Stoner

Oh, geez. Ignored is a loaded word here. You're close to joining Taro in conspiracy country. The problem was that the memo came out too late in the regular season and Clarification #9 might never have been applied before Game 6. Lewis , under pressure, blew it.

A memo with several clarifications was sent out in March. And, no, it was not written after Game 6. Darcy acknowledged receiving it in March. And Thorne and Clement talked about seeing it before the series. One of the clarifications stated that a player who maintained control of the puck could precede the puck in the crease and score. Clarification #9: "An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. Result: Goal is allowed. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone." Forget the definition of control in 1999. The key word is "maintains." Had Hull legally controlled the puck, that control would have been only momentary. Taro should be the one to stop obfuscating. I am not saying the goal was legit. The fact goals like it were legit for decades before the crease rule and will be legit as long as hockey is played on this earth after 1999 makes it tolerable for me. It's not like the puck was shot through the side of the net. It's also tolerable because in my opinion at whatever ungodly hour it was, Bryan Lewis mixed up possession and control. (Hull did maintain technical possession of the puck before scoring. It was that close to being a good goal.) The stuff about Bettman being behind a curtain is Taro's opinion. It will remain that until he gives us some evidence. Yes, the review was not only wrong, it was quick, and they opened the doors. Dallas won that Cup — on a bad call. That's sports.

Can't wear opposing team's jersey?

The Bills had to roll snake eyes about 12 times to win that game. I don't think they win the game if Beebe's TD is called back. And I don't hear anyone saying to this day the NFL cheated for them.

And you're not predictable or bitter. Be careful of karma. The Sabres' first Cup might be awarded and not won. Still waiting for your smoking gun evidence about the umbrella man in 216 or something. Will that be released 50 years after your death? Heyo. Summer reruns

Not into lips? That it should be shot into outer space with Elon Musk and the other rich scumbags who want to go destroy even more planets, never to return?

That remains a ridiculous take. Were the Bills also awarded the comeback win?

Do you mean because he sees himself in his hires? He sees himself as a one-time newbie? Or do you mean he actually hired newbies at East Resources? In high positions though?

Said one person ever.

Said no one ever.

The time has come. How do other owners do it? How involved are they in hockey operations? How do they view their role? Let's see what we can dig up. Islanders are top of mind today. Their co-owner, Jon Ledecky, was featured in a NY Post article last year. https://nypost.com/2020/08/16/islanders-owner-jon-ledecky-pumped-about-playoffs-new-arena/

This might be as goodly as you've ever spoke! New owner. Franchise center gone. Legit hockey man at the top. A real coach. Boom.

I couldn't tell it wasn't beef. But goulash (American style) is one of those dishes you could leave the meat out of and not realize it's gone. You are right. The ethical and environmental reasons to use a beef replacement outweigh the health factor. The list of ingredients in Impossible Burger is something to look into.

I'm glad I changed your mind. The people needed to hear from you, especially at this difficult time for our team, nation and world.

Yep.

I got me some of that Impossible meat. Man, it looks and cooks like beef for sure. I didn't even want to touch it. I made goulash with it, so we'll see about the taste.

Says who?

The more I read about it, the more woke I get. People decline the sedation so they can get on with their day, go to work, drive home etc. I'm guessing the skill of the surgeon is key. If you haven't been doing unsedated colonoscopies, you might inflict some pain.

Thorny nailed it. I am now envious of it. How 'bout this: Terry turns over a new leaf and calls Kevyn onto the HMS Carbondale. "Kev... what do you need from me?" You're Kev. What do you say? I know a lot of people will respond with how naive I am, how the owner has every right to drive the relationship wherever he wants it to go, even to direct involvement in decision-making. Because, wait for it, he's a billionaire businessman and HE OWNS THE TEAM. Fine. I'm just envisioning this idealistic scenario. But, really, how pie in the sky is it? You are a fan of a team and buy that team. Don't you want to do what makes the most sense to have success? Please explain why my concept of ownership makes less sense than what we've had. Exactly how does more involvement than that benefit the team? My answer: I need your trust, and I might need some more of your money.

The winner has been notified and asked to make a speech but has humbly declined and asked that his victory not be publicly acknowledged. Pure class. You know who you are.

Me so Thorny.

"It's all about winning." Don reacting to a question about how he sells himself as a head coach in the NHL when he has a reputation as a development coach.

Unprompted, Don credited RaKru for leaving him a solid foundation to build on.

It's a strained analogy because the hockey department isn't a business, and the owner isn't its boss. I'll die on this hill, dreaming, looking into the sky and seeing Rick's suspenders and Spacek in that fur coat in the clouds.

That's a real stretch. The actual quote was that the extent of the rebuild would be determined by the owner. There was going to be a rebuild. Darcy might have agreed with the necessity of doing so. But he was telling us in the spring of 2013 that he wasn't going to make the decision on what kind of rebuild it was going to be, Terry was.