Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by guyser

  1. It is weird because I recognize just how well Babs gets effort from his guys, and they are good, and I am a Leaf fan soooooo....i just find it hard to get excited about the Wings. And here is where we differ. Boring? I think maybe the US Can game was, and thats because the CDN's shut them down time and time again, no offence was generated to make it exciting, at least for them Think it will be the Leafs? I hope so but doubts have crept in with all the teams in play for him. Maybe he wants a nice sunny climate to ply his trade, maybe Mrs Babs wants shorts and T's in February. That puts Canada out of the running. The Hawks goaltending is stellar, they won with him before, no reason he cant do it again. He is afterall near tying the record for most playoff shutouts in Hawks history
  2. I can see it but my take is they wont. Anaheim takes them. Was that a goal last night or not? The review process says it was the right call, no goal. Finally Anaheim gets beat. But still Ducks in six
  3. So I took you up on your 'homework' thing. Went back over this whole thread. And no, you offer nothing like you suggest you 'listed' ***, so the statement, "thanks for the non answer' stands. Troll bait? Your the one in here claiming BS thanks, and no , one cannot discriminate (although many try) when dealing in a public business. *** Hopefully not to claim you put forth the idiotic female gym idea thats been denounced.
  4. Conclude? She is was has been a moron for quite some time. This time she should be congratulated for getting what she wanted, an armed response.
  5. I suppose we all would, but the facts suggest , and history, that this is a pipe dream. Apparently we may start seeing the pendulum come back. I wont hoild my breath. Ah i see. So burning down a place you will never go see is really bad , versus having your rights violated by a cop which is ya know.....OK. There is a disconnect there.
  6. Perhaps? Perhaps? <facepalm> Two for one day ! "an unborn 7 month old " Whatever the hell that means.
  7. She heard your question. Here is her Answer:
  8. Wow, that is so telling . I thought we had a crying smilie here.....
  9. So we are all into the 2nd round, a bit less exciting for sure, normally is anyway. Have to say the first round wasnt as good as I thought it would be. The Jets games were the best , Detroit and Tampa for me were yawners. (Bias alert, I find all Wings games boring) Sens/Mtl were a ton of fun to watch, result was never in doubt but there ya go. So...who you got? Rangers...in 7 T Bay in 5 (and wow is that a surprise ) Anaheim in 5 or 6 I doubt if the Flames can win more than once. Blackhawks in 6 I see the Ducks winning it all. They appear bigger , faster and stronger than anyone out there. Especially anyone from the East
  10. Absolutely not. I am unsure what your angle is Argus. Put you in handcuffs. And?
  11. Yea cuz no leftie is rich of course.
  12. Absolutely not. Nothing printed, posted, yelled, signed for by parents in the store could absolve the store causing harm to a child. I dont think thats what you meant to write . It would mean that those "by signing this form you absolve us of responsibility' forms you eget or abide by or written on the back of a ticket of admission allows the store etc to get off the hook. Those arent worht the paper they are printed on.
  13. A lot of them do, some figure it is there when 'we want to invoke it '. It doesnt in and of itself change anything though .
  14. Somebody doesnt know the diff between the Canadian Military and the American one. D'oh...
  15. I dont think you nor anyone else can say 'obviously not displayed' and then reason it to the fact the kid had been there before. Maybe the kid, and perhaps his folks too, ignored the sign or thought little of any action by the store.
  16. Did Jian ever rape someone? He certainly was a predator the likes the military should have seen but decided not to open their eyes. Is the CBC or others in a place whereby it can be referred to by sexual assault is 'endemic' ? The Military has that problem . In the late 90's it was a rape problem. Seems as if this is a deflection , but why? Water is wet we know. But if not, ok, thanks for reminding us that society has creeps in it.
  17. From the article.... ""…And as such we have a policy in place regarding unaccompanied minors. As this customer was under the age of 12 and alone, we followed our protocol and stand by our policy."
  18. A parent is responsible in law whether they are there or not. I have no idea what premise you are going for with the 'work for the store would be so callous' thought. In fact dead on true. Come on cybercoma, you klnow the answer to this already. The store would call the cops, the cops may/could arrest the kid and start the process. If wilful damage was caused and the child is of sufficient age to know better (as per the court test) then the insurance company may seek a case, but thats up to them since the shop owner has agreed to bide by the policy wordings. Do they 'want to' ? Who knows, in many cases no they probably dont. In some they probably do. So...McDonalds can hire fewer cleaners since they dont want to deal with things kids do? Some inductries/stores are magnets for children, they target kids for sales (ok the parents pay). Legoland, is one, McDonalds is another , chucky cheese ...and so on. They design, build , audit and ensure that they have done the best they can to mitigate any dangerous objects in their stores. In fact they spend inordinate amounts of money to achieve this. The store knows it has to deal with unsupervised kids the moment they open the shop. Thats because plenty of parents dont do what they should, but also becuase the store wants to minimize any losses.
  19. Atta boy pik , wonderful display of misogyny ! Come on....spell it out in big words, "Its the damn wimmenz fault for joinging up"
  20. I believe this is the second time youve said this, it still isnt true. The store is held liable only for things that the store is found liable for. Parents or no parents. Doesnt matter. Correct, they are a store for children. Mainly at least. Yes the certainly can be held criminally responsible. Each case is different since the Crown has to determine, but generally over the age of from 7-8 they can be. This argument does not hold water.
  21. Doesnt that make her a soldier though? That was the question. She may not (in fact I think she didnt) have seen action or the front, but serving is serving and for that, all these Royals get a pass from me.
  22. Didnt the Queen serve as one? She was a mechanic in the motorpool during WW2.
  23. I am not so sure about that being the stores real concern. The store at all times, parents around or not, must keep a store that is as free from liability as it can. A defect or liability claim occcurs with or without parents. The store is responsible for all shoppers, they cannot escape that.
  • Create New...