the whole experience. But I don't think it's a stretch that the style of game design they used is certainly a niche. I prefer it to a wide open sandbox like Morrowind/Oblivion myself.

I remember him having one or two poor games in a row and then bouncing back a bit earlier as well. I think it was the Anaheim/Phoenix time when we lost back to back 6-2 games. Hopefully this is a blessing in disguise and it's enough of a kick in the ass for the people that have been slumping, that cannot rely on Smyth nor Hemsky to carry them offensively.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> People do seem to be avoiding this. I think it's rather important since we're tossing around the hypocrisy label. I disagree. Forcing someone to give up the millions still doesn't make the situation any better. All it really demonstrates is some macabre desire making sure people get their due. In the lawsuit happy continent we live on, it's no surprise that people are looking for the quick fix when it comes to demanding financial compensation for past transgressions. As a funny anecdote, I remember a great episode of John Szafron Versus God where he put peoples ideals where their mouth is. He got some Australian aboriginals to dress up in traditional garb complete with face paint, and went to one of the houses marked with the sign "We recognize that this house is built on aboriginal land." So the aborginals and John knocked on their door, and stated that they were claiming the house since it's on their land. Needless to say the owners of the house were quite surprised. Though they did invite them in for some tea! It was pretty damn funny.

Birthday threads are overrated. Check back and you'll see I am missing one. It's what the kewl people do.

Not the same situation. Now, if Ozzy Osbourne got wads of cash selling drugs back in the day, and that got him to where he is today - and then he told other would-be drug dealers they shouldn't sell drugs, that'd be a closer analogy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So the fact that Ozzy Osbourne may have actually learned that what he was doing was actually bad is moot? Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators? Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Prussia did not exist in WW1, and hence could not have been defeated. Prussia, along with many other states that made up parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Prussia ceased to exist in 1871, after the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

This debate kind of reminds me of the time someone called Ozzy Osbourne a hypocrite when they heard him talking about how you shouldn't do drugs, because he took lots of drugs himself back in the day. Though at the same time, I would think that if anyone were a qualified person to tell me about the bad effects of drugs, it'd be him! Is it not possible for people to learn from the mistakes of the past? No doubt we'll have to bash Italy, because the Roman Empire did lots of bad stuff. Might as well toss in most of Europe actually, with all the imperialism going on not too long ago. As a final question, did the native tribes themselves not war with each other over land?

Killing someone in the defense of others or in self-defense isn't murder.

Because that's who occupies it now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So people who live in the USA today are responsible for what Brits, Spainards, French and Porteguese did 300+ years ago? Hmm. Interesting concept. Guess that means those lousy Canadians should also be subjected to criticism and contempt, since they are responsible for what the Brits and the French did to the native populatioin up there. And blame the Mexicans for what the Spanish and Porteguese to the Mayans, Aztecs, and other native cultures. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those lousy Canadians are subjected to criticism and contempt.

I have serious worries with my Oilers team now

On the plus side, I'll only have to wait 10 minutes!

And what about Jung's personal and collective unconsciouses? The truth will out! Acausal parrallelism FTW! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I remember thinking Jung was a crackpot when we studied him in my psych classes.

Don't forget the wonder that is Paradox Entertainment!!!!

I figured there'd be someone else out there. The big thing I guess for him (assuming some sort of objectivity, which I'm not convinced of. Raycroft does play in Toronto) is that he played more games :\ Cam Ward probably shouldn't be on there, but I guess he was the the Conn Smythe award winner. Fleury I'd take. Brodeur I'd take. Kolzig I'd probably take. Lehtonen I'd take. Lundqvist is probably more being rewarded for his last season than this season. Plus he's in New York. Miller I'd take. It's not a horrible affront that he's not on the list, depending on when it was made (I used the cutoff as the end of October). You could still make an argument for him being on it. Huet's numbers may be "better," but unfortunately for him they were based on only 5 games. I think that that was the biggest thing. It's only really an affront now that he has played really well the past little bit. I'd be surprised if he didn't make the All-Star team though.