Free Agency - Where Do They Go?

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:More important than "Where do they go" is "Who's going to keep me up to date while I'm on a patio downtown?"

Is that patio located in 1973?

You'd practically have to go out of your way in today's day and age to not keep up to date.

Not just that, but back in '73 you could sit outside on a patio and not worry about getting burned alive by the sun.

Investment advice (may be too soon for us, but perhaps for your kids): Buy beachfront property in Hudson's Bay in the next 10 years; in 20 years it will be the new Caribbean.

Sure, if you believe in global warming ozone depletion.

fyp. It's different.

It's all poppycock, either way.

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:More important than "Where do they go" is "Who's going to keep me up to date while I'm on a patio downtown?"

Is that patio located in 1973?

You'd practically have to go out of your way in today's day and age to not keep up to date.

Not just that, but back in '73 you could sit outside on a patio and not worry about getting burned alive by the sun.

Investment advice (may be too soon for us, but perhaps for your kids): Buy beachfront property in Hudson's Bay in the next 10 years; in 20 years it will be the new Caribbean.

Sure, if you believe in global warming ozone depletion.

fyp. It's different.

It's all poppycock, either way.

Ha. The science of global warming has been questioned extensively. I've never heard anyone (up to this point) that disagrees with the science behind ozone depletion (a measurable phenomenon).

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:More important than "Where do they go" is "Who's going to keep me up to date while I'm on a patio downtown?"

Is that patio located in 1973?

You'd practically have to go out of your way in today's day and age to not keep up to date.

Not just that, but back in '73 you could sit outside on a patio and not worry about getting burned alive by the sun.

Investment advice (may be too soon for us, but perhaps for your kids): Buy beachfront property in Hudson's Bay in the next 10 years; in 20 years it will be the new Caribbean.

Sure, if you believe in global warming ozone depletion.

fyp. It's different.

Yep. Back in the '70s I spent quite a few summers working at a camp in the Laurentians. Back in those days people would apply tanning lotion to *tan more*. One summer I was lifeguard, and one week I had 8 hours on duty every day. No hat, no sunblock, no problem. Things have definitely changed and, you're right, w.r.t. getting burned it is all about the ozone layer and not global warming -- however the two go hand in hand as the ozone layer depletion is a contributing factor to global warming.

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:More important than "Where do they go" is "Who's going to keep me up to date while I'm on a patio downtown?"

Is that patio located in 1973?

You'd practically have to go out of your way in today's day and age to not keep up to date.

Not just that, but back in '73 you could sit outside on a patio and not worry about getting burned alive by the sun.

Investment advice (may be too soon for us, but perhaps for your kids): Buy beachfront property in Hudson's Bay in the next 10 years; in 20 years it will be the new Caribbean.

Sure, if you believe in global warming ozone depletion.

fyp. It's different.

Yep. Back in the '70s I spent quite a few summers working at a camp in the Laurentians. Back in those days people would apply tanning lotion to *tan more*. One summer I was lifeguard, and one week I had 8 hours on duty every day. No hat, no sunblock, no problem. Things have definitely changed and, you're right, w.r.t. getting burned it is all about the ozone layer and not global warming -- however the two go hand in hand as the ozone layer depletion is a contributing factor to global warming.

True, but global warming has nothing to do with the ozone depletion. My point was that he was using disputed science (GW) to refute uncontested science (OD). They go hand-in-hand when you're considering GW, but, in a discussion about OD (especially as it relates to an increase in UV rays and burnt skin), there's no real need to bring up GW.

Riprock wrote:np. http://www.tsn.ca/contact/#sms

Just got my first text from TSN. It seems Justin Schultz has signed with EDM. I guess there'll be a lag between info hitting the twitter scene and reaching my phone. Still, getting confirmed news is gonna be sweet.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:More important than "Where do they go" is "Who's going to keep me up to date while I'm on a patio downtown?"

Is that patio located in 1973?

You'd practically have to go out of your way in today's day and age to not keep up to date.

Not just that, but back in '73 you could sit outside on a patio and not worry about getting burned alive by the sun.

Investment advice (may be too soon for us, but perhaps for your kids): Buy beachfront property in Hudson's Bay in the next 10 years; in 20 years it will be the new Caribbean.

Sure, if you believe in global warming ozone depletion.

fyp. It's different.

It's all poppycock, either way.

Ha. The science of global warming has been questioned extensively. I've never heard anyone (up to this point) that disagrees with the science behind ozone depletion (a measurable phenomenon).

Next, I bet you'll tell me that there's some solid evidence behind evolution!


I'm just kidding (I'm trapped at work) as a way to amuse myself. Although I am a fence sitter about GW, OD is undisputable as you say.

What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

SpezDispenser wrote:What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

Noon? Ish?

wprager wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

Noon? Ish?

Or were you talking about global warming?

SpezDispenser wrote:What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

Sounds like you translated this into another language, then translated it back into English.

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

Sounds like you translated this into another language, then translated it back into English.

Holy Dung...it was from my Playbook, but that's not a great excuse for that.

SpezDispenser wrote:

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:What time does this beginning next tomorrow?

Sounds like you translated this into another language, then translated it back into English.

Holy Dung...it was from my Playbook, but that's not a great excuse for that.

Scary thing (for me) is that I didn't even notice it.

I've made my final decision:

1.Garrison
2.Parenteau

SpezDispenser wrote:I've made my final decision:

1.Garrison, Parenteau

FYP

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I've made my final decision:

1.Garrison, Parenteau

FYP

Yeah, both would make us very strong.

I bet we go all out on Garrison and sign Latendresse for cheap.

Top-4 D, Top-6 F at a Melnyk approved price. Not ideal but doable.

I'm very excited. The way I look at it, we're adding talent to an already exciting lineup.

Hoags wrote:I bet we go all out on Garrison and sign Latendresse for cheap.

Top-4 D, Top-6 F at a Melnyk approved price. Not ideal but doable.

Makes sense actually. We need Garrison or Carle or someone of that ilk though.