King of Spain is being operated after he broke his hip. This is what he was doing....

smalleye · 1 month

I hope he broke it when the rest of the herd came and trampled his ass.

LookingforC2012 · 1 month

catherine ellis, jungian analyst.

kingminers · 2 months

from fan/player to a ref: bend over and use your good eye.

from player to player: call a guy a "grocery stick" It's a thinker, but here it is: Where do the worst players on the team sit? Right in the middle of the bench, because they're not going out either forward or defense gate. What does an actual grocery stick do? separates my groceries from yours at the checkout counter. What does a grocery stick player do? Separates the forwards from the D on the bench.

edit: explanation

Edgewood_Dirk · 2 months

never forget where you came from

mediocrites · 4 months

Your grandpa was Val Kilmer.

space-ninja · 5 months

On (assisted) suicide: It's got to be conditional. Someone with a terminal illness living in pain probably has a right to die. Physically able, if perhaps mentally unstable, father of three young children does not.

witac · 5 months

refs intentionally miss calls

That does sound daft. A ref might admit in conversation "Sorry, I missed that one. I'm only human" to buy a little slack from an irate coach. But in the moment of judgement -call or no call- he doesn't say "I'm going to intentionally miss that one." Making an instant calculation of all these above stated factors, he will say either "that's a penalty" or "nothin there boys, play on."

There are very few objective, unequivocal penalties in a game context. It's easy to see a four second clip and say "how did he miss that high stick?" It's not as easy to see a 60 minute game and know what is the right call every second.

onefortherecordbooks · 5 months

nope. Way less blues, quite a bit more lounge jazz.

witac · 5 months

This too, is among the considerations a referee makes. "He slashed me!" a crybaby player will say. "Yes. And now you two are even after that cheap shot you took on him in the 1st."

witac · 5 months

earthsandwich's advice is really good for when you do get to see a game live. Watching one player for a whole shift will really show you how crucial it is playing without the puck.

As for on TV, the body language of the puck carrier is often all you have to work with. Where he's looking, where his feet are pointing will be clues as to what he is considering. You'll get to the point where you can predict their actions -I know he's going this way- as opposed to always reacting -O, he passed it over there.

Can I ask where you live? I'll see if I can't find any info on decent hockey closer to home.

witac · 5 months

I think you exaggerate to make a point. I know it's a bit distasteful thinking that referees manipulate the game like this. It stays within reasonable limits, though. If a referee does a good job, a few things will happen: the most severe infraction will get the most severe penalty, the better team that day will win, the game will be exciting, and everyone watching will leave saying "that was good hockey."

Referees job is more to facilitate good hockey than to make sure everyone follows every rule all the time.

witac · 5 months

Officiating: Pro hockey is a business. The league's business interest is icing a marketable product. The most immediate and impactful influence the league can have on the quality of the product is through the officiating. That's not to say Gary Bettman calls up Don Van Massenhoven to tell him "I want the Pens to win big tonight." But "a trip in the 1st is a trip in the 3rd" is not how hockey is refereed. A whole host of factors are instantly accounted for in judging a call or non-call. These include score, time of game, players involved (who's streaking/slumping/recently suspended/returned from injury) the obvious high-stick that was missed earlier, what happened last time these teams played, etc. The idea is people would rather see a game that is very competitive and more or less fair, than to see a strictly fair game that is not at all competitive. I've had supervisors talk to us after the game about a technically correct call saying "did we need a six minute power play in the 3rd period of a tie game?" Strictly fair, but not competitive and not entertaining. Disclaimer: I only ref Jr. B, but I work with guys who also skate Major Junior, and they tell me what it's like.

witac · 5 months

Go to live games. I know pro games can be expensive, so go see Jr. A or college games, anything. More than any other sport, you miss so much of the game seeing it on TV. You need to see all the players on the ice to watch a play develop. On TV, the camera zooms in to a defenceman behind the net, and all you can see is him and one forechecker. If you want to understand how strategies play out, you need to be able to see who's supporting him on the wing, who's curling through the neutral zone looking for a pass, where the 2nd and 3rd forecheckers are. Also, play can go on for minutes at a time with no stoppages, which means no time for replays and analysis, which makes it difficult for a casual fan to catch all the intricacies. I'm a referee, so 90% of the hockey I watch is on the ice. When I watch a game on TV, I'm always wishing for a bigger screen that allows a wider camera angle. Go to live games and watch the whole ice, all the players. Look at the puck carrier. Now look where he's looking, see what he sees. I'm a skating zebra.

lostboyz · 5 months

"Don't drink and drive" is not a please and thank you kind of thing. It's a don't fucking do it, ever, kind of thing.

onefortherecordbooks · 6 months

Hey thanks. I was hoping to find a bit better kind of hangout than a movie theatre, but it might be the only choice.

Breakyerself · 6 months

The hope is that there will be a moment of recognition among bystanders that this destruction is creative and necessary? Plausible. It's a visceral/emotional response. "The need calls", you say. It takes a step away from thinking towards doing. Thought and action are inseparable, and all that. Maybe I think too much.

Breakyerself · 6 months

Sometimes the bloc scares away potential supporters. It is too extreme for their sensibilities. I would forgive them those fears because good people have been wildly misled for a long time. Industrial capitalism and state-dictated coercion are massive power structures whose dismantling will require huge public support. Tactics which weaken this support are bad strategy. Not saying that all destruction is wrong by any means. I'm saying that how destructive acts are perceived in the zeitgeist is important for strategy.
Anarchism still is an obscure ideology. A movement has to grow as well as radicalize.

Down-Syndrome-Danny- · 6 months

Because there is significant agent provocation going on. Also because property destruction doesn't have wide public support, allowing it to go on (and having cameras there for the cover shot) will send peaceful protesters/fence-sitters running to the police. This perpetuates the state's monopoly of legitimate violence (though property destruction /= violence) Advantage police.

holding them down to take their mask off for a picture

This is not helpful. We might not agree with their tactics. I think they are poorly thought out and, at present, counter-productive. I think there is a place for judicious application of force, but co-opting a peaceful protest for destructive purposes is a mistake. This does not make them our enemies.

Breakyerself · 6 months

nor are you an audience that people who bloc up are trying to impress.

who are they trying to impress? maybe nobody.

If they are not trying to engender greater support, what do those who bloc up hope to accomplish? Forgive my ignorance. I want to understand the effectiveness of black bloc as a tactic and strategy.

CourtOfMiracles · 6 months

If we demand a 3 day national holiday, how likely is it to be granted? I suspect very unlikely. If we take take that holiday regardless, and the whole country refuses to work, against the will of their employers (be they private or government) that is a general strike. I don't believe the motivation of OP is to get 3 days off work and maintain status quo elsewise. I think the demand for a holiday is a nice way to broach the subject. If the unsanctioned holiday is a success (meaning wide public support) I imagine it might just carry on past 3 days. If you accept this premise, will you answer my first question? If not, why?

ifyouwill · 6 months

Please don't do this. People engaged in property destruction are making a mistake by acting so close to those not willing to accept property destruction. It puts both groups at greater risk. Often their targets could be better selected. Even though they might not agree with us on tactics, they are much less our enemy than are the police. They should be acting independently of those committed to peaceful protest. Encourage them to do so. But don't turn them in to the police.

CourtOfMiracles · 6 months

A three day general strike is indefensible, because it might compromise some nominal, largely fictitious economic growth? Or because you believe it too radical to be popular, such that potential supporters would be turned away? To me, an indefinite general strike is justifiable and defensible. I agree that it may be bad strategy as of yet.

Breakyerself · 6 months

Right. It's bad for people, it's bad for the movement. Blackouts in my neighborhood don't engender support. Attack depots and outposts of the consumption/usury economy and imperial state. Global banks, recruiting centers, etc. Don't blow up bridges. Anarchists also have to cross rivers.

onefortherecordbooks

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login