VanGnome

Members
  • Content Count

    2,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

VanGnome last won the day on August 16 2018

VanGnome had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,519 Gaming the system

About VanGnome

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular
  • Birthday 07/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,951 profile views
  1. VanGnome

    BC Man Faces Death Penalty in China

    Don't feel sorry for the drug trafficker in the least. I am however reveling in the clear impotence Trudeau et al are displaying in a leadership capacity. We all know very well that the original sentence likely would have been left as is had Trudeau not capitulated to the demands of the USA in arresting the Huawei exec, only to then thumb his nose at the Chinese in some virtue signaling attempt to claim the moral high ground. This on top of swooping in to white knight Rufah or whatever her name is, the Saudi "asylum claimant". Wanting her privacy to be respected, but okay with carting her out in front of journalists, camera flashes for a PR stunt. Freeland can gag on her self indulgence and Trudeau can join her. These kinds of human rights issues if they hold veracity are not things to be toyed with for political benefit, neither are the associated policies of immigration and foreign affairs to be trifled with and handled in irresponsible fashion. All politicians do this to some degree or another, but Trudeau and Freeland are ramping it up to another level entirely.
  2. VanGnome

    [Report] Sergei Bobrovsky willing to waive NTC

    Chiarelli is in save his ass mode right now. Would not be surprised to see something like: Talbot, Puljujarvi, 2019 1st, 2020 1st for Bobrovsky, Panarin, 2019 1st or something to that effect. He needs to do something or he's fired and the team blown up... again.
  3. VanGnome

    So, Canada is not a country... not really

    1. Well sort of, yes and no. The people democratically vote for their chosen representative (member of Parliament), but who the leader of the party is who ultimately becomes the PM and thus guides the decision of the country is out of their control. In addition to that, I would wager that the majority of voters think they are voting for something in principle that they are not getting. 2. I don't for one second believe taxation is theft, I think that taxation is necessary in this day and age in order to fund socially beneficial policy like universal health care, public education (free from as much Governmental influence as possible) and social benefits to help the vulnerable survive until they can support themselves once again. 3. See Stromes response. 4. See point 1. I would argue that Trudeau has done a lot that people don't like. Buffooning the pipeline, actually BUYING the pipeline, fighting veterans in court over benefits while putting up illegal migrants in hotels and issuing generous sums of money that people here could use to help get their lives back on track (homeless, impoverished, recovering addicts etc). 5. So opening up voter verification to potential attacks from foreign influence is a good thing? We're uncertain as to the level of nefarious interference in US or Canada but there are actors out there who would have legitimate reason to intercept/tamper with/manipulate official voter registration/tendered results, as for their reason to do so? No clue, but leaving a potential attack vector susceptible to abuse is irresponsible. 6. Yes this is true. 7. The provincial boundaries were defined in the BNA act, which itself is a legitimate document. The repeal of 1893 repealed specific clauses to the Crowns vested interest and power over Canada while keeping the defined territories and provinces intact, reverting the provinces to sovereign entities unto themselves. I agree that indigenous tribes need more legitimate voice and power in Canada, personally being a descendant. 8. While he does not control the day to day lives, he is in control of the circumstances that are created through policy making and generally buffoonish behavior that does ultimately impact the day to day lives of individuals. 9. Where was my right as a citizen to speak to the concerns over mass migration? Where was the national referendum where the forward progress of the "nation" was to be decided vis a vis population replacement (Muslim migrants have a 2.9 average birth rate relative to the 1.6 of the average Canadian family)? Why could we not have had a discussion around other ways of sustaining the workforce in Canada. 1.3 million proposed new migrants over the next 5 years. Let's assume 5 to a family, 2 adults and 3 kids (supporting the 2.9 figure) that represents 260,000 families. Not all muslim, granted but that seems to be the overwhelming majority so let's say 60% (not such an overwhelming figure), that is 156,000 families. Now let's assume 50% of those have only had their 1st child. That's 2 children per 1st generation migrant family which represents 312,000 newborn Canadian citizens. Let's assume that 75% of these second generation migrants each has a family of their own, that's 936,000 3rd generation Canadian citizens in the span of lets say 2-3 decades, I'm sure you can guess the exponential growth from there. Studies routinely cite that once the average birth rate of a society declines below 1.8 it becomes irrecoverable. We're at 1.6, so instead of replacing the population through a decidedly biased fashion toward a specific ideologically based identity group, why not look for ways to help improve the steady decline in Canadian birth rates that we have seen take place since the 60's to help maintain a healthy balance to our society instead of letting it become overrun so to speak. This topic really went off the rails, as it's fairly specific to the current sitting government and not what I wanted to get into. The ultimate goal here is to question the legitimacy of what we have come to understand Canada for what it is relative to what people believed it was;. Either way, the overarching theme here is there is a lot of questionable policy by both liberal and conservative governments over the years, and much of it in support to build up a large bureaucracy around what amounts to an illegitimate de facto government.
  4. I was involved in this discussion on a political forum and wanted to bring it here to see what some less politically motivated individuals might think about this. I think it would be a great conversation to have and to see if the reality matches up with what your interpretation or understanding of Canada truly is. Back in 1670, what became Canada if I remember correctly, was originally a French Parisian colony but was later granted to the British Crown after 1763 Paris Treaty as a result of the 1759 battle between Britain and France. Once the Paris Treaty was ratified, the first Letters Patent were issued which recognized the Governor General's authorities in the Sole of Canada, and for every successive Governor General thereafter until 1931. Essentially the contention comes from the reading and interpreting of past government acts, namely the Statue Law Revisions act, 1893 which came into force upon the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, and the Westminster Act, 1931 which ended the issuance of Letters Patent and the 1867 BNA Act thereby allowing Canada to confederate, except Canada never officially confederated. The Provincial Legislatures which at the time were not voted by the public as they are today but rather as a byproduct of the system of British Colonialism, as was the Federal Government of Canada. What this implies is that the Government of Canada is in fact a de Facto Government, or otherwise unlawful. Effectively, the people who had power then chose to quietly continue on under the old model of colonialism instead of taking their newly granted freedom to confederate as the US did, but without all the fuss of a revolution. Things existed in this fashion from 1931 until 1982 when Pierre Trudeau drafted the 1982 "Constitution Act" which still conveniently failed to take yet another opportunity to confederate as a nation. This is evidenced by the fact that from 1931 until 1982 every revision to the BNA that was supposedly defunct required the British Crown's royal assent to pass into law as the UK Parliament also had jurisdiction with the goings on of Canada and any legislative changes the Government wanted to act. What the 1982 act did was to sever the legislative ties between the UK and Canada, allowing Canada to adopt it's own legislative changes. Pierre Trudeau incorporated Canada as a corporate entity such that under corporate law "Canada" is considered a "person" and thus is afford all of the legal rights and authorities of a legal entity. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the actions of the Federal Government, if it is indeed de facto (unlawful) are amoral and against the wishes of the majority of people of Canada then the Provinces are being effectively held at a socialist gun point and forced to hand over financial resources to help balance out the rest of the country (the equalization payments). The provinces are also held to and forced to accept questionable immigration and fiscal expenditure policies (<3 Welcome to Canada, UN Global Compact on Migration petition here which currently has in excess of 65,000 signatures, massive budgetary deficits and no proposed balanced budget until 2041). You might say, but that's why we hold Federal elections right? Well, because Canada is still considered a Constitutional Monarchy, once voted into office and the prime minister is sworn in, their allegiance is to the Crown of England, not the people of Canada. So regardless of what any campaign promises a politician will make they are under no obligation to follow suit other than testing the fate of their re-election chances, which Trudeau has done presently in an effort to loosen certain aspects around the voting process. What can we do about it? Well if each province were to hold a constitutional convention, they can draft and create their own constitution thereby invalidating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If all of the provinces do this, they can then ratify a proper confederacy and completely change the political landscape, for example opening up to the adoption of an electorally chosen head of state such as a President. The other benefit is that through either a Provincial Constitution or a Federally Unified one, the citizens of Canada will have actual legal rights afforded to them, and not simply the illusion of full rights and freedoms as what exists today. For example, you might think that you have the right to free speech, but if anything you say publicly is deemed to incite xenophobia, racism or hate, you can be charged with a federal crime and placed in prison. The definitions of what constitutes the above is also fairly murky and at the mercy of the courts to make that determination. The obvious issues with all of this is the impact on trade, it would certainly aid in intra provincial trading, but how will it affect international trading? How will this affect the relationship with indigenous peoples? There's a lot to consider, but just remember that if we don't like the way things are or the way the country is trending there is actually something that can be done about it.
  5. I just ate one too many pepperocini's. Feel the burn.

    1. Show previous comments  13 more
    2. Green Building

      Green Building

      &^@# yeah to derp fried pickles. I'll raise you a 6-pack of deep-fried habaneros mixed into a calamari platter with an extra garlic-y tzaziki.

    3. Green Building

      Green Building

      Hmm, mayhap I'm currently "derp-fried" myself.

    4. VanGnome

      VanGnome

      I'll generally involve some sort of pickled vegetable, whether it be banana peppers, green beans, peperoncini's or pickles with most meals, particularly when I have a meal such as this evening: Steak and fried rice with peperoncini's and caramelized onions with a clarified butter drizzle.

  6. VanGnome

    Last night in Sweden

    Ultra 10 ply bud
  7. Yes, the "code" is an artifact. It's a relic of a bygone era before the way the game is thought changed, and it has changed. Players like McDavid, Crosby et al are hacked, hooked, hit, tripped, slashed, high sticked etc whenever opposing teams take the opportunity to do so. Those who commit those infractions need to walk a fine line when doing so, otherwise they run the risk of incurring a penalty when caught. The truly great players in the league learn to play through that, to focus on the game. How the game is thought has changed is in the past if a star player had any of the above done to them, the team goon or some other physical player would enact retribution. In today's game the great players focus on their game and the rest of the team follows suit. When the incident is egregious ala Matheson, and the other players on the team see it they will respond and have in the past. Case in point the Lightning game on Stecher, the ref's didn't do their job and the team handled it, or Ryan Miller on Matt Martin, funny enough that was also involving Stecher. The Matheson hit was over the line, but it was behind the play and therefore people did not see it. The Kotkaniemi thing was also behind the play and instead of ignoring it Pettersson engaged and it ended up badly for Pettersson. It could have ended up just as badly for Kotkaniemi, very easily. It's funny how people have selective memory about these sorts of things. Here's another reason why players don't act in a punitive fashion retroactive to something having been done to any player on their team: there is no such notion as a mean nothing game. Every game is important regardless if you're in the midst of a playoff race or have already been eliminated. There is always something positive to take from playing in any game during the season, whether its the chance to improve in the standings, improve individually or as a team. When fans say "oh it's a mean nothing game, just do SOMETHING" fail to see the bigger picture; I'll admit that I've been caught up in the emotion game to game as have a lot of people, it's easy to get lost in that emotion. When cheap shots happen and it gets seen, players react nothing wrong about that or has changed at all. What has changed are the times of punitive retribution. When players cross the line there is response, both within the game and afterward by the league. Does there need to be more consistency from the league? Yes. Does there need to be more consistency from the referring? Yes. I don't dispute those ideas, but I reject the notion that players need to preoccupy themselves with retaliatory vendettas or engage in after whistle shenanigans simply because opposing teams are walking a fine line against star players. Citing 2011 as an example is the epitome of a straw man argument, since there was a clear lack of consistency both from the league and from the referring in that series, and no amount of truculence or gooning it up would have changed the outcome. In fact, had Vancouver matched the Bruins in their antics 1:1, the series likely would not have gone to 7 games, so again I'll refute that all of the discipline didn't help them win, because it gave them the chance to win. The team simply failed to show up in game 7.
  8. I think the reason being is we're seeing a slow culture shift in the game. That "code" is an artifact of the game from a decade ago and longer. With players like Crosby Ovechkin, Malkin Mackinnon McDavid Draisaitl Stamkos Kucherov Laine Kane Toews Gudreau Pettersson and to a similar degree Horvat etc, we're seeing an emphasis placed on skill, and finesse. Physical contact is becoming the byproduct of playing in a contact sport as opposed to being the sole focus. Coaches this year have been talking about playing "heavy" styled games in the regular season, that is playing with intensity all season like we see usually reserved only for the playoffs. We're seeing fewer players like Cooke Ruutu Burrows Lapierre or Holik. Even middle of the road players are focusing more on the speed and skill of the game, not competing with it but trying to not be left behind. I see this with Virtanen for example. He could very easily play a super heavy game, chirp guys, get under their skin because he has the physicality to back it up, but playing the game that way becomes a distraction. I have no doubt that Virtanen for example will find that crossover point where physicality, speed and skill all intersect and when he does he will truly break out. Coming back to Pettersson, the focus should not be to perpetuate the artifacts of the past, but rather as a league get past the point where the middle of the road players like Matheson are relegated to the AHL or lower. People might not like it, and think that hockey should be old timey and full of nastiness (like Burke), which I'm for if it's a genuine emotional response to something that happens in a game but to just have truculence as a rule and for the sake of it is IMO counter productive and unnecessary. The way to achieve this is to keep focused on playing the right way. People were quick here to complain about his comments when Gudbranson said (paraphrasing) "Sure we could respond after every hit or incident but then we risk taking a penalty." As we saw in the Tampa game, when the other team blatantly crossed the line and the refs didn't do their job, the Canucks were more than capable of taking matters into their own hands. The point is that we should not be expecting the team to do that every time, all the time. It's bush league and it's embarrassing. Stuff happens in hockey and you move past it, in the end every team is vying to be the best in the league so the focus night in and night out has to be on the game and trying to win it, especially with the level of parity in the league that we have between teams. The Kotkaniemi-Pettersson was a fluke incident, it was precipitated by a cheap dig and ended up poorly for us. It could have just as easily ended up poorly for Kotkaniemi had he been the one to fall awkwardly, and because it was Pettersson we'd all be saying it was a fluke play and no big deal. I played hockey growing up as I'm sure many people did, and did so during that era with goonery and mucking it up. I got into my fair share of scraps in Bantam and Midget and I'll tell you what, there was always still an emphasis on trying to win the game and play the game the right way. What Green is doing with the poise and leadership he's showing, it's working and the players are buying in. It may not be evident this season, but in 1-2 years when we've become a playoff threat again, everyone will be applauding Green, his coaching and this team when the lessons they are learning now are put into practice during the playoffs.
  9. VanGnome

    Playoffs, could it happen?

    I still think that worrying about one player who could improve our odds at making the playoffs which could unbelievably improve the team when it comes to expansion is a bit too conservative. If as you say all 3rd year AHL players are eligible as well then we will have more players eligible for expansion than we'll be able to protect anyway. I'd rather take overall team improvement over not having that improvement by being too cautious and conservative in fear of the unknown 2 years from now.
  10. VanGnome

    Playoffs, could it happen?

    The expansion rules have minimum thresholds for Teams had to submit their list of protected players by June 17, 2017, and they had to expose at least two forwards and one defenseman that had played at least 40 games in the 2016–17 season or more than 70 games in the 2015–16 and 2016–17 seasons combined and had to still be contracted for the 2017–18 season. The Seattle expansion will be using the same rules as the Vegas expansion. 2020-2021 is a ways away and a lot can happen in terms of roster flux. Goldobin, Baertschi, and Hutton could very well not be on the team. Juolevi, Dahlen and Gadjovich could not be eligible for expansion at all depending on how they're used.
  11. VanGnome

    Playoffs, could it happen?

    The only players I'm even remotely concerned with protecting for the expansion is Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes, Virtanen, Gaudette, Demko, Juolevi. Everyone else are replaceable pieces.
  12. VanGnome

    Playoffs, could it happen?

    There's a faint glimmer of hope here in Canuckland, and that is the inconceivable notion that we could potentially see... Canucks playoff hockey this season... First let's look at where we are today: Record: 20-19-4, 44 points in 43 games played. Currently one point back of Anaheim for the 2nd wild card spot in the West. Scoring: 128 goals for and 136 against for a differential of -8. Goaltending: Markstrom is on fire, and doesn't look like he's slowing down any time soon. Tonight's game with 3GA, I couldn't really blame him for much if any of them. He just didn't get much help defensively at all when he needed it. Over his last 15 games, Markstrom is 10-4-1 with a GAA of 2.33 and a SV% of 0.925. In those 15 games, the Canucks have a goal differential of +18 (53 GF vs 35 GA). Markstrom's last 15 games represents 71% of all Canucks games played in that time period (15/21). With the trade today of Nilsson, even if Demko is brought up I certainly don't see that share of games dropping, if anything it stays the same and more than likely it increases. So let's say Markstrom plays 80% of the remaining games that the team has. Of the 39 remaining games 80% is representative of 31 games, or basically double the sample size used above. If we use that sample size as a benchmark we end up with Markstrom accumulating an additional record of 21-8-2 for a total individual record of 31-12-3. That would put the team at a record of 41-31-7 for 89 points in 74 games played. This would leave 8 games in which the team would require 7 points to hit a 96 point benchmark which would realistically give them a shot at securing a wild card spot. In order to achieve those 7 points in 8 games, the worst record they could have would be 3-4-1. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Demko if sheltered and given relatively weak opponents could achieve that record. Now, let's examine how to support this hypothesis. Let's look at the record of the team over the 6 games that Nilsson played, and see how that contrasts to Markstrom over his past 15. Nilsson's record was 0-5-1 with a GAA of 3.50. The team had a goal differential of -14. If we look at the overall goal differential of the past 21 games, we get +4 which is +12 relative to their current season differential. Let's take the average of Markstrom and Nilsson's numbers and use that as a benchmark for Demko which gives us a GAA of 2.91. Using the benchmark for Demko of 2.91 GAA, over 8 games we get 23 GA. The team's average GF for Markstrom was 3.53, for Nilsson's last 6 games it was 1.33. Taking the average of that it is 2.43 GF/G. Let's say that the team performs @ 80% of the goal scoring clip they did in Markstroms past 15 games, that would account for 42 goals and a GF/G of 2.82 GF/G so we would see a modest uptick in run support for Demko. Over 8 games that Demko would play that results in 23 GF which is a differential of 0 (or +4 relative to today's season differential, which is consequently the same as the +4 hybrid over the past 21 total games) based on his benchmark GAA of 2.91 over 8 games. Having a 0 differential over 8 games spread out through the remainder of the season is certainly plausible enough to support a 3-4-1 record. Let's say even that Demko doesn't play 8 games and only 7 as McKenna will likely play tomorrow in Montreal. It's feasible to assume that could be one of those 5 losses. Now let's look at variables that could tip the scales in a more favorable direction. 1. Sven Baertschi. Has only played 3 games since coming back from injury. Yet in those 3 games, he is at a PPG pace with 1G and 2A. Prior to his injury he had 6 points in 10 games. It may be a bit early to say, but it looks like he'll be able to maintain the point scoring pace he had before injury. 2. Brandon Sutter. Is very close to returning, and will be instrumental in securing our defensive depth on forward. He was not scoring at a huge pace, but enough to pitch in here and there with timely points, but mostly solid 2-way play. 3. Trade bait. Both Granlund and Goldobin I feel are being shopped, and could fetch some defensive help on the blueline. Not having to play Pouliot game in, game out is always a bonus. Hutton and Edler have been good this season, although Hutton is tailing off from his hot start to the year. 4. Quinn Hughes. Hughes presents an interesting quandary. He's playing well individually this season so far with 20 points in 17 games, however his team is not doing well. The University of Michigan is not ranked on any of the top collegiate ranking lists (Top 15/Top 20 Div 1 NCAA teams), so it looks unlikely that they will be contending for the Frozen Four tournament. This could present Hughes with an interesting dilemma. Should the Canucks be in such a position near the trading deadline as to be in contention for the playoffs either via wild card or divisionally, and the Wolverines unlikely to compete in the Frozen Four, Quinn could decide to leave school early and sign his ELC prior to the NHL trade deadline. This would have him eligible for the playoffs should the Canucks squeak in, as well as the remaining 20 games of the regular season. 20 games of Quinn Hughes on the PP1 with Boeser, Horvat, Pettersson and X could really, really make a big difference down the stretch. Moreover, having Edler moved down to PP2 would spread out the PP QBing and stabilize both units. With the Canucks also having played more road games in the 1st half of the season, only 17 of the remaining 39 games of the season are on the road. In fact the Canucks only have 3 road games all month in January, one of which they won in OTT, and the competition is not exactly strong. Just 3 teams currently in playoff positions out of 9 games, February looks like a bit tougher of a schedule with more than half of the games on the road including 3 back to backs. Fortunately however in those back to backs only one is against a playoff team on the second game. March represents a lot of home games, with a lot of divisional rivals of whom the Canucks could be battling directly for playoff spots with making those games even more important. I don't think I've made any unreasonable assumptions in any of this, and I have to say I will be watching in anticipation the remainder of this season and even if the team falls just short I will have to say it should put Green squarely in contention for the Jack Adams if nothing else as EVERYONE had the Canucks in the bottom of the league competing yet again for a lottery pick.
  13. Hardest shot and Accuracy
  14. VanGnome

    [Speculation] Goldy on the move

    Super 10-ply there bud
  15. I was just organizing a few things in my office, and I came across something that I would consider one of my greatest organizational accomplishments.










    9 consecutive years of complete income tax return documents, complete with several successful contentions to the CRA "Re-assessing" previous years returns and demanding more money out of me, all neatly 3 hole punched and organized in a binder. I guess I learned something from High School after all.