HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

even the pesimists...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2005, 12:20 PM
  #51
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
If someone doesn't give two ***** about the veterans of the team, it implies that they dont really care about the team as a whole.
Seems to me that stating I love the effort Renney is getting is talking exactly about the team as a whole.

Now please explain the reasoning behind your quote from above.

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-09-2005, 01:20 PM
  #52
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,635
vCash: 500
BTW, I don't call myself a pessimist(nice to see that education paying off Potter...;o)...JK), thats an ugly word.

Call us reality brokers

Jumpin Jack Flash its a gas gas gas, yeeeeeeah....

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
10-09-2005, 01:33 PM
  #53
JAGRISTHEMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Seems to me that stating I love the effort Renney is getting is talking exactly about the team as a whole.

Now please explain the reasoning behind your quote from above.

Man you are some kind of "fan". When you hope for doom and gloom.
Then you are very disingenious in this post. You left half your own quote out including the part that you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I love the effort that Renney is getting; I like what I'm seeing from some of the kids; I care little about how Jagr, Malik, or any other 30+ player looks; and I care less about getting three of four possible points.


Last edited by JAGRISTHEMAN: 10-09-2005 at 02:28 PM.
JAGRISTHEMAN is offline  
Old
10-09-2005, 01:57 PM
  #54
Its a PP Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 320
vCash: 500
With the new rules in effect, the Rangers can make the playoffs because they were the only team that didn't obstruct players in the past. Now every team plays defense like us and they're getting burned. The Devils don't look nearly as good as they did before. The Rangers dominated long stretches of play during the game, something they never use to do against them.

I think they can make the 8th seed.

Its a PP Goal is offline  
Old
10-09-2005, 04:40 PM
  #55
Potter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bridgewater NJ
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potter
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Truth
With the new rules in effect, the Rangers can make the playoffs because they were the only team that didn't obstruct players in the past. Now every team plays defense like us and they're getting burned. The Devils don't look nearly as good as they did before. The Rangers dominated long stretches of play during the game, something they never use to do against them.

I think they can make the 8th seed.

I think your true to your name buddy. Thats actually really funny when put in that context because your point is practically 100% true.

Potter is offline  
Old
10-09-2005, 05:14 PM
  #56
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Of course it is. Here's what was written: "losing is not best for this team. It breeds losing and it breeds a losing additude."

That excuse is crap. The Sens and Devils were both losing teams but being losing teams didn't breed a losing attitude and it didn't breed more losing. Why they were losing teams was not pertinent to the original poster's comment, nor isd it pertinent to the discussion at hand. What matters is his ridiculous assertion that losing breeds losing. The facts show that to be untrue, so you cannot offer it as a justification for demanding wins.


I could shred both the logic and the history of this, but instead I will simply say that your point is meaningless. If they were a losing team at one time and are no longer a losing team, it clearly proves that losing does not breed losing or a losing attitude.


No thanks. I'm perfectly content with watching a rebuilding team and the struggles normally associated with that. It is the people who are not fans enough to sit through this process patiently who should find another team. They are bad fans.
funny if losing doesn't breed losing why do players want to win so bad? i know you can't accept the fact that the rangers have turned into a team that all of us knew they would become. A young hardworking team that doesn't accept losing even when the effort is there. (see the montreal game)

you can bring up the sens and devils all you want but there are plenty of other teams that I can bring up in all sports that have been rebuilding for 10 years.

Losing is not whats best for this team. Winning ASAP with the vast amount of young players we have on the team and in hartford is the best possible thing that could happen.

I'm not going to get into the whole "real fan" debate. Its something i regret saying about anybody that posts here. It was wrong and for that i am truly sorry.

Losing does breed losing. It breeds a losing enviroment (see new york rangers 1997-2004)

The Rangers have turned the corner and i hope in the next few years our debates are about how many cups this team will win instead of how many losses you want this team to have.

This team should make the playoffs. The have a balanced lineup of youth and experiance. I just wish they had a playmaking defenseman. If i were Sather/Renney i would send Drats down and call up Pock.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 08:59 AM
  #57
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Here's what I would say as A "pessmist". I have not hidden the fact that I have very, very little confidence in Renney. I have zero belief in Sather and anything that he does. Watching this team disgrave itself underneath him will tend to do that.
HOWEVER, Renney is doing his darndest to make me reverse my position. I like his coaching hires. I have always preached that special teams is all coaching. The PK has been terrific. Killing all the 5-on-3's and all that. The bottom 2 lines work their butts off every shift. Although, I think that is more of McGill byproduct than anything else.
I was very impressed by the benching the last game. I was shocked when Poti joined Lundmark on the bench. There are things that I still do not agree with or even like. But there ARE positive signs.
Having said that, over the last 8 years, we have seen this before. Remember when the Rangers were in first place when the FLY line ruled the league? This team has stabbed it's fans in the back so many times in recent memory, that it makes it almost impossible to have complete unbridled optimism.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:28 AM
  #58
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Here's what I would say as A "pessmist". I have not hidden the fact that I have very, very little confidence in Renney. I have zero belief in Sather and anything that he does. Watching this team disgrave itself underneath him will tend to do that.
HOWEVER, Renney is doing his darndest to make me reverse my position. I like his coaching hires. I have always preached that special teams is all coaching. The PK has been terrific. Killing all the 5-on-3's and all that. The bottom 2 lines work their butts off every shift. Although, I think that is more of McGill byproduct than anything else.
I was very impressed by the benching the last game. I was shocked when Poti joined Lundmark on the bench. There are things that I still do not agree with or even like. But there ARE positive signs.
Having said that, over the last 8 years, we have seen this before. Remember when the Rangers were in first place when the FLY line ruled the league? This team has stabbed it's fans in the back so many times in recent memory, that it makes it almost impossible to have complete unbridled optimism.
Speaking as an "optimist" - I think maybe we all need to lighten up (us optimists I mean) when it comes to TB and some of the other "pessimists." We know where you're coming from and I, for one, can at least understand why although I'm much more sanguine about where the team is right now.

We've spent the better part of the last two months arguing to try and convince each other as to our points of view - now it's up to Sather, Renney and the team to show us all one way or the other. All that we can ask is that those of you on "the dark side" maintain a point of view like the one above - hopefully the good signs persist and by the 50 game mark we'll all be on the same optimistic page. (Of course, if the team goes out and trades some of our young guns to get a couple more 30 year old journeymen between now and then, I'll jump over to the dark side with both feet myself.)

SoS's point about the positives of winning now vs. losing on the other hand, is a debate worth having. Can the team play poorly enough to garner a top pick while the young guys are developing and making the kind of progress we want them to make? Will losing that much damage their psyches? Or is it better for the team for the Tyutins, Pruchas, Kondratievs, Hossas and Fedorovs to really start showing their stuff, winning some games and be battling for a playoff spot precisely because the guys already in our system are developing into winning players?

Personally, I still want one supreme top line talent through the draft (although if someone we already have surprises me, steps up and shows himself to be that guy, I won't complain). I think losing 3-2 and 4-3 in OT are the sorts of games we should be expecting. Throw in some close losses and just enough exciting wins against good teams to maintain confidence (a la the Philly game) and you're heading in the right direction. Then you dump some vets at the trading deadline, go through a tough 10-12 game losing streak as a result, but finish with a nice 4-6 game streak on the flip side (hopefully playing spoiler to the Isles playoff hopes) and finish with the fifth worst record in the league. Then you move up in the lottery and I get my two front teeth for Christmas.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:43 AM
  #59
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan
SoS's point about the positives of winning now vs. losing on the other hand, is a debate worth having. Can the team play poorly enough to garner a top pick while the young guys are developing and making the kind of progress we want them to make?
I don't think anyone should be thinking about where we pick right now. The primary goal of the team this year should be get these young players into games and address where they are in their development and what their potential contribution to the team is going to be. Win some games along the way, great. Lose some, oh well.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:56 AM
  #60
Davisian
Registered User
 
Davisian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Endicott
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
There are those who see the glass half full, and those who see it half empty.

Then the rest of us who see's a glass with an undetermined level, and is interested in seeing how it all works out.


There's reasons to be optimistic about the direction of the Franchise right now, but if people are honest with themselves, they'll admit that Glen Sather did not deserve to oversee this phase. A Ranger Cup winning GM was fired for less.

He has not earned our trust, and he still makes moves that worry us all, but what he has done is start the building of a core we hope will payoff down the road.

Winning is gravy at this point. I'm happy seeing them win, but they simply HAVE to develop this young core at all costs. Renney seems to be doing that, I can only hope Sather stays out of his way.

Davisian is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 11:54 AM
  #61
Its a PP Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potter
I think your true to your name buddy. Thats actually really funny when put in that context because your point is practically 100% true.
Thanks Potter. I don't want to sound overly optimistic but I think there's a lot to look forward to this year. Speed and skills will dominate the "new" NHL not who tackles the best. If referees called obstruction 10 years ago, the Rangers would've been much better.

Its a PP Goal is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 12:20 PM
  #62
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Truth
Thanks Potter. I don't want to sound overly optimistic but I think there's a lot to look forward to this year. Speed and skills will dominate the "new" NHL not who tackles the best. If referees called obstruction 10 years ago, the Rangers would've been much better.
I disagree. You make it sound like the only problem with this team has been obstruction.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:05 PM
  #63
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAGRISTHEMAN
Man you are some kind of "fan". When you hope for doom and gloom.
Then you are very disingenious in this post. You left half your own quote out including the part that you said
Yeah. How's that search coming, sport? Find your quotes yet?

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:18 PM
  #64
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisian
There are those who see the glass half full, and those who see it half empty.

Then the rest of us who see's a glass with an undetermined level, and is interested in seeing how it all works out.


There's reasons to be optimistic about the direction of the Franchise right now, but if people are honest with themselves, they'll admit that Glen Sather did not deserve to oversee this phase. A Ranger Cup winning GM was fired for less.

He has not earned our trust, and he still makes moves that worry us all, but what he has done is start the building of a core we hope will payoff down the road.

Winning is gravy at this point. I'm happy seeing them win, but they simply HAVE to develop this young core at all costs. Renney seems to be doing that, I can only hope Sather stays out of his way.
This is the best post by a "pessimist" I have read on these boards in a long time. Even myself who has and always will be a Rangers optomist have posted in the past that sather should not be running the show. He is though and it looks like the ship is finally going in the right direction.

Sather is the least of our worries right now as Ranger fans.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:23 PM
  #65
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,580
vCash: 500
How many times can someone use the term "sport" in a thread?

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:25 PM
  #66
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
funny if losing doesn't breed losing why do players want to win so bad?
Arguably the most ridiculous of the many ridiculous things you've written here, SOS. Tell you what, you explain to me the connection between players enjoying winning better than losing and the statement that "losing breeds losing."

We'll start there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
you can bring up the sens and devils all you want but there are plenty of other teams that I can bring up in all sports that have been rebuilding for 10 years.
Feel free to begin. I will be happy to rebutt them all. I suspect that 95% of them will be covered by the simple statement that they were stuck with bad management and so their losing ways were a product of inept moves and poor decisions, not the simple fact of losing.

In any case, you can 100,000 teams; it would make no difference. You stated as a plain fact that losing breeds losing and a losing attitude. Whether or not you could ever come up with teams where that was the case, the existence of teams where that ISN'T the case proves your "plain fact" ends up in the toilet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
Winning ASAP with the vast amount of young players we have on the team and in hartford is the best possible thing that could happen.
Well this is at least a point of debate. Fine. Why is winning ASAP "the best possible thing that could happen"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
Losing does breed losing. It breeds a losing enviroment (see new york rangers 1997-2004)
Riiiiight. So the problem with those Ranger teams wasn't that they were:
1. Too old
2. Too slow
3. Too small
4. Lazy
5. Poorly coached

So tell me, if losing was the problem with those teams, why wasn't the '98 team good? The '97 team had just gone to the conference finals and had a pretty good shot at winning had they not been decimated by injuries. Why was the '98 team so bad when the '97 team was a winning team? I mean, after a run like that, I'd think they'd walk into the '98 season with a winning attitude, don't you?

Those teams didn't lose because they lost, SOS; they lost because they sucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
i hope in the next few years our debates are about how many cups this team will win instead of how many losses you want this team to have.
Thank you. This quote shows that you have utterly no clue what I've been writing for the past three years.

Do you or any of the little coterie of cheerleaders around here understand the difference between these two statements?
1. I want the Rangers to lose.
2. I don't care about wins and losses.

They really are very different ideas, and if you (and JAGRISTHEMAN whom I've tried to send on a research of my history but who apparently doesn't wish to trouble himself - or who can't find what he wants) care to look up my posts since I've posted on this board, you'll see I've posted nothing but the latter.

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:28 PM
  #67
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
How many times can someone use the term "sport" in a thread?
I'm still waiting for my explanation. Will it be coming anytime soon?

Your reasoning seems to be that if one doesn't care about one part of a team, he doesn't care about the whole. Is that about it?

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 09:58 PM
  #68
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Those teams didn't lose because they lost, SOS; they lost because they sucked.
No truer words have been spoken.

jas is online now  
Old
10-10-2005, 10:49 PM
  #69
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I'm still waiting for my explanation. Will it be coming anytime soon?

Your reasoning seems to be that if one doesn't care about one part of a team, he doesn't care about the whole. Is that about it?
Ok, so you're saying you dont care about half the team. And you're trying to justify that you do care about the whole? Basically, why root for the team if you don't want all of it to win? Why do managers worry about locker room distractions? 11/22 guys dont win games, 22/22 do. So should Jed Ortmeyer and Jaromir Jagr not care about each other? Because one is a hard working type and the other is a scoring type. But the hard worker is loved and the scorer is "lazy". Why even have the New York Rangers if only certain guys are going to be loved?

This is not the same as past years where it was common to hate the whole team, 2003-Lindros, Holik, Nedved, Hlavac, Jagr, Messier, Kovalev, Carter, Malakhov, Mironov, De Vries, Kasparaitis, Poti, Simon, Dunham, McLennan. Now that was an easy team to hate. I just dont see how you can hate the vets that are coming to play and are producing while being supported by resilient youth that will push them.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
10-10-2005, 11:05 PM
  #70
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Ok, so you're saying you dont care about half the team. And you're trying to justify that you do care about the whole? Basically, why root for the team if you don't want all of it to win? Why do managers worry about locker room distractions? 11/22 guys dont win games, 22/22 do. So should Jed Ortmeyer and Jaromir Jagr not care about each other? Because one is a hard working type and the other is a scoring type. But the hard worker is loved and the scorer is "lazy". Why even have the New York Rangers if only certain guys are going to be loved?

This is not the same as past years where it was common to hate the whole team, 2003-Lindros, Holik, Nedved, Hlavac, Jagr, Messier, Kovalev, Carter, Malakhov, Mironov, De Vries, Kasparaitis, Poti, Simon, Dunham, McLennan. Now that was an easy team to hate. I just dont see how you can hate the vets that are coming to play and are producing while being supported by resilient youth that will push them.
Hate? Nah...how about indifference? I should root for players like Malik, Weekes and Nylander because they put on a Ranger jersey? Eh...no thanks. There's a very good none them will be here past this year. Tyutin, Betts, Prucha, Hollweg, Lundqvist, even Hossa... no doubt, because they represent a part of the hope and promise of might be built here. The others...well, I just hope they maintain trade value, so that more assets can be brought into the organization.

jas is online now  
Old
10-11-2005, 09:59 AM
  #71
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
I just dont see how you can hate the vets that are coming to play and are producing while being supported by resilient youth that will push them.
No one is talking about hating the entire team. The problem that the pro-rebuilding side of the argument is that wins and losses should not have been the way to judge this years team. And if it is not about wins and losses, then why sign so many veterans? If it is not about wins and losses, then why not dress Prucha every game? Or 'Drats? Developing young players means living with the fact that they may be on the same current level as a veteran, but will make the rookie mistake that you have to live with.
Kind of hard to be "resilient" when you are young and not in the lineup or are in the lineup for less than 8 minutes a night.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-11-2005, 12:05 PM
  #72
bathgate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
T.B. Agreed. See my post unfer can't have it both ways. It is about develoPment not points. Actually rebuild PLEASE!!!

bathgate is offline  
Old
10-11-2005, 12:34 PM
  #73
JAGRISTHEMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Yeah. How's that search coming, sport? Find your quotes yet?

I already posted your quote.

JAGRISTHEMAN is offline  
Old
10-11-2005, 06:47 PM
  #74
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Ok, so you're saying you dont care about half the team.
Well let's start by straightening you out. If you bother to re-read my post you'll see that I wrote "I care little about how Jagr, Malik, or any other 30+ player looks." So we can begin by throwing out your "half the team" and "11/22 guys" nonsense. Let's try eight players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
And you're trying to justify that you do care about the whole?
Yes because, difficult as this may be for you to grasp, one CAN care about the performance of the whole while not caring about the performance of individual parts.

For instance you describe both Lundmark and Federov as "trash" in this post: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=179349

In this one you describe Poti as "heartless" and "junk": http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=177595

In this one you "can't stand" Purinton: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=176967

About Montoya it's: " Is it just me? *** is up with this kid? Does it seem like the Rangers really **** up the psychological test with this guy. He seems like he has real focus issues.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t...6&page=2&pp=25

Given all above and the reasoning you apply to me, what conclusion should I draw about your feelings for this team? Seems to me that, if you put your head into it, you really CAN grasp the notion of caring for the whole but not caring for some of it parts. (Hell, you actually dislike some of them.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Basically, why root for the team if you don't want all of it to win?
Where did I write that I didn't want it to win? Please read my last post to SOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
11/22 guys dont win games, 22/22 do. So should Jed Ortmeyer and Jaromir Jagr not care about each other? Because one is a hard working type and the other is a scoring type. But the hard worker is loved and the scorer is "lazy". Why even have the New York Rangers if only certain guys are going to be loved?
Are you high? Seriously. Are you on drugs?

Do you know that you've just taken a FAN'S feelings on these players and applied them to the PLAYERS? Do you have any inkling that you just suggested that, because a fan may or may not care for a player, another player should feel the same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
I just dont see how you can hate the vets that are coming to play and are producing while being supported by resilient youth that will push them.
I'll give you this, there are fwe posters here who are so persistent at putting words in the mouth of another. Please show me where I wrote that I hate these players. please show me where I wrote I DISLIKE these players.

Right now, with the posts I've cited above, YOU'RE the one who has shown personal animosity for some of these guys, not me.

In case you're not getting it: "not caring" does not equal "hating."

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-11-2005, 06:56 PM
  #75
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAGRISTHEMAN
I already posted your quote.
Remember what I wrote earlier about some of you newbies following a thread?

Let's start this from the beginning.

You wrote this: "How come so many teams have been able to draft plenty of good players without repsrting to tanking seasons as you suggest?"

I replied thus: "As I suggest? Tell you what, sport, why don't you begin searching my entire history now for a single post in which I suggest tanking a season."

You returned by quoting this: "I care little about how Jagr, Malik, or any other 30+ player looks"

And now you tell me that this quote is your answer to my research request. Fine. Now explain to me how the quote above is a call for tanking the season. You had to defend the notion that I suggested that the team tank the season, and in defense of that proposition you offer a quote wherein I say that I don't care how the older players of this team look. Let's see you do a little analysis and link those two ideas in a meaningful way.

This ought to be fun.

dedalus is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:32 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.