Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

JM_

Members
  • Posts

    40,409
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by JM_

  1. this is why we need to keep allowing the free discussion. Cancel culture will continue to have too much power if its not challenged and the discussions are not allowed to proceed. Sure it might be annoying a lot of the time, but people have the right to protest. Let everyone have their say, and see how many people agree or not. By letting everyone have their say, including the 'fire Dave' stuff, we'll see how many people think thats appropriate. But if we put the clamp down on the protestors, we'll never know how many people support them, or not. It'll continue to be some murky thing that some business leaders and for sure academics are afraid of. Get it all out there.
  2. Dave is doing an act, I don't see it as a personal statement or a place to learn about complex social issues, he's just hilarious and free to say what he wants to. But he also knows what he's said is designed to provoke a response.
  3. thats a good question, what is "reasonable."? so to the people offended, they seem to think Dave's platform and comedy (which we don't really know is his true opinion, it is an act after all) is causing harm. So they are acting in a way that seems reasonable to them. If its all within the law, I say let them all have at it. If we try to limit either side then we get into real trouble.
  4. people have a right to have their say though. If Dave can say what he wants, people who don't like what he has to say should also have that right. As far as cancel culture goes, I think thats more of a knee-jerk thing that will eventually fade off, the market will determine what Netflix puts up.
  5. why doesn't everyone have the right to say what they want Phil? people who don't like Dave have a right to say it, not sure why they should *-off. Its a free country.
  6. hmm, not really. Its easy to say that, but Petey is just a kid, he didn't handle any of the hard stuff in the negotiation, they will follow what their agents recommend.
  7. He dresses better and has more money now. This is why I hate it when agents play the holdout game. It always screws with the players performance that year. He'll be fine, hopefully this year but I expect something of a down season for him and Hughes.
  8. exactly. Its criminal that the Lib's and then CPC let that wither.
  9. I think he was pointing that thing my way. I tried having a rational discussion with him last week and he couldn't handle it.
  10. @thedestroyerofworlds I do think one area where we can get universities to make a bigger impact is with orphan drugs. Big companies won't do it as there's just losses in it for them, but if Canada e.g. funded a central lab (and insurance) for production of drugs for rare diseases that would be a huge benefit to a lot of families that can't afford treatments. My worry about relying on uni's is its all curiosity-driven, so if a prof doesn't care about a particular disease nothing will get done. But if there is a market to treat a disease you'll see for-profit companies trying to come up with something.
  11. for sure that happens there. But then what comes next? the cost to scale up is massive. Even something as small as QLT in Vancouver that got spun out of UBC took 100s of millions to get going, and that was for one specialized drug with a small patient population.
  12. probably quite chill. I suspect Jim would reach back to his Boston or Buffalo days for a veteran coach.
  13. I don't think you need to do that, just better regulation. There's nothing stopping our gov'ts from requiring pharma companies to provide doses around the world, or participate in a global vaccine sharing system. The issue with taking profit out is you will lose a lot of innovative thinkers and companies, but you don't need to let them run wild either.
  14. thats too fine a point for him to accomplish.
  15. I don't think they need to do that, I think the effort level is there. They just don't seem to know what they're doing.
  16. maybe its not so much Green as it is the quality of his assistant coaches? the only two doing a good job are Ian Clark and so far it looks like Shaw has brought improvements, and neither of them came up with Green. He's relying on the guys he came up with through the AHL in Baumner and King for defensive and special teams and its not panning out. There must be better options out there for the bench.
  17. I don't really care if Green is removed, what I care about is who replaces him and what group that person brings for support. All of the Green complaints, much of it valid, some of it goofy, doesn't mean much unless we can get someone better. So who's out there? Jim's not going to roll the dice again with someone new to the NHL, he'll almost certainly want a veteran coach.
  18. yeah it is disappointing to see the same confused d group. Our F group is contributing better, but thats Shaw in all liklihood. I guess Boudreau is maybe the most experienced guy out there right now?
  19. not opposed to this idea. But who's out there that's better?
  20. I think its because he makes more noticeable mistakes when playing C and trying to push things.
  21. Its not hard for those folks. Interesting term in this article I haven't heard before that explains a lot - "conspirituality". We have our own little group on here like this. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/17/eva-wiseman-conspirituality-the-dark-side-of-wellness-how-it-all-got-so-toxic?utm_source=pocket-newtab
  22. I know most conservatives don't think this way, but why are they letting people like this run their political parties?
×
×
  • Create New...