Drunkard

Of course Ryan O'Reilly is a core guy. He's Ryan Freaking O'Reilly! He's like the love-child of Chuck Norris and Teddy Bruschi and even more awesome (and responsible defensively). He can do no wrong and we must acquire him at any cost even if it means trading half our team away and paying him so much that we watch Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen walk in free agency. The guy can stick check the devil himself, and he can divide by zero. I wish he was my Dad, even though I'm like 10 years older than the guy, I'm sure he can travel through time to make it possible.

Plus getting to watch Boston lose is always the next best thing to seeing Buffalo win.

I agree. Even if you hate him, it's kind of fun to see him get boo'd (as stated earlier) and it's not like he's grandstanding up there for too long.

Must be Whiskey Bottle of emotion's kids given their choice of player jersey as well. I can see it now: Kid 1: Dad, can I get a new jersey? This one has the slug on it. Kid 2: Yeah, and Pominville isn't even on the team anymore Whiskey: SILENCE! You're wearing the jersey of the greatest hockey player in all of mankind's existence. Consider yourselves lucky.

Voted the first two options. I think he's mostly an afterthought but since he's technically the only goalie we currently have under contract he'll be given a chance unless some team offers up something for him in a trade. I imagine they are planning on going after a better goalie but he'll be the backup and get his chances to start if he plays well in practice and game opportunities. I'd guess he likely ends up our backup this season though until he gets flipped at the deadline for peanuts.

I think I'm changing my mind on Hodgson. Dealing with a cap hit from his buyout 6, 7, or 8 years from now when the team may be up against the cap trying to resign it's own guys gives me some serious trepidation. I think it might be wise to hold onto him for now to see if he can rebound and recoup some value around the league. Even if he doesn't rebound to previous form he is still relatively young so it's likely we could find somebody willing to take a chance on him. Even if we have to retain salary, it would still get him off the books in 4 years instead of 6 or 8.

If it extends to non- players the one and only choice is Jeanneret. For players I'd go with Hasek, then probably Miller.

I'm on my phone now so I don't even know what post number this will be (the mobile version of the site doesn't show post numbers) but I wasn't trying to be a dick, I was just honestly wondering because of the point I made about how individual posts aren't numbered. Makes it seem silly to worry about waiting to do something special for a particular one.

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to make your "milestone" posts particularly special. When you look under someone's user name it always shows what their current number of total posts are not what # each individual post was so when you look after the fact it's basically impossible to know which post was which number.

Currently 95 degrees with a heat index of 112. I hate summer time, although all this sun will at least be good for my new solar panels. Of course it'll probably be offset by my central air working overtime.

I really don't see McDavid making a big stink about Edmonton either way but even if he did, the Oilers own him. Yeah, he can wait 3 years and sign an offer sheet, but the Oilers will match it and still end up having him for the majority of his career that way. I guess multiple teams could offer sheet him and he could choose the one for the shortest term that would possibly allow him to become a UFA in his mid to late 20's but then that team risks giving up 4 first round picks to for 4 or 5 years of his services. Maybe he re-signs with them as a thank you for getting me out of Edmonton type deal but I doubt any of that happens.

I've got a question hopefully one of the board experts here can answer. How long would Grigorenko have to stay in the KHL before the Sabres lose his rights altogether and he becomes a UFA if/when he decides to come back to the NHL? Is it the age when he would normally become a UFA, would the Sabres hold his rights indefinitely in North America, or is it a different time period altogether?

I think basic morality comes from the golden rule, which doesn't require belief in a deity to follow. You say it fails the logic test but I think it's about as logical as logic gets which is leading to a bit of a straw man argument on your end. Society is beneficial to humans, therefore living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection, and strength of the group. This is completely independent of the existence or need for an sort of higher being and many animals from baboons, to fish, to wolves, to lions, to gazelle, to elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural. Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules. The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on. That's why humans have lived in groups since long before there was religion. It happened independently of the belief in any sort of God.

Smehlik - don't really have one. I guess Hodgson comes closest Snuggerud - Kaleta

Thanks for the explanation, man. I was raised Roman Catholic so I've heard of Nicene Creed and Canon law but never delved too far into any of it because by the time I was old enough to really study it or do any research I had already decided that religion just wasn't for me, even though I will say that I'm encouraged by the new Pope compared to the previous one. The vow of celibacy for Priests never made much sense to me, particularly since priests often provide marriage counseling so you'd think having the experience of being married themselves would prove helpful. No meat on Fridays during Lent I also found suspicious, especially since I don't care much for seafood. I always thought whoever came up with that rule was either a fisherman or had close friends or family that were fishermen and I likened it to a politician giving a large donor some sort of kickback with favorable legislation. That being said, I'm glad the discussion has been a positive experience for you. I've definitely enjoyed it as well.

Cheers, man. I agree that neither of us are likely to change each others mind but the discussion does allow us to get a better understanding of each other's position. I also agree with your definition of the church but I'm surprised that you said that it's the human part of each church that makes up the rules and laws. I find that extremely encouraging because humans can make mistakes and therefore can change their thinking over time. From my experience in speaking to many religious people though, many of them believe/claim that their rules come straight from their God, whether it's God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, or whichever one they choose to believe in. The problem with that though is most/all religions seem to believe their God is infallible so if rules exist in their ancient holy books that seem to be completely unreasonable like executing people for working on the Sabbath it can't/shouldn't be changed because their infallible deity couldn't have been wrong.

Thanks, Bio. I definitely enjoy the back and forth discussion and I've done my best to try to keep emotion out of it and stay civil while still trying to get my point(s) across. My personal opinion is that man made God and not the other way around but even that is just based on a gut feeling. My theory (I'm sure I stole it from someone/somewhere but I'm not sure) is that the concept of God/religion/afterlife goes back to the earliest people and it's basically a coping mechanism to deal with death and help ease the stress of facing ones own mortality and that's why even early cavemen used to bury their dead with their tools.

I think we are over hyping Eichel a bit but he does seem to fit the team Murray wants to build better than McDavid as well. Both are awesone prospects for sure but outside of the size difference I think (bias aside) the only area Eichel actually beats McDavid is that he has a better shot.

Maybe so. I looked it up online on other websites like IMDB and they all say 2000 so I probably got it mixed up. Still an awesome show though. Vern Troyer (mini me from Austin Powers) played Napoleon in Jack of All Trades as well. I still remember the damn theme song and I'm at work so I didn't even had my speakers on when I found the link to the show.

Big Bruce Campbell fan in general actually. Guy is awesome. Loved him in the Evil Dead trilogy and most of the other stuff he did. One of my favorites is a show he did back in the early 90's called Jack of All Trades (Wikipedia said the show first aired in 2000 but they are liars because I first watched it back when my Dad was stationed in California and I lived there from 1993-1995). It's classic Bruce Campbell with all the cheesy one liners and sexual innuendo you'd expect out of a character played by him.

You're cherry picking which makes me want to do the same thing. Look at the morality religion has displayed with the way the Bible treats women and homosexuals, along with many countries in the muslim world even today. Look at the way Mormons treated women and some still do (even if they officially frown on it) by turning children (by that I mean young people not children as in their children or implying ) into wives and encouraging men to procreate with kids. Look at the way the Catholic Church looked the other way and played musical chairs with child molesting priests so methodically it makes Joe Paterno look proactive in comparative retrospect. To top it off they used their overflowing coffers to pay for hush money and legal defenses, rather than using it to help the poor. Systems of law existed in many places without Judeo-Christian beliefs and the 10 Commandments. Pagan cultures like the Egytians and Vikings had systems of law in place completely independent of the Bible and I would venture to guess that less formal systems of law and justice existed even back to when a caveman first got caught stealing another caveman's piece of mammoth meat off the fire. I guess that's the disconnect though. If you believe the Bible you believe God created Adam and Eve and civilization has only existed under the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Based on scientific evidence though, people have existed long before the invention of the Judeo-Christian religion and they figured a lot of this stuff out (Cooperation, Societal Rules, basic morality) way before the first writers of the Bible were even born.

Whenever I do potential line ups for next season I never seem to have a spot for Hodgson and I voted to either buy him out or trade him for another bad contract. The problem is his contract isn't front loaded which makes him slightly harder to trade. The only way I see room for him is if Reinhart spends the season in Rochester which I don't think is likely to happen.

I haven't but I may check it out once I catch up on the shows I'm currently watching. I liked the original movie and was pissed at the sequel because it said it was starring Bruce Campbell and they killed him off in the first 5 minutes.

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point. Do you consider yourself to be a good person? Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like? If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content? Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras. You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another.

Definitely didn't mean to paraphrase any Budweiser commercial. I'm personally loyal to the Milwaukee Beers, although I did load trucks for an Anheuser Busch wholesaler back in my college days. I drink Budweiser though when I go to a place with limited options because every place carries it and I don't mind it. I tend to stay away from light beers though because to me it's a diet beer with lowered calories and alcohol content, they just don't call it diet beer because then most men wouldn't buy it. I definitely get the concept of having fewer stronger beers rather than more weaker ones but Milwaukees's Best Ice still gives me the best bang for the buck. A 12 pack runs me $6.99 and they are 5.9% abv. I think you've got to go with hobo wine like wild irish rose, bottom shelf liquor, or malt liquor to beat that.