CanucksCorner.com Forums

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:11 pm OMG when (and I mean when) GMJB is officially extended

... the meltdown on the Nuck board at a certain hockeytalk site will be EPIC

Many of Blobby's brothers in arms will be falling on their own swords, gonna be so sweet...

Who?

Everyone including Blob has said he deserves 1-2 years extension.

Some said they wouldn’t be surprised if he is gone.

Blobby's brothers in arms = Benning Bashers = Ninety percent of posters at a certain hockeytalk site.

Nuck board at a certain hockeytalk site = Many hundreds of Benning-hating "Canuck fans".

Do you really not know of which site I speak good buddy?

And btw Blobby has been extremely ambiguous on this matter, nothing new...

No, I only come here, seriously.

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:36 pm No, I only come here, seriously.

FFS the site has been named many many times before...

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:39 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:36 pm No, I only come here, seriously.

FFS the site has been named many many times before...

I hear Canucksarmy or HF?

Oh well it is not here so you shouldn’t worry about it little buddy.

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:42 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:39 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:36 pm No, I only come here, seriously.

FFS the site has been named many many times before...

I hear Canucksarmy or HF?

Oh well it is not here so you shouldn’t worry about it little buddy.

It’s all part of his pee pee pants routine

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:42 pm I hear Canucksarmy or HF?

Oh well it is not here so you shouldn’t worry about it little buddy.

It's HF and I'm the exact opposite of "worried".

I said I was LOOKING FORWARD to checking it out when they melt down after the Benning extension.

"Little buddy"??... What are you... 300lbs?

You did say something a while back about being a "stubby-fingered pretty boy".

BTW I have been a member at HF for around 18 years, although I avoid the torch-and-pitchfork folk on the Canuck board.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:18 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:57 pm In the opinion of any (or all) of his supporters, how much longer do we need to run the Benning experiment to draw definitive conclusions ?

"we"?

I've already drawn my conclusions Cliffy, let me know you draw yours.

Even before The Dude's suggestion that would should judge a genius by the quality of his Masterpiece, I think I had agreed to reserve judgement until the Season That We Should Try to Think About, which I believe works out to 2018/2019. I have long maintained that the outcome was the only thing subject to objective tests.

If you have already seen enough to draw your own conclusions, I infer you are judging the process. That is your right, of course, but it's not clear to me how we move that from the realm of opinion.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm... What are you... 300lbs?

Reef is a gang-nam chunk?

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:26 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:18 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:57 pm In the opinion of any (or all) of his supporters, how much longer do we need to run the Benning experiment to draw definitive conclusions ?

"we"?

I've already drawn my conclusions Cliffy, let me know you draw yours.

Even before The Dude's suggestion that would should judge a genius by the quality of his Masterpiece, I think I had agreed to reserve judgement until the Season That We Should Try to Think About, which I believe works out to 2018/2019. I have long maintained that the outcome was the only thing subject to objective tests.

If you have already seen enough to draw your own conclusions, I infer you are judging the process. That is your right, of course, but it's not clear to me how we move that from the realm of opinion.

"we"?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:29 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:26 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:18 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:57 pm In the opinion of any (or all) of his supporters, how much longer do we need to run the Benning experiment to draw definitive conclusions ?

"we"?

I've already drawn my conclusions Cliffy, let me know you draw yours.

Even before The Dude's suggestion that would should judge a genius by the quality of his Masterpiece, I think I had agreed to reserve judgement until the Season That We Should Try to Think About, which I believe works out to 2018/2019. I have long maintained that the outcome was the only thing subject to objective tests.

If you have already seen enough to draw your own conclusions, I infer you are judging the process. That is your right, of course, but it's not clear to me how we move that from the realm of opinion.

"we"?

Sorry, I should be careful of my colloquialisms when discussing things with you.

It is not clear to me how, in the absence of sufficient data about the results, an assessment of the process could be moved from the realm of opinion.

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:21 pm Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:25 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:21 pm Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:31 pm

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:25 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:21 pm Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

How about this: https://thelawdictionary.org/reasonable-person/

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:43 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:31 pm

DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:25 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:21 pm Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

How about this: https://thelawdictionary.org/reasonable-person/

Okaaay...

"REASONABLE PERSON refers to an ordinary person who exercises care while avoiding extremes of boldness and carefulness."

I submit then that YOU sir are not "avoiding extremes of carefulness" (you refuse to put any faith in this rebuild).

Therefore, by the definition you have so kindly provided, YOU SIR are not a "reasonable person".

Thank you and good day.

EDIT: btw I have been accused by more than a few here of not being bold enough in my predictions

... therefore it is fair to say that I am "avoiding extremes of boldness" and am a "reasonable person" by your definition.