Taro T

They've never stopped making them. I've got ones from '97 & '98. I've probably got the rest of them as well lost somewhere.

They still make them. Last year's had the "artsy" b&w photos that were also used on the magnetic schedules (the magnetic schedules are typically given away at the 1st home game). AFAIK, they have had a calendar every year. My guess would be that you could get one from the Sabres website during the season, but don't know that for certain.

Get with the program. That wasn't plywood, they were shingles from his dad's roofing business. They will give him that "square shoulder", ready for business look though. So I wouldn't put it past him.

That is friggin' classic. I truly feel sorry for any Isles fans out there. 'Cause it doesn't look like things are getting any better.

I would like to think a little common sense could be used here. Someone not wanting to pay to hear a performer spout about their political views and stating such is not "censoring" the performer. I apparently missed the part in the 1st Amendment where it says people complaining about an entertainer is infringing upon that entertainer's freedom of speech. The DC's fans that no longer buy their records or go to their concerts have the right to do that. If the fans' aversion to what they say is strong enough to make them no longer like the music that they previously liked, that is their right as well. The "incident" appears to have allowed the band to change their direction and, I would guess, their fan base as well. The new fan base they have probably wants to hear them say "I'm ashamed President Bush is from Texas", and that is fine.

1st off, please show me where I said they can only play "only their material"? 2nd off, it IS a service that the performer provides. They are "entertainers". It really isn't often in their best interest to tick off people that paid them money to perform the "service" because ticked off people exercise THEIR free speech rights by not giving that performer any more of their money. Also, somebody complaining about what the entertainer did IS exercising THEIR right to free speech. Actually, a few years back Rush was advertising playing the entire 2112 album and Floyd was advertising playing The Dark Side of the Moon straight through, so it does happen. As for your question, I would like to think that common sense would prevail. As a general rule, the entertainer probably should not go ticking off the audience, although I am certain that there are exceptions to that rule. Again, I would like to think that common sense could prevail here, but you will probably disagree on that. Ah, so paid performers have rights to free speech, but the unpaid, unwashed masses DON'T have the right to free speech. That makes perfect sense. Actually, if I so choose, I could tell them anything I want to tell them, and you could as well. (Although I am a bit surprised that I am arguing about a cruddy formerly country band that is now a cruddy crossover mainstream band.) Paid entertainers aren't the only ones with the right to free speech. Last time I checked, the general public has that same right to free speech.

So someone that is paying money to someone else to perform a service can't expect the provider to perform that service in a non-annoying manner? Telling someone that I will take your money but do whatever I darn well please and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, isn't what I would consider a more valid position. As long as the service provider is up-front about what they will be providing (saying / doing), then yeah, the performer should be able to go on their little rant. If they aren't though, then the CUSTOMER should have a course to redress their grievance. Don Henley was a poor example, because his political views are well known and he can be expected to go off on a rant on occasion on stage. The people buying tickets to see his show are aware of this (or should be, if they are interested enough in him to actually want to see him perform live). The same could be said for Babs, Lee Greenwood, and a host of others. You know what you are getting for your money. If it is still worth the price, go see the "artist", otherwise, stay home and save your money. The Dixie Chicks was a whole different issue, in my book. The people that went to see them more or less got broadsided with the "I'm so embarrassed that the President is from Texas, etc., etc., etc.". They had a right and reason to be ticked, as they paid money expecting to see the girls "sing" and received something totally different. I'd expect an audience of the NAACP to be ticked, and would agree that they should be ticked, if a performer stopped in the middle of a performance unannounced and said "that David Duke is a swell guy and y'all just misunderstand him". I do not agree with you that paying someone to do one thing and then having them do something totally different is "censorship". The government has no business censoring "artists" or others. We are in agreement on that count. However, if an individual wants to avoid paying someone to do something they don't want them to do, they should have that right. If I don't like someone's views or actions enough that I don't want to pay to see them perform, I have the right to keep my money. Also, if I think I am paying someone to perform something, whether it be a concert, a play, a recital, or whatever because that is what they have advertised; then I should be able to see that and not have a bait and switch pulled. If I go to a Gallagher show and get splashed with watermelon, it's my own darn fault. If I go to see the London Philharmonic, I'm going to be peeved if I get splashed with watermelon. It's not something they are known for doing, nor have they advertised that they would be doing something like that. The "artists" spouting off about whatever, have their right in this country to do it if they so please. But they don't have the "right" to force me to listen to it. Especially not if I have paid money for the "priviledge" of hearing their idiotic rant and their was no indication when the transaction was made that they would be going off on an annoying idiotic rant.

Whoa, are you saying you actually LIKED the old Ducks logo? Granted, the new one is lousy too, but I am surprised that you liked the "Friday the 13th part 93 -Jason returns AGAIN, only this time he's a Duck" logo.

Nick, that is fantastic news. I hope the rest of her recovery goes as smoothly as this part appears to have gone.

The league as a whole last year played their opposite conference in 2 - ~1-1/2 week blocks, so if you weren't paying close attention prior to December I can see where you could easily have thought the "other" (nonexistant) conference swap was back in late October or November.

I haven't looked closely at the schedule, but I was invoiced for 41 games, so it looks like there are no Ra-cha-cha games this year. I also saw on TSR that there are fewer Value games this year than last.

If anything, I'd expect to see them gain a team before losing one considering all 4 finalists were European this year.

Unfortunately, me thinks you're right about that.

They played everyone at least once and had home and homes with 3 teams in the Western Conference under the prior system. (They just played home or road vs 12 teams.) They played 6 vs in division rivals and 4 vs the other teams in conference. Personally, I'd rather see them keep the 8 games per season vs teams in division (lets face it, it's more fun to go to a TO game than a TB game) but drop the in conference schedule to a h&h and have h&h's with the west as well. (Or at least drop it to 3 in conf and h&h with 1/2 of the west.) Heck, as it stands now, if I miss this year's Calgary game it'll be 2009 before I get a chance to see Phaneuf play in person unless the Sabres meet them in the Finals.

Of all the things MM did or didn't do, I still think that running Rusty Jones out of town ranks up there with Wade running Bruce DeHaven out and hiring idiot boy on the stupidity scale of what not to do as a head coach. I was really hoping that Marv would find a way to bring Rusty back.

W/ the "new" NHL, they increased the emphasis on division rivals (8 games in division like back in the mid-'80's, vs 6 games pre-lockout). To accomodate that, they went to playing 1 home game vs each team from 1 opposite conference division, 1 road game vs another division's teams, and skipping the 3rd division. Sabres skipped the worst division in hockey last year (St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, & Nashville) and are on the road against them this year. So Buffalo will travel to LA, Dallas, SJ, Phoenix, and Anaheim next year but don't play them at all this season.

Question for you, AJ (or any of the other 4 soccer nuts ). Do you know if the guy who missed the kick for France would have been in the shootout had Zidane been available?

So now you've deleted yet ANOTHER Honda Fit thread? (Referring to the one you started ~1 hour ago, in case there was question as to which one this post was in reference to. ) What is that, like 7? Does anybody know what the record for most deleted threads by one poster regarding one subject is? This has to be close to a record. Doesn't it?

You can't build anything that's foolPROOF. Foolresistant is possible, but a determined fool will defeat the best of engineering/design in almost all cases.

I responded back to your similar questions over on TSR.

This is a great move. My only qualm with it is, why didn't Darcy pick him up last year when he could have been obtained from Chicago for a minor leaguer or at the deadline from Edmonton for Biron? Oh well, water under the bridge. It still is a very good pickup. It looks like the Sabres will be expecting Kalinin to pick up the physical role on the D as there isn't a Jay McKee-type player in the Sabres top 6. Of course, McKee was more about blocking shots and getting position on people this past season than laying guys out. But it would still be nice to think that the Sabres had someone on the blueline who can and will play physical when necessary.

Rory, Janik, and a handful of other older Ra-cha-cha boys are the only UFA's left in Buffalo's system. The Sabres made qualifying offers to all RFA's in system other than Leighton and McMorrow. So in order for them to lose anyone else this off-season a team would have to make an offer that the Sabres aren't willing to match and also be willing to lose up to 4 1st rounders for that player. The Sabres have far more leverage with the RFA's than they did with the UFA's (with whom they had absolutely no leverage). Most of the RFA's will qualify for arbitration. Any that want to go that route must file for it by 5:00 PM tomorrow.