nobody does, just like nobody knows that Careys problem is his knee (rumor goes that it's his groin). I play hockey on wednesdays with someone that has intimate knowledge of that sort of things...so I leave it to you to guess what his job is...
Prust has broken ribs and Price's injury is his knee, not his groin (as goes the theory), not clear yet whether he will need surgery or not, but it looks like Price's season is over no matter what. You can't win only 1 of 3 games that you badly outplay your opponent. I'm gonna hope for the Habs, but it won't bother me to see them bow out.
Horrible pass, bad, result. Hockey's a violent game and sometimes hits go wrong. You can see immediately after the hit that gryba tries to skate over to him because he was disapointed that his hit had those consequences. I havent had the chance to,get a really good replay (been too busy Nd havent caughr a minite of either game, just watched a video of it now for first time and view wasnt great)...but based on what I saw, no games, one game, two games is,all fine. Im not offended by what I saw.
didn't see enough of the game to say if it was really a bounce or two away, but that horrible crossbar leading to a goal at the other end of the ice was pretty awful. the ference elbow was nasty and should warrant a few games. reimer let in a sooooooftie from the blue line.
reimer's been very good, this isnt the time for him to forget how to play.
caught like 2 mins of the game, tuned in just as JVR rung it off the iron and the Bruins came down and scored....what horrible luck. Also, what a horrible choice to 'play the body' when the puck was just sitting there.
Haven't been around in a bit, but just checking in...hope everyone enjoys the first round...and wish luck to everyone here's teams (except the sense fans...but since there are none here it doesn't matter).
My picks:
Pens (5), Habs (6), Isles (7), Leafs (7)
Hawks (4), Ducks (6), Canucks (5), Kings (7)
I have the Habs beating the Ducks in the finals (why the heck not, right?)
or he can work on his game and in the future he can push the Giants to make a trade, like that stud in Green Bay that pushed that walking legend out the door.
Yep, but unfortunately the short term gain wins the day, and people are motivated enough to ensure that legislators see their p.o.v.
If we allow decisions concerning the regulation of chemical limits + storage procedures to be made purely on economic considerations, then inevitable get incidents like this. Major incidents are few and far between so people can easily be persuaded that regulation is a costly and unnecessary...and then when something like this happens, WOOOOPS, it costs a fortune...but at the end of the day, think of the amount of people that have made tons of money by deregulating?
And the logic can be applied to any number of issues that go for the regulation of a countless number of industries.
I guess the point that I was initially making is that focusing on 'big government' as the bas guys and forwarding non-intervention as the cure-all doctrine to this problem has led lobbyists to gain traction in issues of deregulation for economic gain, regardless of the risk.
Spiny, I completely agree with you. While trying to avoid jumping into the rabbit hole, I think that having such a focused debate against big government/non interventionist government has led to cases like the fertilizer plant explosion.
After the incident I heard a number of authorities speaking on the issue of regulation within the fertilizer industry, and the consensus amongst governing body representatives in Europe and Canada was that the accident was 100% avoidable and that the restrictions and regulations put into place in those countries would make an explosion of that magnitude extremely unlikely.
Not all stringent regulation is a bad thing, and a stance shouldn't be taken based on political dogma. Yes, enacting tougher regulation does cost more money, but I don't think it's such a bad thing to put lives ahead of economic considerations, especially when we are talking about a real and palpable risk.
Had to turn down front row seats to game one...woulda seen this hit live....
reimer's been very good, this isnt the time for him to forget how to play.
My picks:
Pens (5), Habs (6), Isles (7), Leafs (7)
Hawks (4), Ducks (6), Canucks (5), Kings (7)
I have the Habs beating the Ducks in the finals (why the heck not, right?)
Hard work CAN lead to something...
If we allow decisions concerning the regulation of chemical limits + storage procedures to be made purely on economic considerations, then inevitable get incidents like this. Major incidents are few and far between so people can easily be persuaded that regulation is a costly and unnecessary...and then when something like this happens, WOOOOPS, it costs a fortune...but at the end of the day, think of the amount of people that have made tons of money by deregulating?
And the logic can be applied to any number of issues that go for the regulation of a countless number of industries.
After the incident I heard a number of authorities speaking on the issue of regulation within the fertilizer industry, and the consensus amongst governing body representatives in Europe and Canada was that the accident was 100% avoidable and that the restrictions and regulations put into place in those countries would make an explosion of that magnitude extremely unlikely.
Not all stringent regulation is a bad thing, and a stance shouldn't be taken based on political dogma. Yes, enacting tougher regulation does cost more money, but I don't think it's such a bad thing to put lives ahead of economic considerations, especially when we are talking about a real and palpable risk.