Topper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:58 amOh, did I use hyperbole? How obnoxious of me. I sincerely hope you are not butt hurt.Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:26 amOne post now = “a lot of time”
That depends on the size of your banger.
Moderator: Referees
Topper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:58 amOh, did I use hyperbole? How obnoxious of me. I sincerely hope you are not butt hurt.Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:26 amOne post now = “a lot of time”
Are these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
This is a valid questionRonning's Ghost wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:03 pmAre these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
You can’t be a GillisBro and a BenningBro equally or with some parts of both however divided. It’s like are you a Jew or a Christian, or a Republican or a Democrat? You are either one or the other. However - the GillisBros are idiots as much as Eyebags was and the BenningBros cannot be denied. We are the cream rising to the top and the GillisBros will disappear from the game just like Mike - 6 years without an NHL job and countingRonning's Ghost wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:03 pmAre these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
OK, this explains a bit. The possibility that you seem to be missing is that one can be neither. That is to say, there is no requirement to endorse the decisions or track record of either man as Canucks general manager. You could take a position on which one was better (or less bad), without thinking either was very good. Maybe think of it like the old Ford/Chevy rivalry -- a car enthusiast might hold that Mercedes was better than either, so the distinction was unimportant.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:45 amYou can’t be a GillisBro and a BenningBro equally or with some parts of both however divided. It’s like are you a Jew or a Christian, or a Republican or a Democrat? You are either one or the other.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:03 pmAre these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
You just described poster Y2K/Pauser!Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:49 amOK, this explains a bit. The possibility that you seem to be missing is that one can be neither.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:45 amYou can’t be a GillisBro and a BenningBro equally or with some parts of both however divided. It’s like are you a Jew or a Christian, or a Republican or a Democrat? You are either one or the other.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:03 pmAre these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
I don't know this poster, but the fact is, no GM in Canucks history has built a Stanley Cup winning team in Vancouver, so it would be reasonable to assert that even ones who did better elsewhere can't claim to have been great while they were here.Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:01 pm
You just described poster Y2K/Pauser!
He has, in fact railed against every GM in Canuck history!
The Pause has never had anything good to say about anything Canuck until he/she/it left the organization.
You don't understand.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:21 pm I don't know this poster, but the fact is, no GM in Canucks history has built a Stanley Cup winning team in Vancouver, so it would be reasonable to assert that even ones who did better elsewhere can't claim to have been great while they were here.
The position I took was an easy one -Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:49 amOK, this explains a bit. The possibility that you seem to be missing is that one can be neither. That is to say, there is no requirement to endorse the decisions or track record of either man as Canucks general manager. You could take a position on which one was better (or less bad), without thinking either was very good. Maybe think of it like the old Ford/Chevy rivalry -- a car enthusiast might hold that Mercedes was better than either, so the distinction was unimportant.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:45 amYou can’t be a GillisBro and a BenningBro equally or with some parts of both however divided. It’s like are you a Jew or a Christian, or a Republican or a Democrat? You are either one or the other.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:03 pmAre these people the source of your otherwise inexplicable position that any criticism of Benning is an implied endorsement of Gillis?
So far, Gillis and Benning have manged the Canucks to exactly the same number of Stanley Cup championships. When a Benning-managed Canucks team wins the Stanley Cup, it will be clear to me that Benning was better. I still think it would take the Dynasty that you promised to prove a genius, though.
Y2K is a very angry little man with all kinds of envy pouring out of every pore of his body. His postings reek of displaced aggression. Shit is going down in his real life as with all the GillisBrosStrangelove wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:37 pmYou don't understand.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:21 pm I don't know this poster, but the fact is, no GM in Canucks history has built a Stanley Cup winning team in Vancouver, so it would be reasonable to assert that even ones who did better elsewhere can't claim to have been great while they were here.
Leaves-loving Y2K has hated on every single Canuck GM from Day One.
And he never had a single good thing to say about the Sedins.
Y2K is clearly either a Leaves mole or Satan.
Or both.
Guaranteed the gillisbros are a bunch of virgin incelsRoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:28 pmY2K is a very angry little man with all kinds of envy pouring out of every pore of his body. His postings reek of displaced aggression. Shit is going down in his real life as with all the GillisBrosStrangelove wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:37 pmYou don't understand.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:21 pm I don't know this poster, but the fact is, no GM in Canucks history has built a Stanley Cup winning team in Vancouver, so it would be reasonable to assert that even ones who did better elsewhere can't claim to have been great while they were here.
Leaves-loving Y2K has hated on every single Canuck GM from Day One.
And he never had a single good thing to say about the Sedins.
Y2K is clearly either a Leaves mole or Satan.
Or both.
RG - are you an errand boy (HF GillisBro mole) sent by Grocery Clerks (HF Mods) to collect a bill (troll)?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:21 pmI don't know this poster, but the fact is, no GM in Canucks history has built a Stanley Cup winning team in Vancouver, so it would be reasonable to assert that even ones who did better elsewhere can't claim to have been great while they were here.Strangelove wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:01 pm
You just described poster Y2K/Pauser!
He has, in fact railed against every GM in Canuck history!
The Pause has never had anything good to say about anything Canuck until he/she/it left the organization.
Unless you want to go down the anti-Canucks conspiracy theory rabbit hole...
It wont end until, in the very distant future when Jim is forced to retire due to he got his letter from the Queen and realized how old he was,Uncle dans leg wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:13 am Is there seriously a group of gillis people still active? Its been 5 fuckin years