Taro T

You are correct about the 48 hours. But if there were 56 or less hearings scheduled, then ALL hearings would be scheduled for 9:00 on their particular day. I know that 69 players filed for arbitration, but more than 13 have settled outside of arbitration. I don't know if enough were settled prior to setting hearing dates/times, but it was my understanding that Danny and the 2 Mikes all had their hearings at 9:00 on Thursday. (Obviously, I don't know that for fact.) As for someone not being reached, that is reasonably plausible as Danny is on vacation. Somehow, though, I would expect that his agent, the union, or the Sabres would be able to reach him via cell phone. I know that I would be real interested in hearing how much money I'd make next year, if I were in his shoes (skates).

I didn't think that his was scheduled following one of the other 2 hearings. (Didn't pay that close attention to it, but I thought that the league was at or below 56 hearings remaining when they scheduled the hearings. If so, all the hearings should have started at 9:00AM.) Yeah, I am kind of curious as to why his decision hasn't been announced to the unwashed masses. (Not sure why Mike Smith's hasn't been announced either.) BTW, that was a very classy gesture on the part of Wesley. Hope it brightened some days. Can't wait to hear about all the cool things the Sabres do with Lord Stanley's Chalice next July.

Don't know if that came before or after this, but about 10 years ago in Ra-cha-cha a lady with a ton of Lawn Gnomes in her front yard had one stolen and she received "ransom" notes for the Gnome. The lady ended up getting a LOT of ransom notes. They started coming from places like Texas and California, but eventually were postmarked worldwide (Ireland, Taiwan, Japan, the Netherlands, and several other countries). To the best of my knowledge, the lady never figured out how the Gnome was getting to so many places. Also, I always believed that lady in Ra-cha-cha's misfortunes were the inspiration for Travelocity's "Roaming Gnome". THAT was a good prank.

Didn't they do one for a 15 blade razor about the time the "Mach 3" came out?

They've never stopped making them. I've got ones from '97 & '98. I've probably got the rest of them as well lost somewhere.

They still make them. Last year's had the "artsy" b&w photos that were also used on the magnetic schedules (the magnetic schedules are typically given away at the 1st home game). AFAIK, they have had a calendar every year. My guess would be that you could get one from the Sabres website during the season, but don't know that for certain.

Get with the program. That wasn't plywood, they were shingles from his dad's roofing business. They will give him that "square shoulder", ready for business look though. So I wouldn't put it past him.

That is friggin' classic. I truly feel sorry for any Isles fans out there. 'Cause it doesn't look like things are getting any better.

I would like to think a little common sense could be used here. Someone not wanting to pay to hear a performer spout about their political views and stating such is not "censoring" the performer. I apparently missed the part in the 1st Amendment where it says people complaining about an entertainer is infringing upon that entertainer's freedom of speech. The DC's fans that no longer buy their records or go to their concerts have the right to do that. If the fans' aversion to what they say is strong enough to make them no longer like the music that they previously liked, that is their right as well. The "incident" appears to have allowed the band to change their direction and, I would guess, their fan base as well. The new fan base they have probably wants to hear them say "I'm ashamed President Bush is from Texas", and that is fine.

1st off, please show me where I said they can only play "only their material"? 2nd off, it IS a service that the performer provides. They are "entertainers". It really isn't often in their best interest to tick off people that paid them money to perform the "service" because ticked off people exercise THEIR free speech rights by not giving that performer any more of their money. Also, somebody complaining about what the entertainer did IS exercising THEIR right to free speech. Actually, a few years back Rush was advertising playing the entire 2112 album and Floyd was advertising playing The Dark Side of the Moon straight through, so it does happen. As for your question, I would like to think that common sense would prevail. As a general rule, the entertainer probably should not go ticking off the audience, although I am certain that there are exceptions to that rule. Again, I would like to think that common sense could prevail here, but you will probably disagree on that. Ah, so paid performers have rights to free speech, but the unpaid, unwashed masses DON'T have the right to free speech. That makes perfect sense. Actually, if I so choose, I could tell them anything I want to tell them, and you could as well. (Although I am a bit surprised that I am arguing about a cruddy formerly country band that is now a cruddy crossover mainstream band.) Paid entertainers aren't the only ones with the right to free speech. Last time I checked, the general public has that same right to free speech.

So someone that is paying money to someone else to perform a service can't expect the provider to perform that service in a non-annoying manner? Telling someone that I will take your money but do whatever I darn well please and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, isn't what I would consider a more valid position. As long as the service provider is up-front about what they will be providing (saying / doing), then yeah, the performer should be able to go on their little rant. If they aren't though, then the CUSTOMER should have a course to redress their grievance. Don Henley was a poor example, because his political views are well known and he can be expected to go off on a rant on occasion on stage. The people buying tickets to see his show are aware of this (or should be, if they are interested enough in him to actually want to see him perform live). The same could be said for Babs, Lee Greenwood, and a host of others. You know what you are getting for your money. If it is still worth the price, go see the "artist", otherwise, stay home and save your money. The Dixie Chicks was a whole different issue, in my book. The people that went to see them more or less got broadsided with the "I'm so embarrassed that the President is from Texas, etc., etc., etc.". They had a right and reason to be ticked, as they paid money expecting to see the girls "sing" and received something totally different. I'd expect an audience of the NAACP to be ticked, and would agree that they should be ticked, if a performer stopped in the middle of a performance unannounced and said "that David Duke is a swell guy and y'all just misunderstand him". I do not agree with you that paying someone to do one thing and then having them do something totally different is "censorship". The government has no business censoring "artists" or others. We are in agreement on that count. However, if an individual wants to avoid paying someone to do something they don't want them to do, they should have that right. If I don't like someone's views or actions enough that I don't want to pay to see them perform, I have the right to keep my money. Also, if I think I am paying someone to perform something, whether it be a concert, a play, a recital, or whatever because that is what they have advertised; then I should be able to see that and not have a bait and switch pulled. If I go to a Gallagher show and get splashed with watermelon, it's my own darn fault. If I go to see the London Philharmonic, I'm going to be peeved if I get splashed with watermelon. It's not something they are known for doing, nor have they advertised that they would be doing something like that. The "artists" spouting off about whatever, have their right in this country to do it if they so please. But they don't have the "right" to force me to listen to it. Especially not if I have paid money for the "priviledge" of hearing their idiotic rant and their was no indication when the transaction was made that they would be going off on an annoying idiotic rant.

Whoa, are you saying you actually LIKED the old Ducks logo? Granted, the new one is lousy too, but I am surprised that you liked the "Friday the 13th part 93 -Jason returns AGAIN, only this time he's a Duck" logo.

Nick, that is fantastic news. I hope the rest of her recovery goes as smoothly as this part appears to have gone.

The league as a whole last year played their opposite conference in 2 - ~1-1/2 week blocks, so if you weren't paying close attention prior to December I can see where you could easily have thought the "other" (nonexistant) conference swap was back in late October or November.

I haven't looked closely at the schedule, but I was invoiced for 41 games, so it looks like there are no Ra-cha-cha games this year. I also saw on TSR that there are fewer Value games this year than last.

If anything, I'd expect to see them gain a team before losing one considering all 4 finalists were European this year.

Unfortunately, me thinks you're right about that.

They played everyone at least once and had home and homes with 3 teams in the Western Conference under the prior system. (They just played home or road vs 12 teams.) They played 6 vs in division rivals and 4 vs the other teams in conference. Personally, I'd rather see them keep the 8 games per season vs teams in division (lets face it, it's more fun to go to a TO game than a TB game) but drop the in conference schedule to a h&h and have h&h's with the west as well. (Or at least drop it to 3 in conf and h&h with 1/2 of the west.) Heck, as it stands now, if I miss this year's Calgary game it'll be 2009 before I get a chance to see Phaneuf play in person unless the Sabres meet them in the Finals.

Of all the things MM did or didn't do, I still think that running Rusty Jones out of town ranks up there with Wade running Bruce DeHaven out and hiring idiot boy on the stupidity scale of what not to do as a head coach. I was really hoping that Marv would find a way to bring Rusty back.

W/ the "new" NHL, they increased the emphasis on division rivals (8 games in division like back in the mid-'80's, vs 6 games pre-lockout). To accomodate that, they went to playing 1 home game vs each team from 1 opposite conference division, 1 road game vs another division's teams, and skipping the 3rd division. Sabres skipped the worst division in hockey last year (St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, & Nashville) and are on the road against them this year. So Buffalo will travel to LA, Dallas, SJ, Phoenix, and Anaheim next year but don't play them at all this season.

Question for you, AJ (or any of the other 4 soccer nuts ). Do you know if the guy who missed the kick for France would have been in the shootout had Zidane been available?

So now you've deleted yet ANOTHER Honda Fit thread? (Referring to the one you started ~1 hour ago, in case there was question as to which one this post was in reference to. ) What is that, like 7? Does anybody know what the record for most deleted threads by one poster regarding one subject is? This has to be close to a record. Doesn't it?