HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?

View Poll Results: What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?
I Agree With What He Says 6 25.00%
I Don't Agree With What He Says 13 54.17%
Other (Please Specify) 5 20.83%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 05:19 PM
  #26
TwistedWrister90
Registered User
 
TwistedWrister90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
According tp some posters here, the Hawks stars can do no wrong. On the ice or off. I personally feel so sorry for Toews at under 25 years old is making millions but wants more.

Most of these players have lived largely sheltered lives, and can't relate to real economics, never mind to the complexities of owning an NHL team. Fehr just throws at them the fact that they will get less money if they sign too soon and that they already made huge sacrifices in 2005, and that is sufficient to sway them to his thinking. It is Fehr who is being selfish by refusing to set his ego aside in this losing battle. If this keeps up the Winter Classsic is gone hence another nail in the coffin of this NHL will season. It's ridiculous ... and naive players like Toews need to know who is pulling their strings and face reality. Fehr speaks a good game to the press but that's about it. He has nothing other than to wait it out. Surely some veteran will break rank, step forward and speak out against him. It won't be Jonny.
Nice post. Donald Fehr is a weasel. And naive is a great word to describe a lot of the players.

TwistedWrister90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:23 PM
  #27
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
So I must repeat. If I choose to prolong a strike, making demands that match the extremity of those of my employer, then my lack of work is my fault just as much as it is my employer's fault.
So I must repeat: there was no strike. You are lying by calling it that.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:27 PM
  #28
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,382
vCash: 500
Neither side is squeaky clean. There are obviously flaws in the philosophy of both the owners and the players. Each side is responsible for there being a lockout. Is it clear which side has more if any? No, but each side wants you to believe that the other side is the reason the fans are not getting their dose of hockey. The owners and the NHLPA are each being greedy. Does anyone want to ever sacrifice money? Absolutely not, but at some point, these millionaires and billionaires need to realize that at the end of the day, they are still ****ing rich. Meet in the middle on some things and just play for a little less than you wanted since you're still going to get paid handsomely. Oh, I'm sorry, owners that you aren't getting quite the percentage of revenue you'd like. It's a shame now you are still making millions of dollars. Same thing goes for the players. If you're making a little less money (which is a lot to normal people like me), you are still being paid nicely. And you're still getting paid! You get no income if there isn't hockey. Zero. Players and owners need to quit *****ing and using the media to pretend like it all falls on the other side that the arenas are empty. No, both are idiots and being greedy jerks and are being completely unreasonable. I always hear that "the other side must not want to play". Well, neither side really wants to play since they won't be realistic and look at the bigger picture and negotiate. I bet the monetary difference between what the players or owners would have lost if the other side "won" would be covered by now with the amount of money already lost with the 2012-13 games being canceled through the month of November. They are such idiots. Just give the fans a damn season. If you are a player, accept a sacrifice in some fashion and enjoy your nice city house, your lodge up in Canada, make your millions, and start making some hits, scoring some goals, blocking some shots, landing your punches, and win some games. If you are an owner, accept some sort of sacrifice and enjoy getting tens of millions of dollars stacked onto your hundreds of million of dollars and go back into the background. I just want to see the Hawks and the other 29 teams back on the ice. I hope the fans return as loyal as they did before.

Cullksinikers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:29 PM
  #29
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
So I must repeat: there was no strike. You are lying by calling it that.
It is a labor strike to the core. The people providing the work refuse to continue until their demands are met, while the employers have demands of their own.

Only difference is that the workers here are making millions of dollars playing a sport, rather than (hypothetically) small salaries at some industrial job.

The players are refusing to play. The owners refuse to give in.
Sounds like a strike to me.

And it also sounds to me like neither side deserves an ounce of our sympathy.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:33 PM
  #30
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
It is a labor strike to the core. The people providing the work refuse to continue until their demands are met, while the employers have demands of their own.

Only difference is that the workers here are making millions of dollars playing a sport, rather than (hypothetically) small salaries at some industrial job.

The players are refusing to play. The owners refuse to give in.
Sounds like a strike to me.

And it also sounds to me like neither side deserves an ounce of our sympathy.


Bang on, Chris.

Cullksinikers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:31 PM
  #31
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post

Thank you for reminding me of one of the positives about the lockout.

I haven't thought of Pierre for months, and it's been terrific.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:17 PM
  #32
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
It is a labor strike to the core. The people providing the work refuse to continue until their demands are met, while the employers have demands of their own.
How long would you continue going into work if they stopped paying you?

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:57 PM
  #33
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
It is a labor strike to the core. The people providing the work refuse to continue until their demands are met, while the employers have demands of their own.

Only difference is that the workers here are making millions of dollars playing a sport, rather than (hypothetically) small salaries at some industrial job.

The players are refusing to play. The owners refuse to give in.
Sounds like a strike to me.

And it also sounds to me like neither side deserves an ounce of our sympathy.
No it is not a "labour strike". You need to familiarize yourself with labour relations terminology. The reason they are not working is because the owners have "closed the workplace"...they have not re-opened it.

The players are not refusing to play. They are not agreeing to the terms of a CBA. The dispute is about the terms of the agreement (which must be in place before work resumes).

Incidentally, "strike" and "lockout" are defined in the various provincial labour relations statutes in Canada. I imagine it's the same in the United States.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:07 PM
  #34
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
How long would you continue going into work if they stopped paying you?
No one is asking for players to not make any money. But to expect to make more % of your leagues revenue then ANY! other sport on the planet it ridiculous.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:11 PM
  #35
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
As for the OP, I think most of the players are making themselves look foolish with their comments and should stop. I have no problem with them talking about being united and wanting a fair deal but when their talking about being treated like animals and how the NHL wanted a lockout all along and how the league is out to get them they need to stop.

The players have simply taken this and the 2004 lockout personally. You hear them talk as if the owners where out to get them personally and if this wasn't just business.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:31 PM
  #36
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Dear lord some of you love your overly technical arguments. What a waste of time.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:38 PM
  #37
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
No it is not a "labour strike". You need to familiarize yourself with labour relations terminology. The reason they are not working is because the owners have "closed the workplace"...they have not re-opened it.

The players are not refusing to play. They are not agreeing to the terms of a CBA. The dispute is about the terms of the agreement (which must be in place before work resumes).

Incidentally, "strike" and "lockout" are defined in the various provincial labour relations statutes in Canada. I imagine it's the same in the United States.
But I'll go against myself and waste some of my time with a technical argument anyway



If the owners "opened the workplace" out of the blue tomorrow, no player would come back.

Why's that? You nailed it. No CBA.

Strike. Yes, if you want to get pointlessly technical, then it's not exactly the same as, say, factory workers organizing into a union and refusing to go to work until their demands are met.

But the general similarities are obviously there.
Like massivegoonery, you are getting too caught up in that the owners are the ones who officially initiate the lockout - i.e. "the owners locked out the players today."
Hence my constant mentioning of "overly technical." Yes, the players do not initiate the "strike" (so to speak) as would the factory workers in the hypothetical example. But they are certainly as responsible for it happening as those factory workers are.

For all intents and purposes, the factory workers/factory owner example serves as an appropriate analogy to the NHL players/NHL owners situation we currently have on our hands, and let us leave it at that.



Anyway, I can't help but be bemused that some people insist on defending one of these sides. As if they have done anything to deserve your support all they've done is ignore hockey's well-being as a sport and pursue their personal agendas, giving all of us fans a rather enormous middle finger in the process.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:40 PM
  #38
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
How long would you continue going into work if they stopped paying you?
Stopped getting paid because there is no CBA, and that is the players' fault as much as it is the owners'. It is baffling that you are unable to see this.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:53 PM
  #39
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
But I'll go against myself and waste some of my time with a technical argument anyway



If the owners "opened the workplace" out of the blue tomorrow, no player would come back.

Why's that? You nailed it. No CBA.

Strike. Yes, if you want to get pointlessly technical, then it's not exactly the same as, say, factory workers organizing into a union and refusing to go to work until their demands are met.

But the general similarities are obviously there.
Like massivegoonery, you are getting too caught up in that the owners are the ones who officially initiate the lockout - i.e. "the owners locked out the players today."
Hence my constant mentioning of "overly technical." Yes, the players do not initiate the "strike" (so to speak) as would the factory workers in the hypothetical example. But they are certainly as responsible for it happening as those factory workers are.

For all intents and purposes, the factory workers/factory owner example serves as an appropriate analogy to the NHL players/NHL owners situation we currently have on our hands, and let us leave it at that.



Anyway, I can't help but be bemused that some people insist on defending one of these sides. As if they have done anything to deserve your support all they've done is ignore hockey's well-being as a sport and pursue their personal agendas, giving all of us fans a rather enormous middle finger in the process.
It has nothing to do with defending a side. The fact that I say the owners locked the players out doesn't mean i'm saying they weren't justified. you're the one who thinks fault is assessed depending on whether it's a strike or a lockout. that has nothing to do with it.

the concepts of "strike" and "lockout" are neutral - the characterization of what happens has nothing to do with why the two sides are at conflict.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 10:59 PM
  #40
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
UWT, the last part wasn't directed at you.

The concepts are similar enough where they might as well be used interchangeably in this context.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:46 AM
  #41
deytookerjaabs
Registered Smut User
 
deytookerjaabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
He is part of half of the reason the best hockey in the world is being taken away from all of us, so I couldn't care less about his selfish opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
According tp some posters here, the Hawks stars can do no wrong. On the ice or off. I personally feel so sorry for Toews at under 25 years old is making millions but wants more.

Most of these players have lived largely sheltered lives, and can't relate to real economics, never mind to the complexities of owning an NHL team. Fehr just throws at them the fact that they will get less money if they sign too soon and that they already made huge sacrifices in 2005, and that is sufficient to sway them to his thinking. It is Fehr who is being selfish by refusing to set his ego aside in this losing battle. If this keeps up the Winter Classsic is gone hence another nail in the coffin of this NHL will season. It's ridiculous ... and naive players like Toews need to know who is pulling their strings and face reality. Fehr speaks a good game to the press but that's about it. He has nothing other than to wait it out. Surely some veteran will break rank, step forward and speak out against him. It won't be Jonny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nds90 View Post
Nice post. Donald Fehr is a weasel. And naive is a great word to describe a lot of the players.

I posted this in the business forum:

Quote:
Yeah, the owners seem very eager to sell everything off don't they? Or, could it be something below the surface, something...inherent to being a successful businessman: always reducing costs regardless of the situation and cherry picking statistics which show you need to reduce costs. Any person with half a brain understands his company will cite record profits to wall street while telling it's workers of losses and needed cutbacks, big private business usually functions with the same ethos and it's a mere few who make so much money they just can't hide the fact. Some posters citing ignorance of the NHLPA have absolutely no clue what owning these franchises is about: slowly gaining net worth in assets. To believe the poor owners of twenty teams are bleeding black is feigning massive ignorance. That's ok, pretend the owners are opening up their books and the players should always forfeit more every time CBA negotiations arise.
I think it applies here. Bottom line, in any business, regardless of what you make, you tell the front line you need to cut costs and if not for a CBA/Union there's no way for the players, as a whole, to do better when the league does better. I'm actually kind of glad a bunch of millionaires get the opportunity call the bluff, even if the people who really need money can't do that in their workplace.


Last edited by deytookerjaabs: 11-02-2012 at 01:28 AM.
deytookerjaabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:03 AM
  #42
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Not sure if quoting me is really the right way to go, as you're lumping me in with what appear to be two of the "Screw the players' side" crowd.

I am sick of both the NHLPA and the owners and don't want to waste an ounce of energy defending either of them. Don't have an issue explaining why both deserve blame, though.


Last edited by Chris Hansen: 11-02-2012 at 01:11 AM. Reason: forgot "and"
Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:07 AM
  #43
deytookerjaabs
Registered Smut User
 
deytookerjaabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Not sure if quoting me is really the right way to go, as you're lumping me in with what appear to be two of the "Screw the players' side" crowd.

I am sick of both the NHLPA and the owners don't want to waste an ounce of energy defending either of them. Don't have an issue explaining why both deserve blame, though.
Yeah, I get what you're saying and to an extent feel the same way. To me, this is just what business is from the owner's side of the field. They ****ed up with some miserable franchises but, for the most part, they are ALWAYS going to fight tooth and nail to reduce costs like any other business, regardless of profits.

deytookerjaabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:51 AM
  #44
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,865
vCash: 500
I don't care about what they have to say...

a deal should have been done by 2-3 months now. Both sides failed

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 10:24 AM
  #45
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deytookerjaabs View Post
I posted this in the business forum:



I think it applies here. Bottom line, in any business, regardless of what you make, you tell the front line you need to cut costs and if not for a CBA/Union there's no way for the players, as a whole, to do better when the league does better. I'm actually kind of glad a bunch of millionaires get the opportunity call the bluff, even if the people who really need money can't do that in their workplace.
I don't post in the BOH section often, but I've seen some interesting topics and thoughts in there.

I believe most of the issue is just with the business model chosen by the owners. It seems that there is no common model when it comes to owners and how they deal with capital expenditures, labor, buying/selling of service contracts, etc. Anyway, I don't think cost cutting is always a top priority, some franchises/businesses haven't cut costs so that they can keep an infrastructure in place to resume business as soon as things get back to some sort of norm.

I'm sure all businesses look for savings, but many of the current owners have been doing the opposite of cost-saving measures even though they knew a stoppage was likely the for the last 2 years.

Too many owners don't rely on their hockey operations for profit in a given year, many have been more concerned with the appreciation of their asset for a given timeline, or they just gamble with it. There has to be 8 or more owners (I think about 12 groups right now) that aren't bluffing right now, so I'm not sure the players are calling anybody's bluff.

Almost everybody, including myself, likes the idea of the "little guy" coming out ahead, but I'm not sure it's really possible in the NHL. I really thought enough of the owners in the Jacobs camp (squeeze labor and profit every year regardless of performance) or the hard "numbers-only" types were out of the league to the point that the other owners focused on growing their brands and the league would steer the CBA negotiations. It appears that isn't the case and that the owners are not bluffing in my opinion.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:12 AM
  #46
Chris Hansen
Team Tyrion
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
I don't care about what they have to say...

a deal should have been done by 2-3 months now. Both sides failed
Exactly. The fact that we are even here right now is pathetic.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:16 AM
  #47
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Too many owners don't rely on their hockey operations for profit in a given year, many have been more concerned with the appreciation of their asset for a given timeline, or they just gamble with it. There has to be 8 or more owners (I think about 12 groups right now) that aren't bluffing right now, so I'm not sure the players are calling anybody's bluff.

Almost everybody, including myself, likes the idea of the "little guy" coming out ahead, but I'm not sure it's really possible in the NHL. I really thought enough of the owners in the Jacobs camp (squeeze labor and profit every year regardless of performance) or the hard "numbers-only" types were out of the league to the point that the other owners focused on growing their brands and the league would steer the CBA negotiations. It appears that isn't the case and that the owners are not bluffing in my opinion.
You got it. The players incorrectly assume that big profits are coming from the owners hockey ventures, but the truth is they don't know, and neither does Fehr, and never will. Goodenow before him made the same mistake of thinking that the owners were bluffing, hence underestimating their resolve. If the Winter Classic gets cancelled as expected, that resolve will expand exponentially. The players need to act now, before that tiny wiggle room is completely lost, (not to mention their salary for the season being at jeopardy).

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:22 AM
  #48
deytookerjaabs
Registered Smut User
 
deytookerjaabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I don't post in the BOH section often, but I've seen some interesting topics and thoughts in there.

I believe most of the issue is just with the business model chosen by the owners. It seems that there is no common model when it comes to owners and how they deal with capital expenditures, labor, buying/selling of service contracts, etc. Anyway, I don't think cost cutting is always a top priority, some franchises/businesses haven't cut costs so that they can keep an infrastructure in place to resume business as soon as things get back to some sort of norm.

I'm sure all businesses look for savings, but many of the current owners have been doing the opposite of cost-saving measures even though they knew a stoppage was likely the for the last 2 years.

Too many owners don't rely on their hockey operations for profit in a given year, many have been more concerned with the appreciation of their asset for a given timeline, or they just gamble with it. There has to be 8 or more owners (I think about 12 groups right now) that aren't bluffing right now, so I'm not sure the players are calling anybody's bluff.

Almost everybody, including myself, likes the idea of the "little guy" coming out ahead, but I'm not sure it's really possible in the NHL. I really thought enough of the owners in the Jacobs camp (squeeze labor and profit every year regardless of performance) or the hard "numbers-only" types were out of the league to the point that the other owners focused on growing their brands and the league would steer the CBA negotiations. It appears that isn't the case and that the owners are not bluffing in my opinion.
I mean call the bluff in the sense that cutting a bit more off the players share to decrease payroll a bit isn't going to fix the huge gap in ticket sales/prices and popularity for the southern teams. Sure, out of 30 there will always be a few bad apples, but there is certainly a trend in the league's current problem. That's what's pathetic and it has nothing to do with the players.

I want to see the league actually make a serious effort in the south rather than just trying to cut payroll.

deytookerjaabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:34 PM
  #49
Recoil
Registered User
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
A million is to a billion what a thousand is to a million. Or a dollar is to a thousand.

Anyways, I hope your job doesn't decide to lock you out tomorrow.
See, that's part of the problem. In corporate America, this **** doesn't happen, for the most part, at least it's very rare. When Unions threaten to go on strike, MOST of the time right now, they continue to work on the terms of their existing agreements and negotiate in good faith. Business goes on, a deal gets done, and that's that. These days that's mainly because of the poor economy and workers not wanting to take chances at losing their jobs, but the corporations don't end up overly screwing the Unions either.

But not in sports.

In sports these days, it's common practice for a lockout (the opposite of a strike). NBA, NFL, NFL Refs, and the NHL now. Sides don't even start TALKING until a lockout is in place. It's an abysmal way to run a successful business, especially one that is so dependent on the public eye. I'm fed up with professional sports in general for this stance. There is ZERO reason the fans should get caught in the middle. Keep working on the terms of your old CBA until you figure your **** out.

The fact that makes this even less tolerable is exactly the point the prior poster made: It's Millionaires vs Billionaires. Well you know what? **** THEM ALL. They are all greedy, whiny *****es, who have more money than any of us would hope to have (even the fringe players do pretty damn well) and they are here to ENTERTAIN US. That's why they exist. Watching them squabble and do nothing with their millions is pathetic. Keep working. Keep the fans happy. Work under your prior terms, and negotiate behind closed doors instead of in front of the media. That should be how these get done in the future.

(yea....right...that's going to happen)

Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:16 PM
  #50
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,732
vCash: 500
I don't agree with his opinion but I won't hold a grudge because of it either, he's entitled to have one just like the rest of us.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.