17to85

see there you go again, falling into the fallacy that because you have an uncommon opinion you're open minded. It doesn't work that way. I've read the whole thread, I know what's going on, trouble is when people close their minds they tend to do a lot of self affirmation as well. You see things as you want to see them.

Atomic's? Cause my argument isnt my argument. Its the argument of many doctor's, scientists and nutritionists. Although it does suck that milk is unhealthy. No you're argument for why you are right. It's a terrible argument which basically boils do to you screaming "NUH UH!!!!! USE COMMON SENSE *******!!!1111!!!!one!!!" You aren't interested in hearing opposing viewpoints you're convinced you are correct and will shout down anything contrary to your opinion. That's what makes it a terrible argument. Again, I'm not taking sides in this, I don't care enough about it to bother, but I know when an argument is bullshit and when it isn't and you are too closed minded to ever have a proper debate on the topic.

because 'murica

You will be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of Wild than me, but I dunno just seems he's pretty small, if it works great but I hope he's not put in a position to fail. He was so good where he was last year I'd have left him there.

I'm not taking any position, I'm just saying your argument sucks.

isn't wild a bit small for a MLB though?

Honestly the unknown posters entire argument here sounds to me a lot like the anti-vaccination peoples argument. "I read this study that links vaccines to autism, use some common sense here people, these guys are doctors!" Seriously buddy I'm not going to get into the validity of the study or not but if you can't see how closed minded your position is then I don't know what to say. You are claiming the common sense ground but you are so convinced that yours is the only possible position to have that you don't even acknowledge that another position might have merit. That's not common sense, that is simply being closed to other opinions. You made up your mind and everyone who doesn't agree is just an idiot.

There are several people on this site that have been aware of CIS happenings and players for a while too. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Forde is just lucky enough that people pay him to talk about his opinions on air.

Nothing like embarassing the refs to make em do the job better.

And this is where your wrong..the law has the limit for drunk driving set so low that I think you are wrong. I can drink 4 beers feel 100% fine but if I had to take a test I'd blow over, get someone baked you think they're ok to drive compared to having a couple beers? The people who go get themselves completely **** faced and drive are pretty much the biggest pieces of garbage on the planet, but impaired is impaired and if I'm too impaired to drive after a few beers then you better believe that people who drive stoned are too impaired to drive.U fail to see the difference. Drinking alchol and drivinging and smoking pot and driving are normally completely different.Here's why. When u get shitfaced it takes hours for someone to sober up, some wake up drunk the next day. Get stoned provides a rush, followed by giggles or paranoia and then subsides within an hour or so. No aren't sober but u aren't blasted out of your head like a drunk. You could smoke a whole joint and be pretty normal hours later. If you get **** face drunk you are going to be drunk for a fairly long time. That being said driving while under the influence puts everyone at risk and losing a life over it isn,t worth it. Walking around stoned or shitfaced is okay. Normally u are only harming yourself. I'm totally for legalizing pot and taxing it like we do alchol and tobacco. It's used by a large portion of society and because of such it should be allowed. It does cause issues when trying determine if someone is sober enough to drive, but DUI can still be determined via field tests. As for pro athletes, the majority of the players I lived with ( apartment complex) smoked, and smoked often. Didn't seem to effect their on filed production. This isn't about legalizing or not, this is about if you are impaired in any way shape or form do ME a favour and stay the **** off the roads because I don't want to get in an accident because you're altering your state or mind. Quite frankly I am not interested in having the pot vs. alcohol debate because pot sympathizers like to bang that drum long and loud but that's not the point here. Pot alters your mind that is a fact, if your mind is altered don't drive.

what a ridiculous argument.... how many other animals have the means to actually pull that off?

Oh God don't be so naive.University educated man intent on playing in the CFL & he claims he didn't know that what he was taking (Stanozolol) was a steroid? Who is being naive here? I think it's you Atomic. You misunderstood. I don't believe that Quinn Smith didn't know exactly what he was doing. My comment was referring to Duressler47's apparent shock at the fact that some athletes use steroids and other drugs. It is incredibly widespread. Duressler (to me) was stating that it seems like more athletes today are using illegal drugs like marijuana or performance enhancing drugs like Stanozolol. I think his comments are directed towards them either not being very bright or that they are cheaters. Hence the integrity comment. Some will get caught & others won't but why take the chance? It's a naive belief that sports are pure and he was called out for it. Performance enhancing drugs have been common place in sports for years and years, at this point it's all about simply not getting caught because the pressures to perform and keep your job are too much guys are looking for any edge they can get.

old people have slower reaction times and that makes them dangerous behind the wheel. It's not that they are driving slow (though in high speed traffic situations it's more dangerous to drive slower than it is the posted speed) Old people often have an over inflated self confidence as well "well I've been driving for 50 years I'm a good driver" plus their lowered reaction times they are a menace on the roads. I'm going to fall back on the fact that a good driver is a good driver and a bad one..a bad one. Although you would assume old drivers have slower reaction times, recognizing collision situations, through experience, could mitigate that. You have to bear in mind it's certainly not only old people who have an over inflated self confidence in their ability to handle any bad driving situation that arise. Simple things like hydro-planing causes drivers to over react. I'm not excluding elderly drivers from the menace group but it is not an exclusive club…it certainly has a wide open membership that doesn't have age nor gender bias. I don't know what the current numbers look like, but it's very interesting to see how many accidents are caused by various demographics. One thing that always stands out to me is that women cause more accidents than men do, but do you know why it's under 25 males that have to pay higher insurance rates regardless of driving record? It's because when under 25s get into an accident it is a severe one whereas the more numerous ones women cause are minor. There are very good scientific reasons that men are better drivers than women when they have that right mix of youth and experience... the problem is that they're also more prone to driving recklessly so the natural advantages can get thrown right out the window.

old people have slower reaction times and that makes them dangerous behind the wheel. It's not that they are driving slow (though in high speed traffic situations it's more dangerous to drive slower than it is the posted speed) Old people often have an over inflated self confidence as well "well I've been driving for 50 years I'm a good driver" plus their lowered reaction times they are a menace on the roads.

And this is where your wrong.. the law has the limit for drunk driving set so low that I think you are wrong. I can drink 4 beers feel 100% fine but if I had to take a test I'd blow over, get someone baked you think they're ok to drive compared to having a couple beers? The people who go get themselves completely **** faced and drive are pretty much the biggest pieces of garbage on the planet, but impaired is impaired and if I'm too impaired to drive after a few beers then you better believe that people who drive stoned are too impaired to drive. See, heres the thing.. Are we arguing a few drinks or hammer assed drunk? Cuz im looking at it as a drunk driver, not a wee bit buzzed driver and a totally baked driver as opposed to a guy who had a joint with 5 friends.. I'm going by what the law calls impaired driving because obviously the guys who are driving while totally hammered the best we can hope for out of them is that they only kill themselves and not an innocent person.

You know who are worse drivers than the elderly? no one.

And this is where your wrong.. the law has the limit for drunk driving set so low that I think you are wrong. I can drink 4 beers feel 100% fine but if I had to take a test I'd blow over, get someone baked you think they're ok to drive compared to having a couple beers? The people who go get themselves completely **** faced and drive are pretty much the biggest pieces of garbage on the planet, but impaired is impaired and if I'm too impaired to drive after a few beers then you better believe that people who drive stoned are too impaired to drive.

Impaired is impaired, I have absolutely 0 tolerance for people driving when they are not in the right mindset. Too many people can't drive properly at the best of times get the **** heads who take mind altering substances off the road entirely and we're all safer for it. It's this attitude that "pot is fine I can drive" that is the worst thing. If people want it leagalized going to have to be responsible about it.

Name a big time D that could be had for Yakupov or Eberle or Gagner because those are the only ones they can really afford to trade. I'll wait because your list is going to suck. Like I said they don't need any and every defenseman out there, they have lots of guys who can play a top 4 role, they specifically need someone who can play effectively as the top defenceman on a team and those guys are hard to trade for. They'd be better off targetting an older free agent player to be honest. They aren't an exciting team, they used to live and die by the PP but Eakins came in and torpedoed that, otherwise it's Hall and who ever is on his line with no secondary scoring. Here's something Craig Mctavish said about the bottom 6 forwards on that team last year and it's still pretty true today "The best you can hope for with a lot of those guys is that they're a non factor in a game"

The concern here would be that the coaches and management appear to be on different pages. Coaches and management should all be on the same page here. How can you say that? Teams players before TC all the time. Typical over reaction. Hey I'm simply commenting on the rumours that the coaches and management had a difference opinion on the player. With a defensive coordinator who has failed as many times as Etchevary has I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'll give him a chance this season but I ain't expecting radically different results from what he has shown in the past. And to add to that coaches and management should always be on the same page. There are two ways to build a team, you either build a system around the players you have, or you find players who fit the system you're going to run. Anything else and you wind up with seasons like we saw the last couple years.

Under rated team by a lot of people. Much more talent there than people give them credit for. Lots of Nashville fans used to swear that Suter was the better defenceman than Weber. Koivu is just a good all around hockey player, Pomminville is a good solid hockey player who is better than he gets credit for as well, they have a lot of good young players. A classic case of a team that no one gives a damn about so they don't realize how good they can be.

LOL this reminded me of a story a friend of mine told me about how his 12 year old son had a bunch of his friends over for his birthday party. My friend was at the barbecue all afternoon grilling up tons of burgers and hotdogs as of course 12 year old boys can eat constantly, when this little pale kid comes up to him and asks him just for a hamburger bun and some carrots. Apparently his parents were forcing him to be a "vegan" and he couldn't eat any meat. My friend said this kid had no energy, and could barely play with the other boys. He looked pale and so unhealthy. I get it if you believe in this organic thing and want to waste your money on it, but turning your poor kids into vegans is just plain wrong. You're just showing your ignorance on this topic more and more. There are Vegans who are elite athletes, run marathons, win weight lifting competitions. Some pale kid...give me a break! Of course there are, however you have to actually put a lot of work into it if you want to make sure your body is getting all the nutrients it needs. If you just eat vegetables you're not going to be all that healthy. What really bothers me is the notion that people get that certain lifestyles are healthiest. You can be healthy eating a hell of a lot of variety of things, it's just a matter of having a good nutritional background to actually understand what you need and where you can get it from.

He always kind of struck me as one of those guys who is a great athlete but lacks stuff between the ears. Not my favourite kind of player.

The concern here would be that the coaches and management appear to be on different pages. Coaches and management should all be on the same page here.

Yeah Buff is so good at D they moved him to forward, come on. Young defencemen isn't what the Oilers needed either, they have plenty of those of their own. They need quality veteran players and the cost of doing business for those kinds of players is very high because every team wants more quality veteran defencemen. Like I said, it's easy to say "should have traded players for a defenceman" much harder to actually come up with a deal that makes sense for both teams. You're right. Trouba would certainly not have befitted the Oilers. If they Oilers are 'too young' and need veterans, thats no ones fault but their own. Its not like they were surprised to have so many young players on their team. Enstrom isnt a "young" d-man and would instantly have been Edmonton's best. Bogo is young and would also be the Oiler's best D man. Buff would have been a lot more valuable to Edmonton as a D than he was to us. And yes I am aware he was moved to forward, which is why I would have tried to soak Edmonton for him 1.5 years ago. was Trouba available for anything even remotely reasonable? The young D comment was in reference to the Pens having young guys they are willing to move. The young guys the pens are willing to move are prospects of the same level as what the Oilers already have. No the point here is that Buff is not the kind of D you make a big move for because he's got flaws as a defenseman and players with flaws are ones to take for cheap but don't give up assets for. With Enstrom and Bogosian again you have guys that teams would like, but not for a big price because they have flaws. You would have tried to soak Edmonton sure, but Edmonton was not looking to make a trade where they got soaked. That's what you're missing here. Losing a guy like Enstrom or Bogosian from the Jets really trashes their depth on D so they would have needed a big payment to do it, but Edmonton doesn't have a lot of depth to be moving it out. Let's throw out a hypothetical here, let's say they traded Eberle for Bogosian... how good is a team with Bogosian as their best defenseman? Now you've taken away Edmontons 2nd best point producer, who fills that role? Hemsky who had grown stagnant in Edmonton? Yakupov who is on the coaches **** list and struggled in every way last year? Ryan Jones who is barely a 4th liner in the NHL anymore? Luke Gazdic? Tyler Pitlick?