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

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

Members
  • Posts

    10,799
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

  1. Very true. Youth crime rates and violent crime have been decreasing fairly steadily in Canada since the early 1990’s: People just think it’s getting worse. Which is nothing new. People always think the youth of the day are worse than previous generations. Two thousand years ago, they said things like this: “Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.” -Horace, Odes, Book III, circa 20 BC And less than two hundred years ago: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1843/feb/28/condition-and-education-of-the-poor Ah, the good old days. Throughout the ages, people have believed the youth of today are “going to hell in a handbasket” (and I’d argue they had a much better case back then than they do now). Now, the problems with “the kids today” are blamed on things like social media and violent video games. But these are just the latest bugaboos. People used to blame the “corruption of the youth” on romance novels, the waltz, and chess: “The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?” -Reverand Enos Hitchcock (1790) “We remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called the “waltz” was introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English Court on Friday last. This is a circumstance which ought not be passed over in silence. National morals depend on national habits: and it is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs and close compressure of the bodies, in their dance, to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses we did not think it deserving of notice; but now it is attempted to be forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.” -The Times (1816) “A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages...chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body.” -Scientific American (1859) Help me, Jesus! My delinquent child is reading novels, dancing, and playing chess! Look, I’m not making light of this story, or excusing the actions of the kids in question. Clearly these were criminal acts and the kids in question need to face some serious consequence for their actions. I just find it funny how people want to blame these problems on the times, when they’re really nothing new. There’ve always been issues with youth crime, including violent crime. But people seem feel like things are getting worse, often despite clear evidence to the contrary. It may be true that these “evils” are the product of a sick society. But it’s not a new sickness. The real ailments are things like poverty, neglect, abuse, etc, which have afflicted every society throughout history. The kids today aren’t any worse than those of the past. For the most part, they are probably better than at any other time in history. But problems still exist. And blaming Twitter and Fortnight (or even romance novels, the waltz, and chess), isn’t the answer. I mean, I get it. The youth of today are entitled and lazy. But that’s because they are the youth. Kids are friggin annoying! They always have been. Just ask this guy: “Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, prematurities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline, the haste to know and do all befitting man's estate before its time, the mad rush for sudden wealth and the reckless fashions set by its gilded youth” -Granville Stanley Hall (1904) The more things change, the more they stay the same. (Note: I lifted many of the quotes and source materials from here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything)
  2. Yup, most likely made from oil. Although our new plastic money also contains a little bit of cow, in the form of beef tallow. (Shh, don’t tell the vegans! )
  3. The sound quality is poor at the beginning, so I’d recommend skipping to around the 2:20 mark. The video shows Dr. Jodie Edwards telling the story of the tragic death of her 11-month-old daughter, Jenna. There are a number of things I find compelling in this case. First off, the story itself. I think it does a good job of explaining the process of how false memories can be created, convincing parents that they’ve actually dropped their kids off at childcare, when in fact, the child is sleeping in the car. Dr. Edwards didn’t forget about her child. Her brain told her that she’d safely delivered her daughter to the babysitter. So she didn’t check the back seat before she left the car and went to work. Her memory told her she’d already dropped her daughter off, so why check the car, when you already “know” your child is safely delivered to their destination? I wonder how many people actually check the back seat for children every time they get out of their vehicles? Even when they are driving alone (or believe they are alone). I’m sure some do, because they are aware of the risks, but do most people? I doubt it. When people bring their kids to daycare, drop them off, and head to their next destination, how many of them check the car to verify that what they remember doing (dropping off their kids) has actually happened? How many people physically check the backseat for their kids when they already “know” the kids are somewhere else and not in the car? Anyone who has dropped their kids at childcare, and continued to work (or another destination), and then failed to check their car for children when they arrived at their next stop, is at risk for leaving a child in their car. Our brains are capable of creating a false memory that we have safely delivered our kids to childcare, even when they are still in the car with us. Jodie Edwards thought about her beloved children all day. She was excited to get off work and go pick them up. And when she first saw her precious baby, dead in her car, she actually believed some sick person had put the baby there. In her panic and confusion, she even looked in her car for her older son (who was still at preschool), thinking maybe someone had taken both her kids and left them there. Her false memory was that strong. She believed that she’d left her daughter with the babysitter, because that’s what her brain told her. Another thing I find really compelling about this video is that it is taking place four years after the tragic death of baby Jenna. Dr. Edwards still is out there, telling her story at hospitals, conferences, and child safety events, because she wants to help raise awareness and prevent future tragedies. I’ve even seen her interviewed on this topic as recently as this year. She wants people to learn from her story and understand the risks. Before that tragic day, she had never left her kids in the car, not even for one minute. She loved her kids. Nothing was more important than their care and safety. She had seen the news stories about hot car child deaths, and like most people, she condemned the parents, and she told herself, “this could never happen to me.” It is a normal psychological response to demonize the parents in these cases. The idea that a loving, responsible parent could accidentally kill their own children is horrifying, and we naturally try to put as much distance between ourselves and these parents as possible. They must be bad parents, because if they were good parents, like us, than these tragedies could also happen to us. This is the danger. Jodie Edwards was a good parent who believed she was somehow different from the parents she saw on the news whose children had died in hot cars. She believed that her love, care, and attentiveness were enough to ensure this tragedy could never happen to her and her child. She knew she would never leave her kids alone in a car. But she never thought of the possibility that her brain might tell her that her children were safe somewhere else, when in fact, her baby girl was asleep in the back seat of her car. This is why parents of small children need to train themselves to automatically check their cars every time they exit the vehicle. And put systems, objects, or devices in place that force them to check if their kids are in the car. They need to check, even when they “know” their kids aren’t with them. They need to check the car. Every single time. Even when they are travelling alone. Even when they “know” their kids are at home, at childcare, or out with the other parent. They need to check their car even after they “know” they’ve dropped their kids off somewhere else. Our brains are capable of processing errors that can convince us that our children are safe with another caregiver, when in fact they are still with us in the car. This is really the only way to stop these tragedies from happening. We need to recognize that we’re not really different from these parents. Our brains all share the same design flaws. But we can account for our neurological limitations, and we can learn from these tragic cases, to create better systems to ensure our kids’ safety (or at least mitigate many of these risks).
  4. Wait, what? Is this article really claiming that the definition of creed was expanded in 2015 to include “non-secular” beliefs? Then what exactly was the HRTO’s pre-2015 definition of creed? Secular beliefs only?
  5. I think he’s already subject to the expansion draft. Unless the Canucks put Tryamkin on their protected list (which they won’t), he’d be considered an unprotected RFA. Seattle could contact him during the negotiation window, and sign him to a deal as their expansion draft selection. That seems a highly unlikely scenario right now. However, if Tryamkin returns in 2020, and plays well for Vancouver, I could see him becoming a target for selection, assuming he’s left exposed.
  6. So long as the Canucks hold rights on Tryamkin, he does not need to clear waivers to return to the team, if signed mid season (or at any point in the year). Here’s the relevant section from the CBA: “13.23 In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs) only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim. This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC or is party to an existing SPC with such NHL Club.” EDIT: If a team that did not hold rights attempted to sign a player, during the same season he’d played games in a league outside NA, then section 13.23 of the CBA applies, and that player would need to first clear waivers, before joining the NHL team for that season. This is why Drew Shore required waivers, and also why ROR would have needed to clear waivers to join Calgary (after the offer sheet fiasco). However, as shown in the bolded section above, a team already holding rights (like the Canucks with Tryamkin) is exempted from 13.23 waivers.
  7. It happens. I’ve had several jokes go right over my head in these threads. Not always easy to tell whether or not a post is serious (even when people post emojis). And when it comes to the Wild West of the KHL, it’s hard to tell sometimes if something is a joke, or just the another example of the laughable reality of that league (case in point, my previous post, where an actual KHL team slaughtered an animal on the ice and attempted to use “blood magic” to gain a competitive advantage).
  8. Well, they don’t have a transfer agreement for hockey players, but I think they might have one involving the animal carcasses.
  9. Madden is going back to Northeastern for his sophomore year. IIRC there was an official announcement a little while back. I think Benning also confirmed it in an interview.
  10. I hate explaining a joke, but perhaps I’d better. I don’t remember who started the rumour about Tryamkin “bolting to Kyrgyzstan” (I suppose I could scroll back a couple pages and look—which I’ve now done and it was @Kanukfanatic—well played, sir), but there’s obviously no truth to it. Seems like somebody was just having a bit of fun. Kyrgyzstan doesn’t really have much in the way of professional hockey. At least not at any kind of level that would compare to the KHL. It’s actually one of the poorest countries in Central Asia. As a nation, they don’t even rank on the IIHF top-50 (which would mean they are somewhere behind Kuwait as a world hockey power). So the idea of Tryamkin leaving Russia and “bolting” to Kyrgyzstan just doesn’t make any sense, except as a joke. Instead of taking the whole thing seriously and pointing out the reasons why Tryamkin going to Kyrgyzstan makes zero sense, I decided to just play along with the joke, and respond in kind. I made a joke. It’s quite ludicrous that Tryamkin would leave the KHL to pursue hockey in Kyrgyzstan. So I joked that he left to pursue one of the traditional, and most popular, sports in that region. And a sport that I admittedly find a little bit funny (although with no disrespect meant to the traditions of the people of Kyrgyzstan). It guess it just makes me giggle to think of Big Nik riding on a horse chasing after a decapitated goat carcass. Maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, I’m a weird guy sometimes. And my sense of humour isn’t for everyone. Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make fun of you. I wasn’t trying to make fun of Kyrgyzstan. Just making fun of this thread, and this rather ridiculous recent turn in the discussion of Nikita Tryamkin.
  11. Well, that’s where you made your mistake. Tryamkin hasn’t bolted to Kyrgyzstan for hockey. Nik left so he can commit full-time to playing Ulak Tartysh. “Very popular, as in all of Central Asia, is Ulak Tartysh, a team game resembling a cross between polo and rugby in which two teams of riders wrestle for possession of the headless carcass of a goat, which they attempt to deliver across the opposition's goal line, or into the opposition's goal: a big tub or a circle marked on the ground.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan
  12. Consolidated industry rankings, courtesy of Canucks Army: https://canucksarmy.com/2019/05/17/2019-nhl-draft-consolidated-industry-rankings-for-may-2019/
  13. Scouching Report on York: Said it before, but I’m really enjoying these vids. Here’s the latest one too:
  14. I posted it here: Great article. Had to post the whole thing (inside the spoiler), even though at the time I was breaking the paywall (which has since been removed). Glad I said something nice about Botch in that post, since I wrote it only days before his passing. As for the article, I particularly enjoyed the part where Hockey Canada went to the Swedes for tips on developing goalies, only to learn that Sweden had based their entire program off Clark’s writings.
  15. Pretty funny article if you read it as satire. Unfortunately, I think this writer is dead serious. A “direct assault on the freedom to write and think as we please”? *****, please! This snowflake needs to man person up.
  16. True. Although unfortunately, that one player (“the other” Sebastian Aho) was a guy many fans were very aware of and had as a target for a potential late round overager pick. So it’s inevitable that Gunnarsson will get compared to Aho, and some will see this pick as a missed opportunity. Similar thing with Sasha Chmelevski, who nearly everyone was aware of, and stayed on the board until the 6th round. He hasn’t made the NHL, but looks a decent bet to at least get a cup of coffee at some point. This isn’t meant as criticism of our drafting, or knocking the choice to roll the dice on Gunnarsson (or even Benning’s stated belief on draft day that “he’s gonna play”). Just that it’s easy to question the Gunnarsson pick when there were a couple “obvious” choices on the board in 2017, and they both seem to be developing quite well for their respective organizations. This creates the illusion that fans just using public rankings can actually out-draft our scouts in the later rounds (and it doesn’t help things that this was pretty much true for long periods of Canucks drafting history).
  17. Season over. 8-3 loss. Ottawa loses 4 straight games in the finals with Dipietro injured (after posting a perfect record during the playoffs in Mikey’s 14 starts, and starting the series with a 2-0 advantage). Guelph are the OHL Champs and headed to the Memorial Cup.
  18. 8 goals so far today (7 against Andree). With around 2 minutes left, Ottawa trails 8-3, and looking all but guaranteed they’ll lose their 4th straight, and lose the championship in the process. Guelph have played well, and they’ve really taken it to the 67’s these last four games, but I still think Ottawa sweeps these playoffs with a perfect 16-0 if Mikey hadn’t gotten hurt.
  19. Plus Boeser gives waaaay better lap pats. (RIP Botch)
  20. Yikes! Andree loses his third straight, surrendering 4 goals on 29 shots, and Ottawa now down 3-2 in the series and facing elimination (after going a perfect 14-0 these playoffs with DiPietro in net).
  21. Thanks for this. Brave post to write and very true. So many of these deaths happen every year, and the majority of them are completely accidental. Here’s a good article that gets into the how’s and why’s of these tragedies: https://www.parents.com/baby/safety/car/youd-never-forget-your-child-in-the-car-right/ Even model parents who try to “do everything right” can fall prey to a combination of circumstances that can exploit flaws in human neurology and result in horrific consequences. We want to believe that this could never happen to us. There must be something wrong with the parents. How could they forget about a child? The sad truth is that in the vast majority of cases, these parents loved their kids just as much as we do. They took all the same precautions we do. And then, at some point, something disrupted their routine, their brain gets short circuited, they go into autopilot, and yes, they forget about the most important thing in their lives.
  22. He didn’t play in the NHL. And he wasn’t a KHL player with a jersey that read SKA or CSKA. This makes it really tough for a player to earn a spot on the Russian team for the IIHF WC. He also had a slightly down year, at least in terms of his individual stats. Much of this can be attributed to more defensive usage and some overall team strategy (especially re: D corps rotation), but still, his stats underwhelmed compared to last year.
  23. They lost again tonight. 5-4. With Dieptro out, Ottawa has lost two straight, by a combined score of 12-6, giving up 12 goals on only 60 shots (Andree with only a 0.800 sv%). Apparently Mikey was already out of his walking boot last game. I’m curious how soon he gets back into the net. Hopefully they don’t rush, but he’s got to be feeling the pressure to get in there and take back control of this series.
×
×
  • Create New...