17to85

Hollywood fantasy... It's fun to watch & get into as a fan (which I enjoy) but nothing based on reality. A theory is just that, a theory. Therefore if that theory is used not based on scientific fact, it is therefore a fantasy. I understand. Relativity is only a theory, so it is fantasy. Gravity is just a theory. I really wish the general public understood what scientists mean when they use the word theory.

The gap between Willy and the guys backing him up, Nichols included is huge. Those close games some of them are likely wins because Willy at least was able to make some big plays here and there. Marve and Brohm couldn't do **** and Nichols was as likely to turn the ball over as make a play.

If you have everyone just positive or just negative you have a completely useless forum. You absolutely need both positive and negative outlooks. When I read the pure positive it makes me almost as frustrated as I am with coaches and management. There is nothing wrong with being positive but reading some of the positives on this forum you would think that this team is super close to being a GC team. Its confounding. I am tired of crappy and mediocre I want consistently good, meaning a winning record. I honestly believe that, with the right people in place, that can come in far less time than many of our management in the last 8 years have been telling us. Why should we wait when most other teams haven't. Yes Edmonton, Sask, and Hamilton had long runs of crappiness but when they got it all figured out it came quick and lasted more than a year. Why should Winnipeg be so different? I like positive folks but at times I think their even more deflating than negative ones. It would sure be nice if we could all go into the off season with the confidence that our Bombers will be back to actually challenge for top spots rather hoping we don't suck again. it's not about positive vs. negative, it's about the people who ***** for the sake of bitching being as bad as the blind homers. Some people will spin everything no matter how insignificant into the biggest negative going and that's just stupid.

So how did the climate change before man burned fossil fuels? Less rapidly There are past instances of faster warming than we see now. There are also slower instances. The Earth is not a static system, it's been changing constantly for the 4.6 billion years it's been around and it'll keep on changing until the sun blows up and toasts it. The sooner we realize that change isn't always a bad thing the less we can have these knee jerk reactions.

The thing with climate is that it's always been changing throughout the Earth's history and it will continue to change long after our species is gone. The good news is that we are a highly adaptable species and we can survive with a warmer climate. Maybe it causes some deaths but let's be honest the best way to actually lower pollution on the planet would be to cull a good number of humans.

No not what anyone has said, things like cap and trade are scams, Kyoto was a scam, it was a big old wealth transfer agreement. Real action is something I could get behind, but no one wants to touch real change, too difficult and too expensive. Let me ask you this, what have you personally done to lower your footprint? Or do you fall into the category of "Something MUST be done! By people other than myself"

To the bolded... LOL thank god you're not the GM. Washington is a fantastic defensive back and you'd miss him if he were gone and like it or not Moore is the teams best receiver AINEC. You don't improve a sore spot on the team by losing your best receiver. Marcus Henry was Ottawa's leading receiver last year, and although he's still on the team, I don't believe he's played a single game. I don't think they miss him on the field at all. So you basically just proved my point? You're better off pushing guys down the depth chart than cutting ties with them? Not to mention Moore was always a better player than Marcus Henry. You walk away from Moore the receivers ain't getting any better in the offseason.

so incredibly untrue, I don't even know where to begin.... just cuz someone doesn't walk up to you and slap you in the face, doesn't mean they don't exist... But this is pretty much the point, not everyone wants to do the legwork to find music and rock as a genre that gets lots of airplay in the popular mediums? Not much.

There are some theories out there that show how a warp bubble could be possible, the catch is that you'd need a power source unimaginable to us right now. So in Star Trek they came up with the fantasy power source and boom problem solved. It's all fantasy just to different degrees.

Rock died sometime in the late 80's and early 90's. Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact. u must be a grand funk railroad fan For more information on Grand Funk, consult your school library!

To the bolded... LOL thank god you're not the GM. Washington is a fantastic defensive back and you'd miss him if he were gone and like it or not Moore is the teams best receiver AINEC. You don't improve a sore spot on the team by losing your best receiver.

I know, it's pretty weird to see the mention of climate change by the government. .. Surprised that it wasn't given it's own ministry, given the gravity of it. Or... were you being sarcastic? Can't tell. He's a denier .. denier? How about someone who doesn't think it is the super serious doom and gloom event environuts want it to be? The facts are that most of what the world is doing to combat CO2 emissions is largely useless. Cap and trade scams and carbon taxes don't accomplish anything. Real action though is too costly and no government wants to get into that. Never mind that Canada could stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow and global levels would still continue to rise. We are largely insignificant in the fight against CO2 emissions.

12 weeks is the time frame I believe they are talking about but 7 or 8 weeks could be pretty likely. so 2-3 months.

Anthony Crispino, is that you? Did ya hear disss??Also Ballard was around late 80s and died early 90s I think. ******* punk kids. I'm pretty sure.....

Who says it's gotta be rock and roll? Nobody, I guess this is my own personal bias. I just find it annoying that they classify themselves as a rock act when it's not even close to rock n roll. Tweeny music. Is their any actual fans of "fall out boy" if someone can name 3 songs by this band without Google search I'll be impressed How many actual rock acts are there anymore? Not very many.

Not unless Dallas Eakins somehow sneaks into the Oilers coaching ranks. Yakupov has played well for every coach who wasn't Eakins.

Yeah it nothing to do with every song sounding almost identical...

I've seen this argument before, I don't agree with it. Genres really don't matter in writing. Science fiction and fantasy may be different sections in the bookstore but they're always right next to each other and the lines are ever blurring between them. Star Trek has always been fantasy regardless of being more grounded in reality than some other options. The key to good fiction of any kind is stories worth telling and characters people care about. The rest of it is just window dressing.

Im strongly against going beyond the end of Voyager. And here's why. Star Trek is Science Fiction, not fantasy. Its supposed to the idea of us today if we dont blow ourselves up. Its looking into the future and seeing what the best of mankind eventually becomes. But its close enough to today to be familar. If we go too far into the future, we end up with science that looks like magic. TOS had the transporter, warp, phasers, tractor beams. TNG had holodeck, nanobots, AI. And ofcourse time travel existed throughout and by the time of Voyager and Enterprise it was shown to be a normal thing by the next generation beyond Voyager. It needs to remain grounded. TOS was explored by that series and the films. The TNG era was mined significantly by TNG, Voyager and DS9. The era with the least exploration was between today and TOS with Enterprise representing a very minor bit. I'd prefer something more in keeping with Earth and how we rise out of all the issues of today to be a peaceful space-faring species. I want space travel to seem hard and complicated and dangerous. The Berman Trek made tension difficult because there were no inter-human issues. DS9 flipped that by making space dangerous again, making it clear the darkness of humanity still existed and it was a fight to be better than our demons but to overcome the evil and bad intentions that existed out there. My two cents. It was always fantasy and to be honest the distinction between science fiction and fantasy (science fantasy) doesn't really exist anyway. The key as always is good writing so it's not just "Look future tech saves the day because it works like that!" You can go further ahead without having to rely on that crutch.

huh well I'll be damned, I had just assumed that the Fall out Boys had disappeared into obscurity.

They'd be better off setting it some place distant to the timelines already covered in the previous entities. Jump forward a few decades from when Voyager ended. You're distant enough so as not to be totally beholden to what's happened in the other series and it allows you to play in the sandbox a little bit. They have literally an entire universe to set a series in, good writers could come up with a premise that will work.

Tom Higgins is to head coaches what Marcel Bellefool is to offensive coordinators. The very definition of settling. He won't be terrible but he's never going to put you over the top.

The problem with Enterprise was that it strayed away from being a prequel and tried to be it's own thing when what people wanted was the prequel. I still say the bulk of the episodes of all the Star Trek were pretty crappy but the good ones are quite good and make people forget just how awful a lot of the stuff was.

The thing to keep in mind is that something like 80% of Star Trek is pure crap, the 20% that was good is pretty damned good but to me most of that came from Deep Space Nine anyway which seems like it's kind of the bastard step child of the Trek series anyway. I liked that it was a bit rougher around the edges and things weren't so perfect. Made it more human.

Not bad when we're missing #1 weapons on offense and the lines need upgrading... seems to me that it's not a core you like it's the supporting players which is what gets you 5 win seasons. I'd also suggest that the depth pretty much blows and injuries screw this team hard, and look at that, been lots of injuries this year and we've needed that depth. So I guess we can say that the middle part of the roster is ok but we need more on both ends of it.