• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,496 Revered

About VanGnome

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie
  • Birthday 07/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,348 profile views
  1. Yzerman is not going to do any favours for Benning, nor accept favours from Benning. Why doesn't Tampa just buy out Callahan themselves, trade a D man and promote Foote? Outside of that there are 29 other teams for Yzerman to deal with.
  2. It just came down to the opportunities that presented themselves. BC was in an IT downturn at the time, and I had no interest in changing my vocation at 28.
  3. Not only that, but its going to severely impact the quality of education provided to the students, which is going to manifest in poorer grades overall, and more people settling for crap jobs because the majority won't be able to afford to dream about university or higher skill jobs of which most are going to require degrees in deep machine learning and other advanced computer sciences related subjects. School boards drawing a hard line with fiduciary responsibilities (keeping costs as low as possible, meaning lower wages), is a high stakes game with future generations hanging in the balance. If I have to choose between owning a home and putting my daughter into any university she decides to go to, vs continually renting and substandard education which could limit her chances of success, the choice is clear.
  4. This is so true. I left BC nearly 8 years ago because I refused to settle for a $&!# fast food job paying 10 bucks an hour just to pay the bills. I huffed it up to Northern Manitoba (800km north of Winnipeg) to work a $&!# IT job for way less than what it was worth given the isolation factors, etc. However, because of that decision I'm in now back in BC making six figures, only to be forced back to Manitoba (with my current job in tow, yay) because it's the only place with a reasonable balance of recreational life and affordable single family dwellings. Housing prices though have been a problem since 2004, so the better part of 14 years.
  5. Labate and Boucher have shown nothing to suggest they deserve being on the team over Virtanen, who is remarkably improved from last year. Boeser is a lock for the team, and not just because of his point totals. He's poised, controls the play, has a strong defensive acumen and all in all is just a well rounded prospect, hard to tell that he's a rookie. Boeser should be on the opening roster, and due to this years lack of high end prospects from the draft expected to play in the NHL should be a candidate for the Calder Trophy.
  6. I'm actually on the leagues side on this one, not sure what everyone is thinking. The fact that he had to come across from the center of the ice and make a course correction in order to make contact assures two things: 1. It was not a reactionary hit. Wilson had to be following the play closely enough to be able to time his hit to make the most impact he could; 2. Because Wilson had to be tracking the play in order to lay the hit, it's absolutely certain that he knew where the puck was prior to committing to the hit. There was simply NO reason for Wilson to finish this check, his teammate who was skating literally right beside the guy who had the puck if anyone should have finished their check. The Washington teammate beside the St. Louis player knew enough that the puck was out of possession and therefore was ineligible to be hit, but Wilson, an NHL veteran of more than 330 games did not? I'm sorry, but you don't last 330+ games in the NHL by not understanding defensive assignments (which he clearly abandoned his in order to make the hit). Wilson knew exactly what he was doing, and by George he as going to finish that check. This is nothing more than a borderline 3rd/4th line tweener trying to impress his coaching staff so that he either secures his place on the team, or more likely tries to impress enough to try and get a promotion up the depth chart into the top 6.
  7. Here's another thought... By thinking that the term The Clan could be offensive, and to push to have that name changed because of a peripheral association, in a way allows the KKK to win. It legitimises all of the bad $&!# they have done, and continues to do. By giving in, and trying to avoid the association, she has actually made the problem worse by giving them relevancy in the social spotlight. Whereas the sociology professor at the end of the article says the better approach is to not change the name, but instead put the effort into educating on the differences between the two, and how the school sports name should not be taken as a pejorative offence.
  8. All that Wikipedia page does is exemplify the need for our perceptions and understanding of definitions to evolve over time. If we were still in the late 1800's, I could understand the moral dilemma and the quasi social outrage, but it was the KKK who changed the definition of their perception and divorced from the original conception of what they were from a linguistic argument. The fact that we carried around this baggage for over 150 years does not speak well to our ability to get past certain topics. When the KKK redefined their association with the word Clan, it should have been the end of it. But these negative connotations have persisted for a century and a half. Let that sink in for a moment. Now do you see the absurdity in squabbling over the minutia and the confirmation bias intrinsic in what The Clan means vs The Klan and how that could be misconstrued? I know you're not advocating anything pro KKK, I'm simply boiling this discussion down to its base elements, to point out the absolute in retrospect hilarity of this even being a topic of debate in the 21st century.
  9. The point is they are completely different words, just as They're Their and There are not the same, or To Too Two. Just because they share similarities in their spelling, and their pronunciation does not infer that they share any meaning. Except in the above examples 2/3 of each example does share a common root, and is only distinguished by their grammatical use. Klan is a construct of no linguistic origin, it's origins are born out of an apparent need for symmetry and misplaced ideology. Klan is used exclusively for one and only one purpose, where as Clan has relevant meaning and use throughout language and beyond cultural barriers. It's the same kind of twisted logic that makes virtually any visual representation, or at minimum initial reactions, of the Swastika an evil and maligned symbol, when it's origin is embedded deeply within Buddhist and Hindu culture. This what I meant by allowing certain concepts to survive. We as a society love to keep the memories of evil alive so that we can use them as an example of what not to do, or how not to act, when the very act of that is what allows these concepts to persist and give opportunity for people to be corrupted by them and in allowing that to happen the cycle repeats itself. We also love to draw an absurd correlation between not talking about evil, or not acknowledging evil that has happened to that being disrespectful of the plights of millions of people who suffered at the hands of that very evil. If we are to make any progress as a society, we need to stop dwelling on the past and instead focus our efforts on the future so that we can condition our way of thinking in such a way as to abolish the very essence of what it is to be evil toward one another. We like to think that we are an enlightened more socially responsible and sensitive evolution of our predecessors, but we are really just the same. We just have fancier ways of regurgitating the same outlook on life.
  10. The two are very much NOT the same thing, nor have any meaning whatsoever. They are pronounced the same, but have vastly different meanings. If you wanted to stretch beyond the limit of reason, you could argue that the 2nd informal definition is a group of people with a strong common interest, which could describe the KKK, or any of the millions of groups of people in this world with a strong common interest. A group of avid train enthusiasts could be considered a clan, would you associate train enthusiasts with the KKK simply because a group of them decided to refer to themselves as a clan? This what we mean when we say take context into consideration. Even my 3 year old child is able to think critically enough to see that a picture of a Clan of MacLeod's (of which I am a part) is not the same thing as a picture of the KKK. So this professors insinuation that people regardless of where they are, how they grew up or even the colour of their skin, that they are incapable of thinking critically beyond that of the level of a 3 year old is what is insulting, and borderline racist. When we as a society continue to label people in such ways, all we are doing is reinforcing the belief structures that preceded the circumstances in which these connotations we've associated with certain things came about. It's circular logic, the argument feeds itself, and it's an endless loop. The only way to once and for all rid ourselves of these bull$&!# points of view is to not give them credence. By acknowledging them, we allow them to survive, and so long as they are allowed to survive they will be used by those who would seek to do damage by them. It's Darwinism at its finest.
  11. By the very same logic, UBC should change it's name from the Thunderbirds to something else, because they are obviously misappropriating aboriginal culture. FFS, this is just absurd. I can't let it go! How can people be so ignorant?
  12. Hahahahahhahahahahaha. What a crazy, messed up world this is becoming. How can so many people simply just NOT comprehend or think critically instead of predicating their actions on how they feel? Action should be taken on fact, not the sensitivity of people incapable of not making a big deal out of nothing.
  13. Jesus, her entire argument is predicated on the view that "some people might have their feelings hurt". That's life, not everyone is capable nor equipped to deal with it. The rest of the majority that can shouldn't have to deal with the bleeding heart crusades of ignorant fools.
  14. I'm sorry, but if students and people in the United States are too ignorant to be able to differentiate between an apple and an orange, then that's their problem. They need to correct their outlook on the world, and life itself. Constantly changing things because "it might be perceived the wrong way" is a disservice to all of humanity. It excuses people from having to think critically and it collectively dumbs down society. And this is coming from a Professor of Philosophy at a prestigious university. I mean, the level of irony is unpalatable and it actually makes me mad that someone so ignorant can rise to such a level where they are responsible for the higher education of others, and thus in a position to propagate the rhetoric. At least University students are not quite as impressionable or gullible as high school students, but if I was paying tuition (significant levels of tuition btw), to go to this school, and this kind of garbage was allowed to fester I would be beyond livid.