nl5xsk1

I was half-asleep, so didn't give it as much attention as I normally do, but add me to the list that liked last night's episode much more than last week's. The simple fact that it was chock full o' Hiro, HRG, and Claire looking cute was enough to push it above last week's Petrelli-fest. Hiro going back in time to save the waitress was swank, and was easily my highlight of the episode. - his not reappearing in the 5 seconds he told his buddy to count to, but still showing up in the picture from the past was a sweet twist. I'm wondering if he'll have a pro-longed stretch where he's never here in real time but has to work to get back on track, so-to-speak. All in all, a good episode that makes me look forward to next week & the rest of the season.

Baltimore Buffalo N.Y. Giants Cleveland Minnesota Houston Kansas City New Orleans N.Y. Jets San Diego Detroit Philadelphia Denver Arizona Seattle Carolina I represent the New England Patriots, and they will score 27 points on Sunday. That's an actual quote from an actual 49er, btw, not just Flik saying that. True story.

While it was a good episode, it was way too Sawyer/Kate/Jack centric for my liking. I originally liked the show because it was so different than everything else on TV ... and now they show more of a love triangle than ANYTHING ELSE. The best thing on last night's episode, IMHO, was Locke seeing the scripture on the bible stick ... and then they never showed them again. At this point, the things that are happening on the original island are WAY more interesting to me than what's happening to Ben, or between Sawyer & Kate, or pretty much anything on Other Island. If I wanted a soap opera, I'd watch a soap opera. I mean, for fuck's sake, one of the "spoilers" on the previous page is that there will be an episode that explains how Jack gets his tattoos ... is there anyone that really cares about that? That's going to make me fiend for the Spring Season ... how will I be able to sleep with such nervous anticipation about such a crucial plot point? Of all the things that they've forgotten about that COULD be addressed and SHOULD be addressed, I can't believe that they're going to waste time on that. Any reason to show Kate looking that hot, that frequently, is a-Ok in my book.

The problem with that logic is that Toronto really should be in a division with Detroit, too. And Ottawa, for that matter, for the provincial rivalry. And Montreal and Buffalo would still need to be with Boston. So you're already starting with a division of those 5 teams. And that's not incluind the other "need to"-s like Chicago & St Louis with Detroit.

The best rivalries were formed when the same teams played each other every year in the postseason, back when there were only 4 divisions. Watching the B's play Buffalo, and then Montreal, every year in the playoffs made me really grow to hate those teams. Especially the Habs when they eliminated the B's like 23 times in a row. Now that the league's over-expanded and teams rarely match up in too many consecutive postseasons, the rivalries don't mean as much. Playing the Habs 3 or 4 years in a row - in the playoffs - would do more to inspire hatred than playing them 8 times in the regular season, where they games don't mean as much. I'd prefer they go back to the "4 divisions, top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs and play in a 1v4, 2v3, winner of each foursome plays each other in the conference finals" format. Off the top of my head: Smythe: Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, SJ, LA, Anaheim, Phoenix Norris: Colorado, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago, STL, Columbus, Dallas, Toronto Adams: Washington, ATL, Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh Patrick: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Philly, NYR, NYI, NJ, Ottawa /yes, I know the divisions are terribly unequal ... it's a world of parity, though, today's strong teams might be weak tomorrow and vice versa //and don't ask me how to work the schedule to make that re-alignment fit ... they can pay someone big money to work that out

And by "anytime", you mean anytime after such a thing has been created, right? Because challenging someone to something that doesn't exist, is kind of "a retarded".

Yellowtail wine is less than $10.00 a bottle and is a decent Australian wine (and I would say it's significantly less than $10 - I've seen it as cheap as $6.00). I wouldn't offer it to someone that deemed themselves an expert, but it's a perfect wine for people that are just casual wine drinkers. Basically, if you just wanted to pour a couple of legspreaders for a girl, it'll more than fit the bill. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of just sitting around and casually drinking wine ... but I'll drink a glass or 4 if it complements a meal.

Plus, "i can out battle beat you in a game of wits" is a lot to remember, and also to type out. It's just too much work for a TSMeme ... it has to have more flow in order to really take off, I think.

While I'd love to see the B's acquire a legit #1 netminder, I just don't see it happening ... or, worse, I see it happening and have it be counterproductive. There really aren't any available #1 goalies, IMHO, and if the B's did make a trade for CuJo or Nabakov or someone comparable, they'd be trading away commodities that I'd rather see them either keep (Murray) or trade away for something that would help them build for the long-term (Stuart or Sturm). Give Hannu a few weeks in Providence to get his head back together, and then either choose him OR Thomas as the #1 that gets a majority of the playing time. You might lose a few more games now, but hopefully the goalie - and team - gains some confidence and momentum. I think we feel this way because it is. The team can't afford to give away games - and points - like they have been - the Montreal game, the St Louis game, the Buffalo game ... that's 4 points that they just gave away.

The league would be foolish to move Boston away from games with Montreal, Toronto or Buffalo ... two of those teams are their long-time rivals (Habs & Sabres) and Toronto/Boston is Original 6 hockey. The only way that I would want the NHL to break the B's away from those teams would be the creation of an all-Canada division.

The guy that played the father on ALF was gay. And a crackhead.

^ I agree, but wonder what triggers him to cause the "bomb" to go off ... Last night was, like Lushus said, a pretty blah episode. Too much Micah & his father and too much Petrellis for my liking. I like that those with powers are finally being outed - some of them being discovered as having powers was long over-due, I thought. And I also agree with Lushus in that it's cool to see more people with powers being discovered. At first I thought that they were going to have too many and lose focus as a result, but I'm starting to think that they can get away with the 8 or so "good guys" and a handful of "bad guys".

(re: first bolded part) They don't show the characters 24/7 ... is it too difficult to presume that some of the times that the viewers are seeing, say, Hurley and Desmond, that Claire & Charlie are sitting in a different part of the beach talking about what they miss from home? If it's not crucial to the plot, there's no reason to show it. Just like you never see any of the characters go to the bathroom or - for the most part - sleep. Just because they don't show it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (that can kind of tie in to Jonathan's question about Desmond, too ... I am comfortable making the assumption that people did ask him questions about how he got there and who he is ... it just didn't need to be shown to us, the viewers) (re: second bolded part) The main characters have issues - the secondary characters do not. There are a few dozen "characters" that loiter in the background without much to do ... I presume those are the normal ones, and a TV show about boring, normal characters would have a pretty short lifespan.

I snipped a ton from your post, max, so mea culpa for such drastic cutting. Does anyone even know what Jurcina did to get IN Lewis' doghouse? It seems that before the season a lot of us were drooling at the idea of him learning underneath Chara's expansive wings ... and now it's like Jurcina fell off the face of the earth. I'm really starting to like Lashoff as a #7 d-man ... his pass last night to trigger the 2-on-1 wasn't something that a B's rookie d-man normally makes. As long as York and Dempsey are off the ice, I'll be a happier B's fan. And at this point, I doubt that they'll be able to re-sign Stuart. Trade him as soon as he's proven his health. I wonder if they packaged him with two other soon-to-be FA's, say Sturm and Primeau, what they could get in return. Nothing good, I'm presuming. I mean, who would trade a good player for those three guys?

Yeah, it's shocking that a commissioner would want the players to not carry firearms and avoid jumping into the stands and attacking fans. And the only reason Bird cares about the things you mention at all is because it's his players that are doing the stupid shit. If it was a Piston or a Bull or a Celtic, I don't think he'd be leading the charge against the idiotic behavior. He only "hates the glorification of the ghetto black stereotype" when it fucks his team over. Unless you were being sarcastic and I just didn't catch on.

The "Race Warz!" concept which Survivor thought would boost ratings because the controversy has instead crippled the season due to bland, boring competitors and competitions. Last night finally started to pick up the season for me, as people seem to finally be playing the game. The gamesmanship & debates around eliminating Jonathan or Ozzy was the first time all season I've seen people really play the game, at least the way it's historically been played. And to continue my tradition of rooting for someone purely for aesthetic reasons, go Candace.

It'd have been easier for the Pats to list who ISN'T questionable for Sunday's game.

The Patriots will score 24 points this Sunday night. And I will be there to drunkenly cheer them on. Atlanta Baltimore Dallas Buffalo N.Y. Giants Kansas City Chicago Tampa Bay Jacksonville Minnesota San Diego Denver New England Seattle

Max, while watching that game, as soon as Buffalo scores to make it 4-2, I said to my friend, "Bruins lose in a shootout" ... she was all baffled, unsure why I was already predicting the two more Buffalo goals, let alone a shootout loss. When the GWG went over Thomas, she just looked at me and said, "You've been through this before, huh?" Such a painful game ... I was all set to excitedly type up how Savard has already proven to be worth the $$ that they're paying him. His pass to PJ on that 2-1 couldn't have been more perfect, and he's showing me that him + Muzz is a strong start to a good second line. But then everything fell apart, and all I can think of is ANOTHER Bruins choke. I couldn't agree more. I'd have gone Bergeron, Savard, Sturm (in that order) with Boyes & Muzz as 4 & 5 if needed. PJ's played well - he had a really pretty goal vs. Ottawa - but there's no reason to use him #2 in a shootout. Number 6 or 7, maybe ... but two?!?

Throwing something can be deemed showing up the official. Even if it's in the opposite direction, or towards your own bench. I have no problem with a zero tolerance rule for throwing things like headbands, mouthguards, etc. I don't think throwing something is how an adult should act, regardless of how angry you are. And if the league wants to present a professional image, conditioning it's players to NOT throw stuff like a 6-year-old is a good start. Having said that, I agree that the rule leaves too much open for bias or subjective interpretation. Who's to say that officials won't allow more from one person than they will another? And that, in and of itself, makes the rule a bad one. (Having said that, though, I'd rather it the way it is now, with ambiguity about what's a technical and what's not, rather than watch people like Rasheed bitch and moan for 2 minutes about an obvious foul call.)

Regarding the Juliet/Jack/Ben triangle, I think/hope that it'll boil down to Juliet convincing Jack to 'do the right thing' and allow Ben to die on the operating table. But, as Jack is over Ben and prepared to do the surgery, Juliet will tell him that if Ben dies, Sawyer/Kate die, too. 'Save our friend or yours will die', more or less. Basically, showing Jack that video last night was just another way to manipulate him into doing what they want him to do: save Ben. Yeah, they explained why the two newbies are going with Locke & company to the Pearl ... but they never explained to us - the viewer - who the fuck these new people are. It's understandable that the other survivors would recognize them as people that had been living on the beach with them for 2+ months ... but it's not understandable to those of us watching at home why these new characters are all of a sudden part of the group. It wouldn't have been that hard for a one-minute scene where the baby's crying and the new female brings some water or a blanket or SOMETHING to Claire to help pacify the baby; Claire says, "thanks, we haven't formally met" and the new woman says, "Hi, I'm so-and-so ... ".

I don't think anyone really wants to fuck anyone else on the board. It'd be beyond-lame to want to fuck an e-stranger that you met on a 'rassling message board. Except Milky. I think there were a few of us - both guys and girls - that would have gotten freaky with him.

It was just my interpretation, but I thought of it as a "you're dead to me. Don't consider me your brother." kind of thing. I might be completely wrong, but it - in my mind - was just Yemi telling Eko that he didn't consider them brothers anymore. I couldn't agree more, Dubs, on either point. The show's better when it has natural, logical, believable explanations for things. Having the smoke monster actually manipulate a living person is a bit too sci-fi for me. And, yeah, Eko's speech to his "brother" was hardcore. It was a good speech to go out on. I don't think that they planned on Michelle Rodriguez being a douche on-set or Libby (sorry, the actress' name escapes me) getting the chance to star on another show. AAA, no idea if they planned on offing him before his arrest or not, but I'm presuming that the writers/producers would select someone other than Rodriguez and "Libby" if they could go back and do it over again. And, presumably, not kill them off in an anticlimactic, two minute scene. Having said all that, it was a pretty 'meh' episode for me. Quick thoughts: The video Juliette played for Jack was cool, but kind of predictable (if she's not double-crossing Jack, I'll be shocked) ... Ben was way too quick to admit that the X-rays were his ... There were SUCH better ways to introduce new survivors-between New Male hitting golf balls and acting like a dick to Desmond and the New Male & New Female tagging along to the Pearl, there hasn't been any moment of "who are you?" even though we the viewers haven't seen any interaction between the people we've known since episode 1 and these new characters. Inexplicable.

Wait: women can achieve orgasms, too? Wow. That's news to me.

I never said it had to be a democracy, and that the majority should be allowed to dictate if someone should be banned or not. But there has to be something less arbitrary than "he (or she) is a pain in the ass". Being a pain in the ass is - in and of itself - not a ban-worthy offense.