ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 OLN... I have DTV, but I think the majority of the cable carriers have OLN now... 668248[/snapback] I've never heard of that channel.....Ill have to see if I get it. I didn't see the game in the listings last night, but I didn't get a chance to look for it until it was already in OT.....maybe the listings had already changed to the next program and I didn't see it. Thanks for letting me know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 I've never heard of that channel.....Ill have to see if I get it. I didn't see the game in the listings last night, but I didn't get a chance to look for it until it was already in OT.....maybe the listings had already changed to the next program and I didn't see it. Thanks for letting me know 668250[/snapback] Yeah, if I wouldn't get sued, I'd setup a stream =) OLN == Outdoor Life Network. -Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Yeah, if I wouldn't get sued, I'd setup a stream =) OLN == Outdoor Life Network. -Jeff 668255[/snapback] Outdoor Life Network?? lol Doesnt' really scream 'hockey playoffs' to me, but hey, if that's where I gotta go, then I'll go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 Outdoor Life Network?? lol Doesnt' really scream 'hockey playoffs' to me, but hey, if that's where I gotta go, then I'll go there 668257[/snapback] You haven't seen the show with the hot blond that runs around killing stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 You haven't seen the show with the hot blond that runs around killing stuff. 668261[/snapback] lol, not yet apparently.....sign me up, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 lol, not yet apparently.....sign me up, though! 668264[/snapback] Damn, sorry AJ - ESPN, though I'm pretty sure I've seen her on the other... Cindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Damn, sorry AJ - ESPN, though I'm pretty sure I've seen her on the other... Cindy 668271[/snapback] Crazy B word is shooting Zebras??? That's not cool, man....You'll also notice she's quite proud of her BUFFALO kill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 Crazy B word is shooting Zebras??? That's not cool, man....You'll also notice she's quite proud of her BUFFALO kill 668275[/snapback] Shoot Zebras? How can you be a Buffalo sports fan and not want to shoot zebras? Do the words "Just give it to them", "No Goal" and "Homerun Throwback" mean nothing to you? Buffalo Kill? (God, you're making this WAY too easy) She kills "fish", too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Shoot Zebras? How can you be a Buffalo sports fan and not want to shoot zebras? Do the words "Just give it to them", "No Goal" and "Homerun Throwback" mean nothing to you? Buffalo Kill? (God, you're making this WAY too easy) She kills "fish", too... 668279[/snapback] i'll give you the just give it to them. the no goal i find is exagerated and the homerun throwback could have gone either way. i may be a bills fan but i don't buy into the everyone is against us mentality that a lot of bills fans seem to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Shoot Zebras? How can you be a Buffalo sports fan and not want to shoot zebras? Do the words "Just give it to them", "No Goal" and "Homerun Throwback" mean nothing to you? Buffalo Kill? (God, you're making this WAY too easy) She kills "fish", too... 668279[/snapback] Well, being a soccer fan and all, I can't help but distinguish among what I feel is proper game and what is not. Zebras are grazers and they aren't commonly raised for food. Regardless of their obvious bias against our teams, I still dont' think they are appropriate game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 i'll give you the just give it to them. the no goal i find is exagerated and the homerun throwback could have gone either way. i may be a bills fan but i don't buy into the everyone is against us mentality that a lot of bills fans seem to have. 668284[/snapback] If your team is good enough, you take the Zebras out of the equation more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 I'd like to teach, the world to sing In perfect harmony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 i'll give you the just give it to them. the no goal i find is exagerated and the homerun throwback could have gone either way. i may be a bills fan but i don't buy into the everyone is against us mentality that a lot of bills fans seem to have. 668284[/snapback] How is "no goal" exaggerated. The league, by it's own admission didn't follow it's own WRITTEN procedures. Regardless the phantom memo claiming the play was good (and it wasn't), according to the RULEBOOK in effect in 1999, the REFEREE IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON ALL REVIEWED GOALS. Gregson is on record as being told by the people upstairs that the goal was good. He is also on record as stating that he couldn't see Hull in the crease because Holzinger was falling in front of him. Had Gregson known that Hull was in the crease prior to the puck entering the crease (which is what happened) he would have WAIVED OFF the apparent "goal". The people in the replay booth were only supposed to tell Gregson the order of events and HE was supposed to make the decision. The league stated that the play was reviewed upstairs and the decision was made in the VIDEO BOOTH to allow the goal. That is #$@!#@!%. The lazy SOB's gave the world another example of how the league was a garage league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 How is "no goal" exaggerated. The league, by it's own admission didn't follow it's own WRITTEN procedures. Regardless the phantom memo claiming the play was good (and it wasn't), according to the RULEBOOK in effect in 1999, the REFEREE IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON ALL REVIEWED GOALS. Gregson is on record as being told by the people upstairs that the goal was good. He is also on record as stating that he couldn't see Hull in the crease because Holzinger was falling in front of him. Had Gregson known that Hull was in the crease prior to the puck entering the crease (which is what happened) he would have WAIVED OFF the apparent "goal". The people in the replay booth were only supposed to tell Gregson the order of events and HE was supposed to make the decision. The league stated that the play was reviewed upstairs and the decision was made in the VIDEO BOOTH to allow the goal. That is #$@!#@!%. The lazy SOB's gave the world another example of how the league was a garage league. 668296[/snapback] i agree, but like ajzepp said before, mistakes are made especially by refs. you guys were still losing the series what about the flames last year when they scored the gwg vs the bolts and the goal was disallowed. if the ref would have made the right call, they would have won the cup but it's done with and it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 i agree, but like ajzepp said before, mistakes are made especially by refs. you guys were still losing the series what about the flames last year when they scored the gwg vs the bolts and the goal was disallowed. if the ref would have made the right call, they would have won the cup but it's done with and it happens. 668301[/snapback] The mistake was not made by the ref. It was made by the league. I've never stated that the Sabres would definitely win the series were "no goal" called correctly; but I definitely liked the Sabres chances better by allowing them to continue to compete for the SC vs. just AWARDING it to the Stars. I agree that Gelinas' goal should have counted. That has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 i agree, but like ajzepp said before, mistakes are made especially by refs. you guys were still losing the series The series was on serve. They were up 3-2 going into game six in Buffalo. That "goal" should not have counted and there wasn't ONE example that season that the NHL could point to as being allowed. Had we won that game, I very much liked our chances against the much older and worn out Dallas team. what about the flames last year when they scored the gwg vs the bolts and the goal was disallowed. if the ref would have made the right call, they would have won the cup but it's done with and it happens. 668301[/snapback] Way to surrender. Guess it's in the blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 The mistake was not made by the ref. It was made by the league. I've never stated that the Sabres would definitely win the series were "no goal" called correctly; but I definitely liked the Sabres chances better by allowing them to continue to compete for the SC vs. just AWARDING it to the Stars. I agree that Gelinas' goal should have counted. That has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in 1999. 668311[/snapback] Give it up. Someone shot a zebra. And if you are told no, no means no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Give it up. Someone shot a zebra. 668316[/snapback] Plus, she was happy about killing a Buffalo. As if they don't eat good. The pansification of society continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The pansification of society continues. 668318[/snapback] You're exactly right. Blowing a Zebra's head off is the true mark of a man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The series was on serve. They were up 3-2 going into game six in Buffalo. That "goal" should not have counted and there wasn't ONE example that season that the NHL could point to as being allowed. Had we won that game, I very much liked our chances against the much older and worn out Dallas team.Way to surrender. Guess it's in the blood. 668315[/snapback] waaaaaaaaa waaa stupid whiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts