.357

The pepto. : ) Cool that everyone here is optimistic. I also think we got this one.

This is hilarious. Sending + vibes.

Wow, you either have a lot of talent or a lot of time on your hands. I guess you've found your calling.

You guys are hilarious. MM technically had the right answer as the poison was in the ice cubes, & the one who drank her 5 iced teas quickly didn't absorb any poison. But since he is on a self-imposed boycott until another poster does something, SWSiouxMN wins. Thanks for playing. : )

A little brain-tease to divert any anxiety for awhile (disqualifications for Googling): Two girls ate dinner together. They both ordered ice tea. One girl drank them very fast and had finished five in the time it took the other to drink just one. The girl who drank one died while the other survived. All of the drinks were poisoned. How did the girl who drank the most survive?

If they're focused, on their A game & determined to win with losing not an option, I think the atmosphere doesn't matter that much. I think MN fans would cheer strongly against UND, but they may do things a little differently back east so we'll see.

Grayson Allen's got a nice ring to it ..sounds like either an upscale fashion boutique in Scottsdale or a Beatnik author in early 60s NYC. But yes, if Murphy can stay at least even on the +/- or even steal an assist or a goal, I think that would take a lot of pressure off the other lines. He's playing hungry now & it seems like there's a lot of self-imposed urgency in stepping up as he's not guarannteed a roster spot next year. I consider him & St. Clair my main X factors and, maybe more importantly, the officials as they'll play a big role in dictating whether or not the Sioux can physically wear down Eichel.

Thanks. You come up with some good media finds. This radio show is out of Edmonton. I didn't think they would know that much about college hockey, but the interviewers are very knowledgeable about UND's playoff history & stateside hockey in general. When Hakstol was asked about Zane, he said, paraphrasing, that Zane is dedicated to becoming as good of a professional as he can possibly be someday, whether it's in a couple months or next year ... not letting the cat out of the bag or maybe he knows as much as the rest of us. .... called Poolman the best athlete on the team.

I think UND is as they have a very slight advantage in the PWR.

I just called & confirmed that the Sioux game will be shown at the Stapley location on Thursday night. It will also be shown at the RT O'Sullivan's on Power Road, but the lady said that most of the UND alumni goes to the one on Stapley Road.

Really? Are you going there & will the game be shown there this Thursday?

Agree & then some. I'm just looking forward to Thursday & look forward also to celebrating (a hopeful) Sioux victories with you guys.

I don't know, man, I wasn't even arguing about Hakstol's release last night, but some informant from the Central Committee must have read my words wrong & informed the authorities that I had gone rogue & was showing tendencies towards non-conformist thought. I needed to go to Lowe's like 2 hours ago, but am tied to my laptop replying to all this stuff.

The point of whether or not people are laughing at me & those who think like me is irrelevant. I don't doubt that some are, but to claim everyone is shows you to be full of exaggeration. I never claimed I wanted the Sioux hockey team to lose, where did you come up with that one?? Good lord, man, I was talking with another poster last night about how a coach's success can be perceived differently, & all of a sudden I have this sadistic drive to see the team lose on Thursday?! I can't believe I'm reading this crap. And that I can't celebrate when they finally do win #8? What in the world are you talking about? I've been following this team -- religiously & with tons of passion -- since the early 1970s. But now I want them to lose because in your mind you see my difference in opinion on how a coach should be perceived with hating the team. There is no reasoning with certain people, you being one of them. It's not about agreeing with my position on a head coach or anything else, it's about respecting it if it causes no one else any harm & isn't of a psychotic or schizophrenic nature.

So you determine when it's just a difference of opinion and when it is flat out-wrong & insane? LOL. How is my interpretation of the sunset any different than or more wrong than my interpretation of a head coach? Oops, I forgot, my bad, you're the arbiter of such. Of course I'm not schizophrenic or psychotic & don't see or experience any hallucinations, that's completely irrelevant & equating someone's opinion to be so just demonstrates how rigid & intolerant you are in your thinking. Like I said, you seem incapable of tolerating any opinion which deviates from your standards. You couch your reasons with different analogies, but it all boils down to you not respecting what someone else thinks on as basic & inane level as that of a hockey coach. To compare my interpretation on how long a coach's leash should be with a schizophrenic who thinks the sun is warm cheese is just too weird. If you want to continue digging a hole, a backhoe is more efficient than a shovel.

I was talking with "burd" about how coaches are perceived & wasn't implying anything about Hakstol being fired. If I want to bang my head repeatedly, that's my prerogative. It's also your prerogative to ignore me, which I highly encourage as you seem easily irritated. In fact, I really would like for you to put me on ignore so you don't stroke out over some stranger's words before the big game. My guys are also playing in 3 days & I'll be cheering them on just as you are.

I know & I understand, what started last night as a back-&-forth hypothetical with "burd" has turned into an onslaught of those who don't like the status quo challenged, even if it was just random talk & not directed at Coach Hakstol. At least people are revealing their true colors here, so it's not all in vain.

Sometimes a picture is used to convey thoughts for one lacking in vocabulary or a creative imagination. If my wordy posts get under your skin so much, just don't read them & focus instead on something more palpable like gfhockey's posts. Geesh.

You're funny in a "1984" kind of way. I didn't imply that screaming fire in a movie theater qualified as diversity of thought, but to label others' opinions as "destructive stupidity" (when it comes to simple differences in how coaches are perceived) is comical on your part. Seriously, man, you would rather shut people up who don't agree with your opinion on a head coach? If the opinion differs from yours & the masses about a hockey coach, people need to be shamed. Wow, thanks for your input, comrade. Your version of reason is the correct version, you seem unable to respect or appreciate anything that deviates from your standard.

Diversity of people is held in higher regard than diversity of thought. If people have a thought that differs from the herd, it's usually bop them over the head with a mallet like you see at those arcades where something pops out of a hole & you have to hit it, then something else pops its head out & you have to beat that over the head also. It's like "fightingsioux4life" & I keep popping our heads out of holes & keep gettin' our melons banged. Conform or ...

Some people convey thoughts in words, others in images. : )

My reason for not needing a rationale in terminating a coaching relationship, besides it just not being required, is that fans do not know what goes on in locker rooms. They don't see specifics like how coaches relate to players at scrimmages or what they say in big game situations out of the public eye; or when a team may be behind & need a coach's input to reverse the momentum. All fans see are lost games with teams that are very talented; year after year. So fans go by end results, which is all they can really go by. So I can sort of watch a Sioux hockey game in a FF & lend my perspective about what I'm observing; and 20 other Sioux fans may watch the same game & come up with 20 different conclusions on why we lost. And each perspective may be valid, it's just that the other 20 fans were not focusing on the same trend or flaw in the Sioux game as I was. You said something about being willing to replace a head coach if you notice a coaching flaw in how he handles big game situations. But whose responsibility is it to recognize these flaws or nuances of a coach's perspective which will make it very difficult for that coach to ever win a title? The athletic director? If so, it may take a long time for the guard to change if he's personal friends with the coach & winning it all is a secondary priority (unless the boosters start screaming, I suppose). The part I agreed about most in your post was the difference between being a good program coach & being a good game coach. I thought that was a very good way of looking at the different ways in how a coach can excel at the collegiate level. It's also difficult to argue for a coach's release if different parties are going by these separate standards for judging success. The former for Hakstol is obvious, I think it's obvious he excels at being a great program coach, there should be no debating that because facts speak for themselves. But the latter is obviously something he hasn't mastered yet on the big stage & something Sioux fans want to see changed. As a fan I don't know if that current lack of a title is something attributed to coaching skill, bad luck or a blend of both. I call it "getting over the hump" & I think the law of averages dictates that with his loaded teams he will eventually bring it all home someday. I mean, if the REA isn't cursed by being built on an old indian burial mound & it has nothing to do with his coaching style, you'd think luck would have to change eventually. : )

Exactly. I'm not for Hakstol's release at this point (not that it would matter anyway), but it's important for people when they're debating a point to step outside their entrenched (& I mean ENTRENCHED) beliefs/views & at least try to understand the other's point. To be fluid with one's perspective & entertain the notion that maybe that other person just might have a valid point, even if it may take a few beers to wrap his mind around that other person's thought. For me, it seems like many people go their entire lives clinging to a certain belief & they will die or defend that belief because they just cannot see themselves accepting anything else; almost like they made a vow to that belief & it would be completely unacceptable for them to even entertain changing it. I'm talking generally here, not necessarily as it applies to Hakstol. These rigid thinking patterns seem to be more ironclad in people's mind than prison bars.

I think last night was just a way for me to bide my time until Thursday. I thought that "Burd" would be going to bed soon as he's probably a couple hours ahead of me (I'm in Zona), so I tried to think of a quick analogy before he retired for the night. It may have El Sucko, but it was still a valid analogy. : )

Wasn't exactly how my analogy went, but It would be nice if you didn't razz snaggle-toothed divorcees who are just trying to put some Hot Pockets on the table for their pups. We all have a shining inner beauty that needs to be appreciated. : )