CAR/NAS

[Shep]

Not bad.

How does she fuck that up?

[Nick]

Not bad.

How does she fuck that up?

her husband must have came out of the closet just earlier that day... no other possible explanation.


or she somehow went from def->dumb, blind -> gay ??? WTF ???

[Radiohead]

This one's better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkQeuU1 ... re=related

How does she fuck up twice? Too many cocks on the brain.

[Robin Hood]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. both are fucking hilarious but "top cock" takes the cake.

[Nick]

however she handles it better by joking about it afterwards.... i wish jay onrait was there muttering " it was nice to have known you" or " producerTIM is going crazy right now, cock crazy!!!"

the gay comment is off the chart IMO, cock and cop sound familiar-ish, and she's hot so is allowed to make mistakes like that, fatty on the otherhand needs to keep shit in order... he's gay AHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAH I mean blind!!! but if your tricky you could tell him he's fucking a girl and it's actually a guy, which would make him gay...


berg, care to expand on the situation?

[kyuss]

lol dude i would NEVER even do streit for russell + gleason . and i believe you were the one constantly messaging about Streit .

you were the one messaging first for negotiations..
as for the streit thing, i guess i need to better translate your messages in the future.. lesson 1 learned.

[kyuss]

This is a keeper league being run for fun, theres no way we can predict every potential outcome or occurrence. We address the issues as they arise.

however, this is a different case: you guys are making it sound like something that was already covered, like it was already decided that.. [fill in with whatever the new rule we are discovering along this thread]... whereas actually we had no written regulation on this, so much that several things stated in this thread go against trades performed in the last days.

So if i'ts a matter of addressing a new issue, you should say "ok, we have a new rule on this, it won't be possible to complete this kind of trade in the future", not saying this trade is wrong and vetoed because of rules never written that most never heard of, or at least never fulfilled before.

[inferno31]

however, this is a different case: you guys are making it sound like something that was already covered, like it was already decided that.. [fill in with whatever the new rule we are discovering along this thread]... whereas actually we had no written regulation on this, so much that several things stated in this thread go against trades performed in the last days.

So if i'ts a matter of addressing a new issue, you should say "ok, we have a new rule on this, it won't be possible to complete this kind of trade in the future", not saying this trade is wrong and vetoed because of rules never written that most never heard of, or at least never fulfilled before.

I get what you are saying, but you can't let the first of everything go and then step in next time. Especially when it causes issues for logging and recording of trades. Just because we didn't realize something and make a rule doesn't mean every rule should be "grandfathered" in. Its simply not how things can be done every time. For example if one team traded someone to another team just so they could make the floor and had an agreement to get him back at the end of the season with a pick or something exchanging hands. We wouldn't be like hey we realize this is bullshit, but too late let this one go through? We'd all say fuck this shit and stop it then.

[kyuss]

I think we've already reached majority support on the following (not all members have spoken, but none in opposition either):
- future considerations cannot be based on GP

uh?

Stepped conditional agreements are 100% legit, but each step needs to be laid out:
Pogge to Anaheim for 5th round pick in 2011 + GP conditions. If he starts 20 games before the end of the 2011 season a 3rd 2012 is added, if 40 games a 2nd 2012 is added

things sure change fast here.

and btw, i for one am against taking away GP from future considerations.. they are actually the best way to determine conditions.

[kyuss]

I get what you are saying, but you can't let the first of everything go and then step in next time.

problem is, this one was the 1000th of 1000, not the first..
i mean, it seems it wouldn't even be alllowed to be reworked as generic "future considerations" just like most similar deals that have gone through till the other day..

[Radiohead]

Trade has been fixed.

[anton]

nate answer your damn pm

[kyuss]

To Nashville
Tuomo Ruutu
Jochen Hecht
2013 2nd Round Draft Choice (CAR)
2012 3rd Round Draft Choice (DAL)

To Carolina
Niklas Hagman
Kris Russell
Ales Kotalik
Teemu Laakso

reconfirmed taking away all the conditions, since we were not sure it would be considered fine even using the generic "future considerations" formula other GMs were free to use.

[Radiohead]

nate answer your damn pm

I've sent a few PM's to you with no reply. Just returning the favour.

[Nick]

]
things sure change fast here.

and btw, i for one am against taking away GP from future considerations.. they are actually the best way to determine conditions.

your crossing terms dude. considerations and conditions are unique terms.