tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post3434995141536525302..comments2024-03-04T11:02:28.602-08:00Comments on Pass it to Bulis: I Watched This Game: Canucks at Thrashers, March 25, 2011Harrison Mooneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03261557020279875141noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-45353324268202197062011-03-26T17:29:46.221-07:002011-03-26T17:29:46.221-07:00@ Anonymous 12:19:
Why would he mention the playo...@ Anonymous 12:19:<br /><br />Why would he mention the playoffs, and wonder aloud about whether Lu could handle the pressure? He could have just gone with the usual, "they're a solid team, and I'm sure they'll be tough in the playoffs." He didn't, and I don't believe he just slipped up.<br /><br />I think his comments still belie a fear of his own goaltending. Remember Nabokov.antronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-66523304806709725322011-03-26T14:33:33.857-07:002011-03-26T14:33:33.857-07:00anyone else notice that at the very end of the lit...anyone else notice that at the very end of the little goal Luongo almost nails Higgins with the puck? Welcome to the team, fresh blood.beninvictorianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-57204572795258738702011-03-26T12:19:19.999-07:002011-03-26T12:19:19.999-07:00Babcock wasn't trying to get into Lu's hea...Babcock wasn't trying to get into Lu's head, the Nucks are the centre of attention for the media right now alot of the time, and Detroit had just played them. He was asked a question about the Nucks and Lu so he answered.<br />On another note, Babcock has the most gloriously Canadian accent. I don't know if he's from Winnipeg, but he sure sounds like it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-53658715108631378072011-03-26T11:42:48.239-07:002011-03-26T11:42:48.239-07:00There should be a penalty in addition to the penal...There should be a penalty in addition to the penalty shot.<br /><br />The penalty shot replaces the lost scoring chance, so it's a break-even thing. Actually, given that you lose the opportunity for your teammates to pt the rebound, it's a bit of a 2nd-rate replacement at that.<br /><br />So by giving only a penalty shot, you give the penalty-takers no incentive at all to stop tripping a player with a breakaway; quite the opposite in fact.<br /><br />Canuck PP is around 25%. Penalty shot success (in general, not Daniel in particular) is about 33%. That's only an 8% improvement w/the penalty shot, but *less* the chance that the player or his teammates (on the rebound would have scored.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-75500589121710386902011-03-26T10:48:28.092-07:002011-03-26T10:48:28.092-07:00Btw on the tweets on babcock. Maybe another point:...Btw on the tweets on babcock. Maybe another point: why is he trying to get into Lu's head? Does he not have any faith in his own goalie?antronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-39924875212754312072011-03-26T10:25:54.870-07:002011-03-26T10:25:54.870-07:00Accounting references FTW!!Accounting references FTW!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-9364237796155622402011-03-26T09:57:30.322-07:002011-03-26T09:57:30.322-07:00@harrison
Background Music, Please
Although we h...@harrison<br /><br />Background Music, Please<br /><br />Although we have a family tree<br />We actually live in a house<br />The Chicken Hawk son Clay and I<br />With our tenants the family Grouse<br /><br />The latter are not hockey fans<br />They like soccer and jai-alai<br />But we watch all the games we can <br />The Chicken Hawk, son Clay and I<br /><br />We migrated here some years ago<br />Because of the war in Iraq<br />Son Clay and I like the Canucks<br />As does our cousin Whisky Jack<br /><br />The Hawk remains a Blackhawk fan<br />And loves the work of Paul CezanneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-16518524391038696962011-03-26T09:51:26.264-07:002011-03-26T09:51:26.264-07:00It's true, madwag is nuts. Can you imagine if ...It's true, madwag is nuts. Can you imagine if he was your father? <br /><br /><b>You</b>: Can you pass the potatoes?<br /><b>Madwag</b>: Yes, I am quite capable of passing the potatoes. I will not, however, because you have yet to ask me to do so.<br /><b>You</b>: Ugh. Can I be excused?<br /><b>Madwag</b>: Yes. I am also capable of excusing you. You are not excused, however, as you have clearly failed to learn the lesson of your previous error in diction.<br /><br />Ha ha, just kidding. I'm sure he's a great dad.Harrison Mooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261557020279875141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-44991398380352763112011-03-26T09:45:34.617-07:002011-03-26T09:45:34.617-07:00I love the IWTG feature but sometimes the comments...I love the IWTG feature but sometimes the comments are the best part. You guys have a knack for attracting bizarre ones. Kudos!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-89480461541542190912011-03-26T09:03:49.047-07:002011-03-26T09:03:49.047-07:00Danielson
“There's no one to pass to” versus...Danielson <br /><br />“There's no one to pass to” versus “There's no one to whom to pass.”<br /><br />Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.<br />(Winston Churchill)<br /><br />The spurious rule about not ending sentences with prepositions is a remnant of Latin grammar, in which a preposition was the one word that a writer could not end a sentence with. But Latin grammar should never straightjacket English grammar. If the superstition is a "rule" at all, it is a rule of rhetoric and not of grammar, the idea being to end sentences with strong words that drive a point home. That principle is sound, of course, but not to the extent of meriting lockstep adherence or flouting established idiom.<br />(Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2003)<br /><br />So, simply because people are too lazy, sloppy or plain bone-idle to learn to both speak and write with precision we should just ignore the rules. I think not. PLEASE! Let’s STOP this perpetual dumbing-down of language generally, and of English especially. Let’s start raising the bar again (it’s currently below limbo height) by refusing to accept low quality, poorly communicative and generally sloppy English usage. (Bob Lewis, peasant and pedant)<br /><br />The smallest worm will turn being trodden on.<br />(Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Pt. III)<br /><br />Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that’s the stuff life is made of. (Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac)<br /><br />James Thurber, in an essay entitled, "The Psychosemanticism Will See You Now," cited an exchange he heard in a Columbus eye hospital, a place to go to "get something in your eye out," to which another replied that you couldn't find a better place "to get something in your eye out in."<br /><br />Here's an example of a sentence that can end with a preposition: What did you step on? A key point, you might say the Quick and Dirty Tip, is that the sentence doesn't work if you leave off the preposition. You can't say, “What did you step?” You need to say, “What did you step on?” to make a grammatical sentence. I can hear some of you gnashing your teeth right now, while you think, “What about saying, 'On what did you step?'” But really, have you ever heard anyone talk that way? I've read long, contorted arguments from noted grammarians about why it's OK to end sentences with prepositions when the preposition isn't extraneous (1), but the driving point still seems to be, “Nobody in their right mind talks this way.” Yes, you could say, “On what did you step?” but not even grammarians think you should,<br />(Grammar Girl, grammar. quickanddirtytips.com)<br /><br />madwagAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-4229568058878283862011-03-26T08:41:55.618-07:002011-03-26T08:41:55.618-07:00Hold on. Are Chicken Chick, Chicken Hawk, and Clay...Hold on. Are Chicken Chick, Chicken Hawk, and Clay Pigeon a nuclear family?Harrison Mooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261557020279875141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-60094648432232742472011-03-26T08:01:23.849-07:002011-03-26T08:01:23.849-07:00fowl play
the chicken hawk's annoyed with me
...fowl play<br /><br />the chicken hawk's annoyed with me<br />the canucks have come between us<br />so much in love are he and I<br />yet today you should have seen us<br /><br />he squawked i was a broody hen<br />I clucked that he could close his beak<br />and best not get his hackles up<br />or i'd rip holes in his physique<br /><br />he screamed the hawks i have betrayed<br />and made a traitor of his son<br />who posts on blogs high coos of praise<br />about the team now number one<br /><br />he's screeching owls and whooping cranes<br />i cackled clay is on his own<br />he's bald eagles chasing seagulls<br />a lonesome loon whose mind has blown<br /><br />when he became himself again<br />he said the hawks are still alive<br />i said that i agreed with him<br />he said “they'll take the 'nucks in five!”<br /><br />although i did not disagree<br />he looked at me and understood<br />he shook his head and tersely said<br />“you can't believe that they're that good.”<br /><br />chicken chick<br /><br />he gets this way just once a year<br />it's always when playoffs are near<br />and since vancouver won tonight<br />we're sure to have another fightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-44272761118250216162011-03-26T08:00:59.434-07:002011-03-26T08:00:59.434-07:00THANK YOU for the link to the baby monkey.
To quo...THANK YOU for the link to the baby monkey.<br /><br />To quote the comment below the video, "Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why the internet was invented." It was AWESOME!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-29108052669687932322011-03-26T03:17:07.215-07:002011-03-26T03:17:07.215-07:00I thought Ehrhoff was trying to make kindling for ...I thought Ehrhoff was trying to make kindling for a fire the way he was breaking sticks out there; definitely not the best of luck for him tonight.Reecenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-35908759867459214002011-03-26T03:05:36.346-07:002011-03-26T03:05:36.346-07:00OMG, I had tea going through my nose on the not-go...OMG, I had tea going through my nose on the not-going-to-replace-butterfly remark!<br />Thank you for yet another great IWTG!The Belgian Canucks Fanhttp://twitter.com/BECanucksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2748120234252907284.post-16468342832043580292011-03-26T03:03:03.644-07:002011-03-26T03:03:03.644-07:00I saw the "Mule with a spinning wheel" b...I saw the "Mule with a spinning wheel" bit on the Twitter - and was really excited that there was going to be a Blood, Sweat, and Tears reference in this IWTG - but, alas... it was a Simpson's reference. I must have clicked on the Kurtenblog by accident.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com