wishywashy19
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2011
- 614
- 91
Come on Slimy, that's a bit slimy, even for you.
Hey slim
Don’t ruin the party
Come on Slimy, that's a bit slimy, even for you.
What a stupid thing to say. Oh, look at the user name...
Sartre would say that it's up to the individual to assign meaning to anything.Okay, easy there Jean-Paul Sartre.
It was a weird situation, and it sounds like they have a rule for it that was applied to make the call. It's like the Veleno suspension. Whether you like the call or not they make it by the book, as they see it, and that's the way it is for both teams.Yep, another deep thinking man appears.
Ref fedup, even as a Canadian I'm capable of telling the truth. Sad how intengenaly biased some can be. Hardly a sign of intelligence.
LOL, are you joking?
I’ve learned more about the Winter War than I ever thought I would know because of international hockey tournaments.
Or World War II.
Or the Finnish War.
Unrelated issues always come up when you get a bunch of Europeans together.
How many were there exactly??As someone who doesn't care about either teams, Canada was pretty much handed the game with all the 5 on 3s. Pretty pathetic.
Didn't Russia have 2? One in the 1st period and one in the 3rd?By "all" you mean one?
IS the camera a "structural object" "over" the "ice surface"?This post needs to be seen by more people.
This is the most hf response ever. Don't change, HF, don't change hahahaUp with 10 minutes to go by 3-1. Give up 3 straight goals but blame a camera for everything. Yeah should have been a call but maybe try playing some team dee. Preserve the lead, this was a collapse, play the full 60 minutes.
Nolan Foote will undoubtedly be one as well with Byfield and Byram. Veleno might end up with a 3rd line role possibly.There is no doubt that 17 year old defenceman Drysdale will be an NHL player. Hayton already is one. There will be a few more from each team as well.
If they did they were short. (5on3s)Didn't Russia have 2? One in the 1st period and one in the 3rd?
Gave you a thumbs up on your acute philosophical bent, but not your analysis of the hockey broadcast camera interference event...whewSartre would say that it's up to the individual to assign meaning to anything.
So it is.
And it isn't.
Sartre would say that it's up to the individual to assign meaning to anything.
So it is.
And it isn't.
What do you think this means?Except it does qualify. Citing the replay doesn't matter because the refs can't use it. They had to go by what they saw live.
I can see why your crayon is unused.This is the most hf response ever. Don't change, HF, don't change hahaha