oldnews
Members-
Posts
53,830 -
Joined
-
Days Won
186
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by oldnews
-
I don't think it was a joke. But it was pretty joke-worthy. Some obvious ironies - which is why people are having fun with it. Trudeau's interjection - was it really a joke, or is it one of those circumstances where someone corrects someone else but it comes back to bite them? Happens to most who purport to 'teach', but when you're the PM and the circumstances are like these....you've invited the pushback wadr. First irony - he's interupting a young woman to correct her use of language. What is more correctible? The use of language, or interrupting someone? If it were a classroom, it might be more appropriate - however, if he were a teacher (err, lol) or professor he'd probably have a better handle on the English language himself. "Peoplekind" wasn't a "joke" - it was a point - that was lost in the arrogance of interrupting the young woman to correct her. He himself simply didn't have the 'correct' word to offer either - highly ironic - "humankind" - not exactly an obscure piece of the lexicon. Whether she 'deserved' to be interupted might be a valid question - her preamble was a rather long infomercial regarding her Mother-centred church.... Second - the way he corrected her - "we like to say".....what does that mean? Who are the "we" he's referring to? Who are the "we" he's speaking for? The Liberal Party? Canada? "Feminists"? Ironically, he's doing so as the (almost) Head of State (of which there's been only one woman, who had a cup of coffee as PM - Kim Campbell - given the ship's wheel as her party was Titanicking). Again, something Trudeau ironcially did not know - when he suggested that his daughter could be the first woman PM - (but thought maybe it should happen sooner). His track record as a '"feminist' is pretty laughable, literally. But his daughter the PM - isn't that just what the world needs - more nepotism. I'd love to be able to pass on another George Jr or Jeb, Daughter of Mulroney, son of Pierre Elliott, wife of the President (Clinton or Obama), WAC and Bill Bennett, Earnest and Preston... enough already. Justin the PM - if his father hadn't already been? Pfft. "I'm a feminist." Are you? Or are you a flake - and apparently a man btw - speaking for 'feminism'? I can just imagine how many women cringe when he purports to 'represent' them. The 'feminist' Prime Minister - who longs for the day that his daughter becomes the first woman PM lol. Why should she settle for equality though? Maybe she can speak for herself! Or lead the whole world! Maybe by then it won't only be Peoplekind, but Everyonekind. God help us.
-
normally, maybe, but you just invoked the Liberal government...
-
it's too early in the morning to read stuff like that. thankfully, though, I'm on an empty stomach.
-
I almost think the next generation has too much humility tbh But if I could accept Tortorella.....and I did....(at least, until the bridge was on fire lol).... then.....maybe some folks can accept JB. If I'm honest though, I can't deny - I never really accepted the Keenan era. Couldn't wait for it to end from the day it started - but I don't think it's quite the same.
-
Exactly. And at that wage, you could put a down payment on a house by saving 300 hours of wages. Now, it's 10x that - and at the same time, everything else also costs considerably more - in other words, the average wage nowadays will never enable you to own a home. You inherit, you rent forever, or maybe you go with the mini-home trend.
-
They were 'expensive' but no relative to what they are now. Ticket prices have risen considerably more than wages have. In the 80s you could buy a good ticket for $30, or you could go to Safeway and get one for a fraction of that - $10/12. Average wages on the other hand have not increased by 400 or 800%. It's not quite as extreme as housing, but similarly, in the housing market you could buy houses for 50,000 to 100,000 that now sell for 500,000 to a million. For young people hoping to own a home, the barriers are relatively extreme - a down payment alone now will cost you could buy a house outright for in those times.
-
I don't know - it's an interesting question. I definitely think there is a very different demographic at games than there was in the past - and I think that's unfortunate to a certain extent. If tickets weren't so expensive for the average person, that might help as well - but being a bad team tends to make it more affordable, while being a winning team might create more of an exclusive demographic, so it seems like a bit of a catch 22 - and none of us really want a losing team just to enhance the arena atmosphere. Maybe we just a bit more cowbell Crazy George?
-
I don't think you've captured the entire point, at all. Your take seems more concerned with defending your complaining.... I think the OP was posing a counterpoint - acceptance. As long as it's not acceptance of losing, and/or acceptance of being a losing culture - then I think it's a pretty reasonable point.
-
Believe it or not, fanbases make a difference. If you don't believe that, you don't realize the impact of a bunch of rabid, lunatic homerz like the ones that populate the seats and streets of Boston. if you don't believe that, try taking in a Winnipeg Jets game, listen to their crowds abuse their oppoenents, and try to tell yourself that has no effect on their team on the ice. The question is - do we want to remain a general collective of whingey, insufferable Province B-otches? Snivelling cryptkeepers. Douche-'army' brats. Boring suits on cellphones. Tear away at your team - or back it up. Not that complicated, really. I remember games in the past - humans attended, actually got excited, had a fn pulse. The team wasn't the best, not usually even close, but nothing like the prevailing loser mentality the city now suffers under. I'm not talking about pompoming anything the franchise does or ignoring obstacles to building a great team - but the tone of the city, like it or not, remains that of a losing 'culture' regardless of some years of contending. Is that the inevitable result of losing for so long? Who knows. In the end however, is it worth looking at as self-fulfilling? Fans can wait for the team to set the tone for them, or it can embrace it's mediocre Winnipeg Jets (I'm talking about a few years ago), while they're still not that good, and be a place/building that opponents hate to play in. Do you control the moves the team makes, the development of prospects, etc - no of course not. But what do you control? I heard some NHLers take shots at Winnipeg recently - whiney drivel about not wanting to play there - the city being too cold for them, or not glitzy enough. Wankers to the core those players are. But why do they really not want to play there? Here's why: "Best trade ever." "Who's your captain?" "Laine's better." "Silver medal" "Rollie, Rollie, Rollie" Winnipeg's team / on-ice product is not the only thing about that city that is better than Vancouver. The on-ice thing might change in a few years, but off the ice - they have some team spirit to that city (not just present when they're winning/contending) that this place fundamentally lacks - and needs to get its act together, that is unless we're satisfied with out loser contributions. Not sure if its in the culture out here, but some of that really wouldn't hurt Vancouver's (general) 'poor-me' disposition. That, pretty much in a nutshell, is why I'm such a gd crusty bastard in general when it comes to this mopey, snivelling, self-hating/loathing dynamic. Don't settle for it. It's not good enough. And then maybe there will be grounds to complain about a losing team - at which point, you probably won't be complaining in any event, because that isn't good enough. It's pointless. And if the criticisms aren't informed or constructive enough to improve on what is - absolutely pointless. I think people who have been through enough losing, ironically, get this. People who delude themselves into believing they are somehow entitled to a winner - don't. Of course, it's not that simple - there are all types, positive, negative, pompoms and critics and everything in between (and in the end, no individual is even that simple) - but the basic point - the general tendencies, hold water imo. But perhaps the point is this: maybe Winnipeg actually 'deserves' a winner.
-
Well I aint sure it's the best, so...... but I got a kick out of it for sure. Love the body language of those accordion pumpers. And have always loved Deep Purple - some of my favorite driving music back in the day (when you're tired on a long haul, there isn't much better than Machine Head) - and one of the last and greatest keyboard rock bands.
-
so...your objective is to reverse blame. I think you're diminishing the returns in a 'discussion' like this as much as you attempt to assign it. I honestly couldn't care less about where you guys lay the blame - whether it originally lays with Orca/ownership that thought it was a good idea to bring such a misfit together - I don't really care. My point was actually about assigning Tortorella an undue amount of credit for stating negatively what everyone here already realized. My point was a counterpoint - not a 'let's balance the positives and negatives of the Tortorella era here. And beyond that, he did a pretty crappy job - with what was under his control - and he acknowledged it himself in his comments that he deserved to be fired. There are a number of things I like about Tortorella - they might not balance out, but it's not as simple as a counterpoint - (and I like Sullivan as well, particularly what he took from his Detroit experience), but Torts did not do his best work here, by any stretch of the imagination.
-
The team did have a good start under Tortorella - that is true. What he was doing was decidedly and obviously unsustainable - you simply can't whip Edler, Kesler et al like rented mules - with this team's travel and play schedule - and roll with a three-line (at best) approach and expect let alone hope to be successful beyond October, November... So yeah, - whoever made that decision accepted that we were getting what we were getting - a hard-headed guy who brought a cookie-cutter misfit approach - and systems - to what he had to work with. And made the rift between himself and Gillis evident. I like some of what Tortorella brings/does/says - but his stop here turned into a hard fail - and it doesn't simply boil down to him blowing a head gasket in Calgary. No surprises. Nor was the fact the team needed to add youth and futures - nothing 'prophetic' whatsoever about his beaking about his roster. Tortorella's systems 'novelty' wore off in a hurry a few months in - and he was outcoached night in night out. That highly aggressive and over-committed two-man deep forecheck (which the team lacked the forwards to execute)....that dzone collapse - was vicitimized endlessly. Teams broke down our forecheck after one look - and then had us chasing all year long. Was it a big deal? In hindsight - whatever - it lead to a regime change and inevitable transition - so what did it really cost? I'm happy to have Benning - although I liked Gillis - and Green hockey is a pleasure to watch - I simply won't be creditting Tortorella as if he was some kind of ,mindful prophet that counselled the team through growing pains. It was far too dysfunctional on so many levels.
-
Yawn. I didn't 'blame' Torts for that season - otherwise, too much random text to bother with tbh - I read that post and it's unrelateable. I've said what I intended to say on the matter - but I will add this - if the roster Tortorella had to work with was so bloody awful, how did a whipping boy coach like WD manage to turn it right back into a playoff birth? He got mulitples more out of that stale old core than JT.
-
rabble rabble I don't listen to MacIntyre, or hang out at practices - which is distinctly different than beaking off repeatedly to media and whining about the roster you have to work with. Imo those clingons should not be permitted in practice - and they should shut their yaps about what takes place there. Good point regarding who hired him though. Who did hire him?
-
Everyone knew this. What people hated was him devaluing the team's assets publicly. Call it what you want, but when he runs his mouth referring to the team's tradeable assets, their core assets as "stale, declining" - that did and should earn you the door every single time. Rode Kesler like a rented mule. Tried to make penalty killers and shot-blockers out of the Sedins. Ballbusting Edler, making a whipping boy of Hansen - and doing so in full view of the entire hockey world - that is crass and damaged the team, the players, and the perceived values of those players, making his GM's job that much harder. He provided no service whatsoever in shooting his mouth off like that - and moreover his systems were bloody awful and a headscratching misfit for the team he was working with. If his intent was to gain the team a 5th overall pick - well done. But that was one of the worst coaching jobs I've seen in the modern NHL. Disaster from start to finish - if some people want to revise his effect as if he were a beacon, that's their prerogative - but no one was delusional enough to miss the fact that the core was aging or that the team needed to add youth for the future. Gillis made a Schneider for Horvat deal long before Torture-fella rode into town and stated clearly what he was doing - he could see the plain writing on the wall that the franchise needed to divide itself and look to the future - as did virtually anyone that took two minutes to look at the prospect pool. Torture-fella simply threw salt on his own team's wounds - I can't credit him for what it wasn't. And neither could he - he quite plainly conceded that he did a horrible job here and deserved to be fired.
-
1:25 mark
-
-
For the first time I can recall, there might be an actual, appropriate twin thread to this one. Derek Dorsett: We really needed him.
-
This is great news. Of course this franchise should be hoping he excels. His rights are owned by Vancouver. As a keepable - or tradeable - asset, this is simply positive.
-
Not really. And no, that's not an 'opening' offer - that's the price for those three assets. Koekkoek is on the edge of the roster - similar situation to Pouliot - borderline waivers, not a great deal of value in context. He's a roster spot coming back, and potential depth for us (assuming they'd prefer to move him over any of their other roster D - doesn't matter to me which). That 1st is a borderline 2nd imo.