reevesr1

The problem with beating the red horde is they don't think they can loose. And any team that gets a late lead on them seems to go into a bit of a shell and prays they don't come back instead of keeping up the pressure. When you combine the talent pool they have with the unreal confidence, it makes them very tough. Think Tiger in the Tiger Slam days. No way to beat him, had to wait for him to beat himself. Maybe we should play you in football instead. Or baseball. Or basketball. Or soccer. Us looser yanks need to feel better about ourselves.

I could have freakin' predicted it. Those damn cheatin' international ref's hate the US and called the game so that the Canadians would win, again. How hard was it to figure out that they would stop calling penalties against the Americans in the third so as to limit their shorthanded chances and start calling them against Canada to give the red horde their shorthanded chances. Cheating bastards. Eh-Oh-Canada----shove it up your ass. Great damn game. Wish we would win one of the freaking things every once in awhile. $10 says we loose to the effin Fins. I hate hockey.

I'm not listening to you right now. Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's exactly what we said at the game! But we thought it was strange he would try to take out Kopitar. We thought Doughty should have been the one with his head on a swivel, what with three spurned Flames defencemen skating about.

I was there. Funny how that phantom hit slammed Kopitars head into the boards. And can someone explain to me how when two guys are racing for a puck on an icing situation the guy in front put himself in a vulnerable position? This stupid rule is going to get someone seriously injured one day. Hell, even Cherry thinks so. Not often anyone from outside Canada agrees with Don, but he's right on this one.

Unfortunately, it does not make one iota of difference what the odds of being on a plane with a terrorist are. As I've said many, many times in various threads, human beings are terrible risk assessors. Many reasons, but there are two big ones. We don't really understand the difference between 1 in 1000, 1 in 1,000,000 or one in 1,000,000,000,000....... We may understand it intellectually, but not emotionally. And the big one is emotion. Being killed in an airplane, or by a bomb is a terrible way to go. So we place so much emotional emphasis on the method of passing we disregard (or ignore-not sure what the right term here is) the remoteness of the risk. All that said, politically there is absolutely no chance on this planet that any western government would not institute these measures if it was their country being targeted. You think we are terrible assessors of risk? Throw CYA into it!

The elk hair looks broken on the ends, like split endz, ya know. No way it will ever catch fish. Send it to me, along with any more ya got. I'll dispose of them properly.

I had an Olympus SW850 (or maybe a 750? Can't remember). Loved it for indoor, outdoor, underwater. I now have a SW1050. Don't like it nearly as much. It just does not seem to take as good a picture either outside or inside. Inside is worse.

Gotta agree with Marc on this. We (speaking as an American here) are in Afghanistan because the terrorist group who attacked us in 2001 used to run Afghanistan. Regardless of whether someone agrees with that or not, what can't be denied is how they ran Afghanistan. No tolerance for anything that went against their "principles", and I use that term loosely. Agree with them, or run the risk of dying. The LAST thing we need in this country is to be more like them. Killing your captured enemy is not "tough love." I hope with all of my bleeding heart that neither of the countries I call home ever condones such a thing. Now do I think that someone who tries to blow up an airplane who is apparently a member of a terrorist organization that is basically at war with the west should get the same treatment as an American citizen? No, I do not. I think he is a prisoner of war, and the Geneva Convention applies. If he is tried and convicted and sentenced to death, I certainly would not shed a tear. But we follow due process now that he has been captured. And before anybody tells me what the men and women in the military are fighting for, I gotta remind them that I was one of those men (though we never fought anyone while I was in.) I can promise that I never fought for a country that would have just off a captured prisoner.

Saw it Saturday with the family and my wife's sister's family when we were in Edmonton. The IMAX was too far away, so we watched it in digital 3D. Just a treat to watch. The movie itself is a bit predictable (ok, maybe more than a bit) but the overall consensus from the 10 of us was So What? It is visually so stunning that it makes a 2.5 hr movie just fly by. We plan to go watch it in IMAX this week.

Mvdaog, A bragger? On an internet chat site? No freakin way! Good job on the eyes closed thing.

2nd 300, no holes in one. And like golf, there are time when it all comes together over a short period of time. Problem is maintaining it. I have averaged as high as 209 before, in a league in Texas. Currently I'm bowling at Let's Bowl in a Thursday Night scratch league (no handicap). They use the same oil patterns the pro's use. To extend the golf analogy, think US Open course setup. Freakin TOUGH. Averaging 177 on that shot. It's brutal. But it sure makes it easier when you bowl on the house shot, like practice yesterday. Edit:And there are a few Canadian National Team members in the league I bowl in on Thursday. I would say "I'm not in their league" but really, I am!! But while I may be in the same league, I am not nearly at the same skill level!

Haven't fished in over a month, going a bit stir crazy. To pass the time after work, I decided I would hit the bowling alley and practice a bit (I do bowl once a week). So I bowled 5 games, the last being my second perfect game. (Other 4 games 206, 216, 223, 234). The lanes actually broke down for a bit in the 8th frame, so I had to wait a few minutes between shots. Anyway, it was fun. Won't be my last, but they are few and far between.

One of my colleagues went to a funeral in Sask. His cousin, mid 30s, completely healthy, died of it a couple of weeks ago. Wonder if GlaxoSmithKline of whatever conspiracy theory we are into today killed him so we would get shots? I got my shot. My family got their shot. My wife gave shots (she is part of the conspiracy too). I'm really, really glad that it wasn't as bad as people feared it would be. One day one of them will be. I'll probably be ok cuz I'll get my shot. My family will get their shots. My wife will give lots of people shots. Many of the conspiracy theorists won't. They'll blame the media or the government when they get sick just like they blame them now when they don't.

My first thought as well.

Its not hard to find examples of charitable organizations with too much overhead. But I guess it depends on what you want to focus on, and what your actions are following discovering the charity you use isn't living up to your standards. I think the response should be to find another charity, but not stop contributing. If we spend our time stressing over the fact that some of the money we contribute doesn't go where we intended and allow that to cause us to stop, then in my feeble little mind, we are focusing on the wrong thing. Focus on the good it does. That is so much more important than worrying about the sycophants in the system. They exist in every system. And I know this is a total hijack. I'm doing it because I'm so tired of the GW debate. Sue me.

I do think as a society of pretty well off people we owe the world at large some of our hard earned bucks. That does not necessarily mean I need the government to do that for me. I can do that for myself. Find a worthwhile cause in some other part of the world that you believe in and contribute to it. Also find some local cause and help with that or contribute to it. Those of us who find ourselves in a position to help others have what I think is a moral obligation to do so. There is always a chance some of your money will get to someone who does not deserve it. But it is certain that if you contribute to good causes most of your money will go to people who do.

Bob, I usually read most of what is put up on this subject. In reality, due to the skeptic nature of some on this board, I probably read more on the "I don't believe it" side of things. The first link was interesting. What would be more interesting however would be if someone could tell me what the last 100 yrs would look like in the absence of man made CO2. Impossible question, but just because we can increase the time scale and make the temperature change appear to be meaningless in no way makes it meaningless. (and of course the corollary is just because it appears meaningful does not make it meaningful) To the second link, I didn't watch. When their title starts off with telling me how I've been misled by the nefarious group of politicians, activist scientists (funny how a scientist is only an activist when he disagrees with the person calling him an activist) and environmentalists, I pretty rapidly lost interest. Didn't sound to me like they were keeping an open mind, as you caution us to do. That and the website looked like crap. I know, not a legit reason for not reading, but I'm pretty busy. Break over.

Dave, I called you a bad name on Facebook since it's allowed there.

Paul, I think you've just encapsulated the dilemma facing parks management folks. I watched a bit of Ken Burns documentary on the creation of the US National Parks system. They started off wanting everybody to come see the parks. Then they rapidly saw the problems associated with too easy access. But make access to difficult, and funding dries up. Difficult problem. Reading this thread would lead one to believe that if people just yell at each other, maybe that will help with the debate. Or maybe not. Sounds like you are trying to bring some reason to it. Good luck, I doubt we will play nice for long.

What Terry forgets to mention here is that 3 of the 4 participants believe in man generated global warming. The difference is in how to respond to it. The economist in the group (Bjorn Lomborg, who was by far the most effective) stated several times that man generated global warming cannot be disputed. His issue is that the cost of fixing it is more than the cost of possible damage his group of economists think it could cause. Therefore we should focus our money on more pressing problems while investing heavily in alternative energy sources to allow CO2 to come down by the world slowly switching over to more efficient, less harmful energy sources. Hardly a "status quo" solution. I could call it the Smitty Solution, based on a previous post. Sounds very reasonable, making the huge assumption that if we don't spend it on GW we would then spend it on World Hunger (or malaria, or drinking water, or affordable medicine, etc.). Personally, I've seen little evidence of countries contributing huge sums of money to fight these problems in the past and don't see that stance changing in the future. But if there really was a choice on where to spend the money, I could see myself siding with Bjorn, I just don't believe such a choice exists. All of the other 3 were politicians and authors. Well read and informed politicians and authors. But politicians and authors nonetheless. I found all three ineffective, but in my view Nigel was the least believable. Sorry, pro side.

Come on Kevin. You are polling a bunch of mostly well off white guys in a province ruled by oil and gas. Hardly a representative sampling! And 30 votes? Not exactly a statistical juggernaut. This *hit makes me laugh. People lament the "politicization" of the argument, while being full participants in the process. When is the last time you saw anyone on one of these posts look at data from the "opposition" and say, "huh, that makes sense. Do I need to look at this further?" Not bloody likely. In the states it has become a right vs. left issue. In other words a status quo (keep the money where it is now) vs. change for change sake argument. In other, other words 100% political. The against side targets people with similar political beliefs as themselves so they can all pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are for exposing this world wide conspiracy (please!). The for side targets people with similar political beliefs so they can all pat each other on the back and tell each other how they are trying to save the world while the nasty rich people and oil barons try to ruin it. Somewhere in the middle are people truly trying to figure out what is really going on while trying to keep the politics out of it. Good luck to them. The extremes of the for and against sides will do what they can to keep that from happening.

Wes, Thanks for the censor. My logic is just fine, thanks. I'm sure you are happy with yours as well. Of course much of what they make comes from advertising, in multiple ways. The best at what they do get money directly from advertisers to wear their gear or pitch their wares. All the major sports are on TV, and the reason TV pays the leagues money is the amount of advertising revenue they can get while we watch them "play." If everyone was like you, then there would be no money in it and pro sports would cease to exist. But unfortunately, many of us watch. I'm watching the flames right now. Nice game, nice diversion to end a long day. All those guys are making lots of money. Good for them.

Jeez Jay, really sorry to hear that. On a brighter note, if you take me to one of your remote spots, sans camera, I'm sure that would make you feel better. Unfortunately, that will have to wait until July or so!

Whales-not as sure (or maybe not as emotionally attached) as dolphins, but maybe. Walrus, seals, and sealions are different.