reevesr1

Dave at fishtales would be a great resource.

Thanks Sun!

"Hello, is this the referee in charge of the Flames/Caps game? Yeah, this is Bettman. Here is what I want you to do. Since the game is in Calgary, on TSN, and NOBODY in the US is watching, I want you to call consecutive penalties until the Russian scores. Which one? *hit I don't care. Maybe the old guy can put one in. We have to do what we can to step on the Flames. With that defense and goal tending they are a total threat to upset my plan of total US domination of hockey. Maybe one day we can have a franchise in Oklahoma City. Just think of it!" Canadians are funny.

Great idea.

I went in today as well and thanked them. And picked up some small flies he tied for me! I'll let them know about the email. My wife said she tried to email Wayne about something and it bounced back and I figured she just typed it wrong.

Nice fish. I also notice a decided lack of background in the shots, but I still think you are in my water!!

That's probably it. I've called in poachers once fishing that spot. I'll be watching it closer from now on.

Thanks Matt and Michele!

Happy belated Paul! Hope you had a Guinness on me!

KY Jelly. Used. I also found a couple of the straws you use for wd40 or the air cleaning cans (getting high on the air cans?) 4 minnow rig packages and 5 or 6 minnow tubs. Thanks to everyone, especially the organizers and sponsors

I'm amazed no one has offered to trade all the frog patterns thefisherking could ever want for one set of coordinates!

There is a TV on the bank just below the storm drain at Cranston. It would be nice if someone could help me pull it out.

I'm a finger typing SOB. I said this way long time ago when I was first started posting: I am the perfect message board member. I have an opinion about almost everything and don't let things like lack of knowledge get in the way of stating my opinion. You will never catch up. You know when to stop.

I like sandwhiches. Or is that cake? I can never keep it straight.

I would like to agree with this, as I think that we should be able to discuss this and many other subjects rationally. Past history would lead me to believe that is not all that possible. But what the hell, I'll start. It is valid to accuse the GW advocates (which are not necessarily the same as environmentalists) of cherry picking informataion as I'm quite sure many of them do. However, there is a lot there to cherry pick from. To use a cliche, there is lots of low hanging fruit. However, I'm not sure it is valid when you cherry picked an article to use as evidence when accusing the other side of cherry picking. And I voted for Al Gore over W. Just which one is the bastard??

Funny, but here is what the American in me wants to do: "He listens to the argument carefully, considers all sides, then shoots everyone in sight"

To answer the pro question, I think if you have something relevant to add to a discussion, then go ahead and add it. Most of us preface with "I'm no expert, but...."

Grapevines can be misleading.

It is certainly preferable to argue against the argument instead of against the person making the argument. And it is easy to have perspective when you don't have a really strong opinion either way. But I, like most everyone else, have my hot button topics that tend to make me come out guns blazing, damn the consequences. Also I've found I'm much more likely to lash out against the person when I don't have an answer to his position. I call it the "oh yeah, well you're stupid" defense. And our political leaders are just a reflection of us.

Well maybe the coverage I was watching where the conservatives swept Alberta and where the riding results showed no races I remember that could reasonably be called contests were just media hype. Damn CTV. Possibly you are talking about percentage of refgistered voters? Interesting however that when the conservatives sweep an area its a check and balance, but when the other side sweeps they are self serving. I'm excluding the bloc here as I consider them mostly irrelevant. As I said, I probably vote conservative here as well (which makes me a self serving bastard), but I stil maintain the system here is a bit out of whack. Us against them is not healthy, regardless of which side you are on

Man, first time Don ever agrees with me and he gets crap for it. And I'm not touching the mouthy little brother parable. Call me chicken, but I think I shall avoid that battle.

Remember Don, it could be worse. You could have the system I grew up in. Or maybe not grew up in, but what it has become. 2 political parties that have become more like competing religions than political parties who have fervent, unchangeable bases, both absolutely convinced of their rightness (or leftness, as the case may be), utterly convinced the other side in incapable of having a good idea, who shout at each other for 4 years while trying to convince the 20% "undecided" crowd that they are the safer bet. Depressing. While the reality is that the candidate has to be somewhat of a centrist to have any chance of being elected (or he can't get the undecided crowd). I would say that Obama is the most left of any electable presidential candidate, possibly in my life time. Which is mostly a reaction to the policies of the party in power now. And Chris, just keep chewing that cud brother!

Did I read that right? Don called me right?? I sense either sarcasm or a cruel joke!

Wow, some well thought out stuff in this thread. I've often wondered about this fascination with CEO salaries. Right now in the states, it seems an innordinate amount of time (fueled by the media and people's desire for revenge?) spent discussing which CEO made what, as if the company that hired him/her just paid them to sit around doing nothing and making millions. They got paid that because that was their perceived worth. Some probably were worth that. Some definitely were not. Regardless, in a big picture sense, what difference does it really make? Did CEO and upper executive salaries have anything at all to do with the financial meltdown, truly? I could see in a bonus sense, as much of their compensation was undoubtedly tied to performance, therefore there would be incentive to do what it takes to show profit today. But other than than, again, does it matter other than the fact that it just seems wrong? All the talk on the campaign trail in the states goes "and none of the bailout money will go to bloated CEO salaries?" OK, that's fine. But so what? It won't affect the ecomomy one stinkin' iota. Sounds good coming from the candidate though. On a different subject, there was some talk before about easterners all voting liberal and westerners all voting conservative. I tried to find individual riding results from Ontario, but didn't have any luck. I didn't look for long. But, the conservatives did pick up seats in Ontario, just not Toronto. So at least conservatives have a chance (and I did not look further east, I assume the same holds). Not trying to ruffle any feathers (ok, maybe a few), but the voting here in Alberta is somewhat of a laugher. I would even say unhealthy. There is NO WAY that 80+% of the people here actually agree with a conservative agenda. And looking at some of the results, that's the margin of victory. It allows the conservative party to trot out anyone they want and be guaranteed victory in Alberta. The reality, to me, of any political system is you need some competition for checks and balances. There is none here, absolutely 0. I would call voting here herd mentality (and I'm not saying I wouldn't vote Conservative if I could, I'm just saying the results here are unhealthy). In Texas when I grew up there was a term "Yellow Dog Democrat". It meant the person would vote for a yellow dog, as long as the dog was a democrat. You could run out anything here and if you call it "Conservative" it would get elected. That's not good.

Sweet, now get out of my water! Kidding of course. Very well done! Beauty fish, particularly the brown.