BTH

If Markov's done, the first thing that happens is the Habs trade another 2nd round pick for a replacement. They have enough centers, I can't see them trying to upgrade before finding a PP QB. It's seeming like they won't make the playoffs without one. Long-term, they would have to change their strategy. Get rid of Gomez at all costs and throw money at a D. They're supposed to be a defensive team but they only have 2 top 4 d-men without Markov. Other than that, they're fine. As soon as they get another d-man better than Subban (whether it's Markov or not), they'll be a contending team. If it's not Markov, it won't be happening this season and they'll be in trouble.

Probably. But seriously, a healthy Markov makes a huge difference for this team. I still think their chances of making the playoffs are well above 50%.

Right. I guess what's controversial about it is that this is during recess, where we think of people being able to talk to their friends however they want. In theory, this looks like a dictatorial overreach on the part of the school but in practice, I bet nothing will change. I went to a Jewish school where you had to wear a kippah. If you didn't wear one, the teacher told you to put it on. The next chance you got, it would be back in your pocket though and nothing bad would ever happen to you if you weren't wearing one. The language thing will probably be the same way. "Did you hear that new Drake song?" *teacher comes* "Arrêtes de parler anglais!" "Je m'excuse." *teachers walks away* "So as I was saying..." That being said, I don't think the law is necessary at all and I would prefer if it didn't exist.

Crosby's return = 2 goals + 2 assists Markov > Crosby Markov's return = ?????

What do you guys (frenchies and anglees alike) think of this? http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/24/no-recess-from-french-as-montreal-schools-to-scan-playground-chatter/

This is the first time I can remember the TSN pundits being more optimistic about Montreal's chance than Habs fans are. Before the season people say things like "I hope Desharnais gets at least a 20 game chance to try gelling in with the top 6" and then once the Habs are 1-3 in the second week of the season, it's "How can Martin be so stupid? Desharnais clearly isn't working!? He should use Eller! If we wait any longer, we'll be too late to make the playoffs." If people kept track of their thoughts over the course of the year, they wouldn't be swayed so easily by new developments. One thing that keeps fans pessimistic is that they only get surface knowledge of how other fanbases are feeling. I encourage people to skim through other teams's boards on HFboards and read the panic and negativity on them. You'd never guess how many teams you envy have half their fans calling for the head coach to get fired. Surely, not two thirds of the NHL's teams can be in desperate situations at the same time. What's more likely is that hockey fans are just fickle and emotional. I've noticed the general tone on this board shift dramatically after each game, depending on if its a win or a loss. I still think this team is in the top third in the league on paper. But it needs to get Markov back and it needs one of its three third line centers to play like a second liner. I've pretty much lost hope on Gomez ever hitting 50 points again and I'm skeptical that Eller or Desharnais are going to do well in that spot this season. I think the answer is just to wait until Eller gets better. Eventually he'll get to that level. Gomez can get out of here at the first opportunity. What exactly are "eyeteeth" ???

I don't understand how Pittsburgh did so well without Crosby. Their line up looks really weak to me.

How can you justify firing the coach right now? He's matched or exceeded expectations for two seasons and two post-seasons, plus the team has been on a bit of roll since Pearn was fired. The main criticism against him in his first two seasons was that he didn't know how to develop young players and yet the young players he's worked with have mostly developed as well as anybody could have hoped. Price is one of the top goalies in the league, Subban is becoming a legitimate top pairing d-man, Pacioretty is one of our best forwards, role players like White and Palushaj have done well, and Desharnais and Eller have improved a lot since they first joined the team. We don't have to go throw the same cycle of blaming the coach every time a young player struggles or doesn't get a promotion. Eller will get his chance with time, just like Subban and Pacioretty did.

Trivial? That's a load of crap. Netflix is an important part of the lives of so many Canadians. They have documentaries, feature films, shorts (the above mentioned by Lynch) etc. It's one of the most popular online film-viewing companies in the world. Etc... lol Nah, I'm just refining my technique at trolling the Lounge. But I do like Netflix. And Teeth sucks (bites).

Didn't the Habs just lose to the Islanders? 2 goals, 2 assists is impressive regardless of the opposition.

Why laughable? Actual reasons > Sarcasm Canadians that know cinema will be able to find some use for Netflix. Canadians that don't know cinema will have almost no use for Netflix. The majority don't know cinema but that doesn't mean the entire project is worthless and indefensible. I'm not even talking about them as a business, I don't know if they're making money or not, I'm talking about the service they provide and at the very low price they offer it. My first sentence is the only statement that I think is required in order to defend Netflix. I'd obviously prefer it if they got way more stuff but I'm grateful I got the chance to use it so they're cool in my books even if I wouldn't recommend them to the average person.

I agree that most people want to watch Hollywood movies and that Netflix isn't very good for this. But you guys were saying that you hadn't heard of a Canadian that likes Netflix and that their selection is crap. So I'm defending their selection. They have a lot of good stuff. And not super obscure stuff that nobody's heard of, but they have lots of titles that would be well-known to a certain demographic that is looking for a certain type of movie. It's like showing up to a Habs game and booing Price, Subban, and Pacioretty because you wanted to see the Winnipeg Jets. If you want to see the Jets, go to a Jets game. Your disappointment is understandable but that doesn't mean there's nothing to see at the Bell Centre. I don't understand that because the term "art film" is sooo incredibly broad. They can be happy, sad, fast, slow, gratuitous, subtle, plot-driven, character-driven, etc. For example, one of the movies I listed above, Sukiyaki Western Django is taken somewhat seriously by cinephiles and yet it's non-stop pure awesomeness and action from beginning to end, hardly stereotypical art house fare. Some people even consider Tarantino an art filmmaker (I don't). To others, his films are the lowest of the low in terms of artistic value (I don't think this either but he is the face of mainstream cinema). Does he make you want to beat yourself to death?

I didn't say every Canadian should pay for Netflix and click on all the videos they haven't heard of. Just that they aren't nearly as bad as you say they are. You make it sound like their selection is nothing but shit. Their mainstream stuff mostly is (so many Ryan Reynolds rom coms lol) but they have a hundreds of movies by big name directors, it's not their fault that you haven't heard of them. I've seen like a thousand movies and they had tons of stuff I wanted to see but hadn't found anywhere else and I know there are lots of others like me who have put it to good use. Like I said, you just have to change your approach to use it. They probably won't have what you're looking for, so you just have to check for what they have (if you're looking for TV, nothing).

Yeah, lol. I thought it would be awesome in the way trashy horror movies sometimes are but it pretty much just sucked. But you don't know anything about those movies. Actually, it's that you've never heard of them that makes you assume that they aren't worth watching. Netflix can't be held responsible for that attitude. If you're not interested in discovering new movies, then you can hardly blame Netflix for that. Some of those are movies that I'd never heard of but tried watching anyway. Others, like Mallrats, El Mariachi, Teeth, The Following, Private Resort, Waiting, and Pi (watched it in the other month) are mainstream movies even non-film buffs know about. Others are art films but they aren't highly conceptual or experimental or self-indulgent or whatever other stereotype you can think of for art films. They're just like mainstream films except more intelligent and yes, made for more intelligent and open-minded viewers. They aren't that much more "out there" than some Hollywood directors like PT Anderson, Tarantino, Scorsese, and Wes Anderson. Haneke, von Trier, Wong kar Wai, and Miike are pretty much as mainstream as 'art filmmakers' get. There's a ton of diversity in that list, many of which you wouldn't like, many of which you would. You can't just rule them all out because you haven't heard of them. If you do, then Netflix owes you nothing.

I did the Canadian Netflix monthly trial twice and I must watched a few dozen movies on it in that time. There's a lot of good stuff on there, you just need to change your approach. Instead of searching up your favourite movie to see if they have it, you need to browse what they have. If you like art films, they have a lot of good stuff, I wrote a list somewhere of all the movies I saw on it in my second month, I'll try to find it. I know there was lots of Pasolini. edit: here, this was my second month: The Straight Story (1999) - USA - David Lynch Oedipus Rex (1967) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini Love Meetings (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini Mallrats (1995) - USA - Kevin Smith The Short Films of David Lynch - USA - David Lynch The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini The Hawks and the Sparrows (1964) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini Accatone (1961) - Italy - Pier Paolo Pasolini Epidemic (1987) - Denmark - Lars Von Trier As Tears Go By (1988) - Hong Kong - Wong Kar Wai Days of Being Wild (1990) - Hong Kong - Wong Kar Wai Under the Sand (2000) - France - François Ozon Kiss of Death (1977) - UK - Mike Leigh The Last Mistress (2007) - France - Catherine Breillat Sex is Comedy (2002) - France - Catherine Breillat Anatomy of Hell (2004) - France - Catherine Breillat Iran: A Cinematographic Revolution (2007) - Iran - Nader T. Homayoun Daniel Tosh: Completely Serious (2007) - USA - Daniel Tosh Brother (2000) - Japan - Takeshi Kitano Teeth (2006) - USA - Mitchell Liechtenstein 35 Shots of Rum (2007) - France - Claire Denis Lie With Me (2005) - USA - Clément Virgo Swimming Pool (2003) - France - François Ozon Irma Vep (1996) - France - Olivier Assayas El Mariachi (1992) - Mexico - Robert Rodriguez Caché (2005) - France - Michael Haneke Sukiyaki Western Django (2007) - Japan - Takashi Miike I Don’t Hate Las Vegas Anymore (1994) - USA - Caveh Zahedi Following (1998) - USA - Christopher Nolan Hide and Seek (1996) - USA - Su Friedrich Lots of awesome movies there and I don't remember what they were but I remember that there was lots more I was meaning to see before my month ran up.

Agreed. You can't blame a team for their defense being too good for you. It is the team with the puck's responsibility to make something happen. Fans blame the Lightning because they want to see high scoring games and because they don't find the 1-3-1 manly.

Also, you have the same voice as PK Subban.

By that definition, is Canada not working right now? If Canada's not working, are there any societies on Earth that are working? I think that every possible system works well if people don't take advantage of each other. And every system fails if people do take advantage of each other.

Your voices echo sometimes and it's noticeable that all of you guys have different mics. The sound quality keeps changing. It would be cool if you could use skype for this so that we could see you guys. It would make the pauses feel less awkward. (You know how pauses that are totally acceptable in person are awkward over the phone because we can't see the other's body language?) The main speaker, the guy who seems to be hosting, speaks in a way that translates much better to an audiovisual format than just audio. If you're doing audio, the conversation can't really be so laid back or else people tune out. You need to Pierre MacGuire that shit. I like Norm's voice! You sound like a pro.

I dunno but if you go to my profile, you can see the comment that I posted about Hagman, still there.

I wanted him last season! But everybody else said he sucked. And now it seems as if he sucks. I posted it on that HW Twitter feature that used to be on the main forum page and sakiqc or Joe wasn't sure if I was joking or not. Lots of people seem to be blaming one or both of them teams but I don't think either team did anything wrong here. TB has the right to play any system they like and Philly should have the right to wait for TB to make their move.

I don't even know if it's legal for the Coyotes to beat the Habs.

First you need to answer: What does it mean for a society to be working? In a sense, capitalism's working for us right now, or was for a few decades until recently. Are you saying that it inevitably leads to an authoritarian, nearly fascist regime? If so, how long does it take for this happen and was capitalism "working" up until that point?

Kovalev and Ryder!

This is the first time I hear of this situation but I don't feel like intimate knowledge of the offence is essential to understanding your argument. That being said, I don't understand your argument. I don't know what you mean by society coming up with a social contract, as if "social contract" only applies to secular societies. Firstly, religious codes of conduct are exactly examples of social contracts made by societies and they clearly haven't prevented despicable behaviour. If you believe that human societies are incapable of eliminating evil, that will be the case with religion or no. This isn't a reason to prefer religious morality to secular morality. Second, the people you're berating could consider themselves devout Christians for all we know. They come from a highly religious society after all. They can't be used as an example of what an atheist society would look like. For that, look at the Scandinavian countries where 70% of people are atheists. They consistently rank among the world's top nations (way above the USA) in regards to crime rate, education, happiness, donating to charity, etc. Thirdly, even if you believe that evil is inevitable in human societies, it still makes sense to want to keep it to as small a group as possible. There are horrifying social contracts (the Taliban and other extremist Muslim societies for example) and there are generally successful ones (Canada, Scandinavian nations, Western Europe...) by comparison. I have already provided a basis for morality in a secular world. I don't think the fact that there are idiots puts this argument at risk. If anything, it should convince us of the need to spread the message that morality has its basis in our biology and that scientific and philosophical knowledge can help us resolve moral dilemmas. The problem is that this view is caught between two more popular views, both of which allow the believer to justify any behaviour he or she wants: 1) morality comes from religion and 2) there is no such thing as morality because there is no objective basis for it (i.e. What makes murder inherently wrong?). Many secularists and atheists don't believe you have the right to say that not reporting a rape is bad. It is a difference of opinions that have been acquired socially. If there is reason to worry over secular morality it would be because of this belief. But by no means is this belief the logically consistent and necessary follow-up position of atheism. Once we relate morality to maximizing human well-being and point out the legitimacy of intersubjective values in our society, it becomes clear that there is a basis for morality in reality. Education on this issue will increase the possibility of a more moral society in the future. I think this will gradually happen as religious fervour declines in the Western world (as I feel it is).