jackofwind

Innocent until proven guilty means he's not in jail/prison while waiting for the result of the investigation. It doesn't give him the right to continue to play for a private club. I think it's hilarious that some people can't grasp that letting him continue to play during the investigation would be an insane business decision.

I mean to be honest, &^@# Jake for a lot of reasons whether or not these allegations are true. He's the embodiment of a player who feels that just making it to the NHL is good enough, and his willingness to coast and milk his roster spot on and off the ice makes me want to see his career fail. If he's also a sex offender, well, even more reason for life to slap him in the face. Maybe it's the wake up call he needs to realize there are consequences to his actions.

This is nothing and you should feel bad.

What the &^@# Burkie, "Gavi needs to try to block that shot" after he takes it up in his neck area. Come on bud.

That's also true, they did not.

You'd be right, the guy in the very front with the grey beard and toga is the senator. All the others are legionaries.

At least the Canucks logos don't just lie to try to justify their team name like Ottawa. The Senators don't have an actual Roman senator as their logo. It's an optione (it's unlikely that the designer actually knew the difference between an optione and a centurion). Senatorial rank was a societal rank and political office, but not a military office. You had to be of senatorial rank to be an officer in Rome, but that didn't make you an actual senator. Also, can we talk about the helmet for a second - Roman military helmets didn't have visors. The "Senator" is wearing an adult version of this, with the addition of Corinthian-style cheek protectors. It's a historical nightmare. An actual acting senator in the Roman Senate would be an old man in a toga, possibly with a scroll. If we're talking logo accuracy, something that looks like this guy would be more appropriate: Also, notice the difference between Roman military uniform and Roman senate dress, easily illustrated here. Guess who the senator is (hint: he's in the front.)

That's what we like to call a smart hockey play by a wily veteran.

I don't know about that, T/K always seem to find that next gear and are able to rally their team behind them in the playoffs. The Oilers don't really have that, though they undeniably have the firepower up front. I could see Chicago taking it hard to Edmonton and closing out a short series against them.

That's not true, Babcock couldn't get the Leafs to be anything but soft.

Photoshop is hard and nobody does anything on the internet for attention.

And the paper itself is about the 2011 run, which is my point. The note mixes the two Cup runs together.

Re-read the note, it says we lost to Boston in New York. The note makes no sense and there's no way someone in the Vancouver newspaper industry gets those details wrong - we lost the Cup in our own city and had riots FFS.

Why would the unattached caption be the incorrect thing though, especially when a "mocked-up frontpage" could easily have unrelated text used to fill text boxes. It's just someone's silly personal joke. If it's actually on official display somewhere there's no way it says Vancouver beats Boston in New York.

It's fake, read the caption at the bottom it says we lost Game 7 in New York. It's like a weird mashup of '94 and '11.

Good thing we're still in a playoff spot right now then. Missing the playoffs in the very first year that you were reasonably expecting to be able to make a push for them is not the end of the world.

Amateur what? Beer drinker? Real men drink whiskey anyways so what does it matter.

Or because non-dark beer tastes at best like ice water with a yeasty aftertaste and at worst like hot piss.

This is the kind of thing that you can easily take for granted before you realize that you could easily go the rest of your life without seeing another jersey retired, let alone two at once. The Sedins are synonymous with the franchise, and we're lucky to get to see players like that dress for our team during our lifetime.

Looked like he was going to go on Tanev, which could have actually been a legit check, but then swapped at the last moment to hit Sutter cause his feefees were hurt.

So we give Toronto some stuff they could use an in return we ask for stuff we don't need? Give your head a shake bud.

Trolls can do what they want, they're actually way more of a minority than people who are active on the internet give them credit for. If what you're saying is true Trudeau would never have been re-elected.

Showing an understanding of the severity of their actions and apologizing publicly and directly to the person(s) without the addition of legalese, excuses that detract or deflect blame, or hiding behind a corporate curtain. I'm all for giving people another chance when they demonstrate that they understand the errors they've made and own up to them fully, without trying to worm out of them at all, and show that they've changed the way that they conduct themselves. None of the coaches so far have done those things.

That's a good question - why can't they? Because they're not apologizing in any meaningful way.

Sure, but those people also need to acknowledge their mistakes and take responsibility for them. Peters, for example, did not. Taking responsibility also means understanding that if an organization wants to sever ties with you because of your past actions (if they didn't know about them when they hired you) that's their prerogative and completely fair.