Well the subject was you calling Americans dumb, and doing it in a post full of mistakes.Jelly wrote:First of all, Gramma police. and yes, i spelled that wrong, on purpose.
and look, we vancouverites have a very special commodity that we, uh, in general, use, if not abuse, and, stuff.
and when we do use, or abuse, these, commodities, we, uh, are really bad at spelling and grammar and shit.
stuff.
and i never knew you need grammar to win hockey games.
next up, you tell us that we spell Bieksa wrong, and Sedin suppose to be Sundin, and Naslund's first name is Mats... oh wait, that's Bob Cole... i probably should delete this... but.. meh..
focus on the subject, if your going to attack my grammar, i'll get to post my three thousand word argument why we should nuke USA.
VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Moderator: Referees
- HockeyGirl
- CC Veteran
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:40 am
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
"Once an idiot conspiracy theorist, always an idiot conspiracy theorist."
Clam Russel
Clam Russel
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
much like how Americans call other people terrorists... when they go and invade other people's countries and take over.
o snap.
o snap.
This signature hates SOB as much as the guy who wrote this signature.
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
ok, i'll stop from now on.
one last point.
Our 2 million scorer out scored your 6.8million scorer.
one last point.
Our 2 million scorer out scored your 6.8million scorer.
This signature hates SOB as much as the guy who wrote this signature.
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
The LA Times picks the Canucks in 7! LINK
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
I have always been wise good sir. Perhaps it is *you* that is finally getting to *my* level.Puck wrote:Very impressive Farhan. Methinks our Farhan is growing wise.If someone ... comes up to you and repeatedly says, "The color of that Evergreen tree is orange", or "My dog just gave birth to a baby kitten" are you going to present counter-logical arguments explaining why he/she is wrong?.....or will you just smile, nod your head, and consider the person that you are dealing with?
(Although I guess by the pointlessness of both of our backhanded compliments, perhaps we are both equally stupid. ).
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Oh SNAP! I love it! They already give up!Cornuck wrote:The LA Times picks the Canucks in 7! LINK
'Were just happy to finally be in the playoffs and get rid of less than desirables on our hockey boards for a week'
I love every move Jim Benning makes
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
So uh...you wanna go over to the LA boards with me and cause a war? *crunches a carrot*Farhan Lalji wrote:I have always been wise good sir. Perhaps it is *you* that is finally getting to *my* level.Puck wrote:Very impressive Farhan. Methinks our Farhan is growing wise.If someone ... comes up to you and repeatedly says, "The color of that Evergreen tree is orange", or "My dog just gave birth to a baby kitten" are you going to present counter-logical arguments explaining why he/she is wrong?.....or will you just smile, nod your head, and consider the person that you are dealing with?
(Although I guess by the pointlessness of both of our backhanded compliments, perhaps we are both equally stupid. ).
I love every move Jim Benning makes
-
- CC Veteran
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:59 am
- Location: Next door to Jimmy Pattison
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Thank God you're leaving, please take that sissy Ridley with you. K. TIA. I'm Vancouver born so I'll be here awhile. Downtown Dustin headshots Henrik in game one. Dustin one game suspension. Henrik thinks he's still playing with Modo until May. Kings advance.Arachnid wrote:Cornuck wrote:The LA Times picks the Canucks in 7! LINK
'Were just happy to finally be in the playoffs and get rid of less than desirables on our hockey boards for a week'
"I just don't know why they're shooting at us. All we want to do is bring them democracy and white bread. Transplant the American dream. Freedom. Achievement. Hyperacidity. Affluence. Flatulence. Technology. Tension." Hawkeye Pierce.
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
rinkrat wrote:Thank God you're leaving, please take that sissy Ridley with you. K. TIA. I'm Vancouver born so I'll be here awhile. Downtown Dustin headshots Henrik in game one. Dustin one game suspension. Henrik stops playing nice, becomes a monster. Canucks advance.Arachnid wrote:Cornuck wrote:The LA Times picks the Canucks in 7! LINK
'Were just happy to finally be in the playoffs and get rid of less than desirables on our hockey boards for a week'
fixed
This signature hates SOB as much as the guy who wrote this signature.
- HockeyGirl
- CC Veteran
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:40 am
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Sign up at this place kingsternet.com. They will love you.Arachnid wrote:
So uh...you wanna go over to the LA boards with me and cause a war? *crunches a carrot*
"Once an idiot conspiracy theorist, always an idiot conspiracy theorist."
Clam Russel
Clam Russel
- DonCherry4PM
- MVP
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Farhan, this is going to go up as one of a very small handful of times that I can say I fully agree with you. I just skimmed through the thread which was quite out of character for the corner. A bunch of reactionary drivel being spewed back and forth. Lets keep the topic limited to hockey and show a tiny bit of maturity by ignoring inflammatory comments rather than throwing fodder on the fire.
One of the reason's I like this site so much is that it has tended to stay away from this type of obstreperous slag. This is not the venue for personal attacks or political soap boxing or smack talk based upon country of origin/residence.
Back to the topic...
IMO we should beat the Kings without too much trouble if we can manage to keep what defense we have uninjured. If our defense gets some more holes, even our high-scoring offense may not be able to make up for the cheesecloth backend. Speaking of offense what are the predictions for the Sedins in this year's playoffs. I think they have established themselves as point a game playoff performers now, but that isn't up to par with their regular season performance this year. Anyone think they can step it up and get to a point of 1.3 or 1.5 ppg? As well, will be interesting to see how the second line produces. Its speed is good, but can it keep producing solid secondary scoring with the tighter playoff game-style? Given the play of Wellwood in the playoffs I am less concerned about his performance and that of the third line, than I am of the first two. (obviously combined with the level of expectation)
One of the reason's I like this site so much is that it has tended to stay away from this type of obstreperous slag. This is not the venue for personal attacks or political soap boxing or smack talk based upon country of origin/residence.
Back to the topic...
IMO we should beat the Kings without too much trouble if we can manage to keep what defense we have uninjured. If our defense gets some more holes, even our high-scoring offense may not be able to make up for the cheesecloth backend. Speaking of offense what are the predictions for the Sedins in this year's playoffs. I think they have established themselves as point a game playoff performers now, but that isn't up to par with their regular season performance this year. Anyone think they can step it up and get to a point of 1.3 or 1.5 ppg? As well, will be interesting to see how the second line produces. Its speed is good, but can it keep producing solid secondary scoring with the tighter playoff game-style? Given the play of Wellwood in the playoffs I am less concerned about his performance and that of the third line, than I am of the first two. (obviously combined with the level of expectation)
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
- nucklehead_88
- CC 1st Team All-Star
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 pm
- Location: Maple Ridge B.C.
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
yea, shouldnt give us too much trouble.
"HE WILL PLAY, YOU KNOW HE'LL PLAY, HE'LL PLAY ON CRUTCHES...."
Jim Robson
Jim Robson
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Looks like you will have to "not fully agree" with me on this one as well (and "not unlike" the other times, I am thankful )DonCherry4PM wrote:
IMO we should beat the Kings without too much trouble if we can manage to keep what defense we have uninjured.
On top of having a healthy defense, the Canucks will need Luongo to be near his best. Secondly - the Canucks will NOT defeat the Kings without "too much trouble." The Kings are a good team and the Canucks will be in for a war. Points wise, the Kings didn't finish too far behind the Canucks. The Kings also have a very talented and mobile defense (lead by Doughty) and this becomes even more crucial during the playoffs.
A relatively healthy Canucks 'D' + Luongo playing at his best = the Canucks winning in 6 very hard fought games (+/- 1 standard deviation).
If even one of these elements are missing however, the Kings WILL cause the upset (I am also assuming that our forwards will play at the level that they have been playing, while the Kings themselves will stay relatively healthy). I hate to admit it, but outside of Detroit/Phoenix and *maybe* Buffalo/Boston, Vancouver/LA has the highest potential for an upset. (I've listed Detroit/Phoenix since Detroit is technically the "underdog" due to being the lower seed).
- the toucan kid
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Yeah, Farhan's pretty much got it nailed.
Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1
Thanks TC,
I guess it actually *is* possible for me not to receive some kind of gay backhanded compliment on here.
I guess it actually *is* possible for me not to receive some kind of gay backhanded compliment on here.