Christopher-J Carlson (b. Todd Matchett)

Read this article - "Cup-championship puck on its way to L.A." - on NHL.com about New Jersey Devils forward Patrik Elias finding the final puck of the final game of the Stanley Cup finals in his equipment bag, and returning it to the Champion Los Angeles Kings.

This "disappearing puck" thing has happened before in recent years, and a number of people commenting on this article are taking quite a negative look at this and at Patrik Elias. Elias is a veteran player of over 1000 NHL games, all with New Jersey, where he's won two Stanley Cups himself. While he'd obviously be disappointed about the loss  to the Kings, I highly doubt his intentions were more than mischievous, if anything.

Knowing Elias' Stanley Cup experience, he actually may have been protecting the puck from getting truly lost in all the hubbub. He would know how important that puck would be to the Kings. If that wasn't the case, he may just have been going along with what I think may be a new tradition in the NHL. A fun thing the players do amongst themselves, but also to entertain the fans.

In all the celebration when the game-ending horn or buzzer goes off, a player on the Stanley Cup winning team is very unlikely to bother to think of the puck. The Cup, after all, is the real prize. So, this is the perfect opportunity for a member of the losing team to start the game of "Who's Got the Puck". Hey, it's a long summer, especially after you go all the way and come up short.

Most every player in the NHL is a grown man (even if some can't grow a playoff beard). They're also a fraternity that has a lot of respect for each other, even when there is great animosity between some players on the ice. Any player who makes themselves unwelcome within the fraternity usually never lasts long on one team, or in league itself, no matter how good of a player they are.

I would not feel right in pointing fingers and making accusations about a missing puck. If a puck was truly missing, I doubt players would call out one of their peers as a "thief". Unless in jest, as some are wont to do. They'd accept the loss, though disappointing. But I'm also sure every player would do their darndest to find the puck. And not to as evidence of their innocence, but simply to do the right thing.

Anyhoo, just a few thought...

Ahhh, memories...

One day, back when I was in elementary school, my father put me on the back of our fat, yellow horse Sandy. Dad didn't think leaving the gate to the back field open would be a problem. (But I'm pretty sure he also didn't want to walk 200+ feet to close it. *wink* ) Well, sure enough, as soon as Sandy had a chance, she took off full gallop for the back field! Well, as close to a gallop as the big girl could duplicate.

If I ever had the reins in my hands, it was for the briefest of moments. I don't remember exactly how I fell off the horse, but I'm picturing myself first being bumped off the saddle and onto her generous rump, then being bumped off her rump and onto the less-than-generous ground. But I do remember landing on my back and my head hitting that less-than-generous ground!

Before I blacked out, I turned my head to the side. There, I saw something that would have saved me from both a hard landing and the resulting unconsciousness. A pleasant pile of road apples! Mind you, they weren't "fresh from the oven" but they weren't cold and dried up either! I then faded out of consciousness.

I briefly came to in my father's arms as I was being carried to the house. When I finally woke up in my bed, I found myself being MAULED BY TIGERS! (Wait, this part of the memory is a bit fuzzy, for obvious reasons...) Oh, right, I was being "mewled" by kittens; our newest batch, courtesy of our newest Mother Kitty!

Barn kittens are similar to barn swallows, except they have fur instead of feathers. But as any cat owner knows, they'll still dive-bomb you given the chance! And yes, just like the family cat(s) on The Simpson's (Snowball), we named every cat that birthed kittens in our barn "Mother Kitty". While none of them were official members of the family, some of their kittens were adopted over the years as house cats.

Well, I've never regretted not landing on those soft, warm, chocolate Timbits in the pasture. Then again, I also never tried to ride Sandy again. But, I do still miss her dearly; that old, yellow mare and her plump derrière! (Hmmm... Now I'm craving doughnuts for some reason.)

Anyhoo...

I'm not a fan of "10-star" film rating systems and other systems with more than five rating levels, due to the fact that each level gives people less leeway with which to rate a film when compared to other movies of a similar quality and/or "enjoyment factor". These systems can also be the cause of heated yet fruitless debates about which of two films (sometimes from totally different genres) is the "better" one.

I'm conversely not a fan of the Siskel/Ebert/Roeper "thumbs up/thumbs down" system, due to the fact that most films rate somewhere in the middle. Although, no matter how people feel about them, we are also given explanations as to why they voted the way they did. Also, when one is familiar with the personalities and differences between each critic, having two gives extra layers to their ratings.

(Actual explanations are something a lot of "critics" these days don't even provide in their "reviews". e.g. "[Basic premise of film.] I liked the film in general, but some things kept me from enjoying it more. 3 stars." Okay, what did you actually like and dislike about the movie? Also, 3 stars out of what? Seriously, I don't care if you don't provide a ratings key, but at least note what the high end of the scale is. *sigh*)

That all said, I just revised my "4-letter" rating system to a "3-letter" system. Although wide with regard to film-inclusion, my "A"  (great film) and "D" (bad film) ratings were of the same size. However, my "B" and "C" ratings were each only half as wide. They were both intended for "decent films", but the former for ones I personally liked and the latter for those I didn't but others might like.

While I still like those four ratings categories, I believe it's easier for people to understand a system when each rating is the same range size. In my new 3-letter system, great films still get an "A", while "D" has been discarded and "C" has been reassigned for bad films. "B" now covers all decent films, whether I liked them or not, but will either have a + or - symbol after it to distinguish between those I liked and those I didn't but others might. (You won't see a "B" without a + or - symbol.)

Since the + and - are not being used as actual ratings (as in some ratings systems), you won't be seeing them with an "A" or "C". Those ratings do not come with caveats. In my opinion, those films are either great and worth your time to see, or they are bad and not worth your time. Meanwhile, others may or may not enjoy "B+" and "B-" films, so I can't say whether they're worth your time or not. Seeing them is your risk to take. :^)

Anyhoo...

Even in Windows 7, Windows Explorer still goes on the fritz at times. This problem mainly affects me when I try to open sub-folders in the Start Menu. Besides the folders not opening upon clicking, the Start Menu collapses back down. So, to fix this I need to shut down and then restart Explorer (explorer.exe) using the Task Manager.

This isn't really too much trouble, considering I have a shortcut key assigned to Task Manager. But after opening Task Manager, I still have to right-click explorer.exe and select "End Process", then restart explorer.exe using "File" > "New Task (Run...)" in Task Manager or via the Start Menu "Run" command.

Well, why bother when you can just add an item to the Desktop context menu that requires only one click to shut down and restart explorer.exe. While the basic instructions to creating this Desktop context menu item can be found online in numerous places, here they are in my own words.

(To be honest, I'm actually posting these instructions for myself, so I can find them in short order if needed again in the future.  :^)  But if they help anyone else, I'm glad I could pass them on.)



1) in Notepad, copy and paste the following code

Code:

@echo off

taskkill /f /im explorer.exe
start explorer.exe

2) save under "all files" as "Restart Explorer.bat" (to any location, but make note of where)

3) open Registry Editor (regedit.exe) and go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/Directory/ Background/shell"

4) right-click "shell" > left-click "New" > left-click "Key" > name it "Restart Explorer"

5) right-click "Restart Explorer" > left-click "New" > left-click "Key" > name it "command"

6) right-click (or SHIFT + right-click) "Restart Explorer.bat" (from Step 2) > left-click "Copy as path"

7) return to Registry Editor and go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/Directory/Background/shell/Restart Explorer/command"

8) double-click "(Default)" string value in right window pane; paste path (from Step 6) in "Value data" field

9) close Registry Editor. Desktop context menu should now include "Restart Desktop"



There we go...

A friend of mine mentioned the Arnold Schwarzenegger action flick The Running Man [1987] on Facebook in relation to The Hunger Games [2012]. I haven't seen the latter yet, but plan to. (I haven't read any of the books either, and don't plane too. ;^p ) I have seen the former film, and while I know it's got its fans, I'd classify it as a "guilty pleasure".

Its budget (~$27M US) and gross (~$38M US) make it ineligible for "cult" status, IMO. I also know it has its detractors, many of which I assume are fans of Stephen King, and his novel the film was loosely based on. For the record, The Running Man is not a favorite film of mine in any category. IMO, it takes itself a bit too seriously to enjoy.

But, I did get to watch one of my guilty pleasures the other day - the firmly tongue-in-cheek Demolition Man [1993], starring Schwarzenegger compatriot Sylvester Stallone and the currently incarcerated Wesley Snipes as the bad guy. (Damn taxes!) Unlike The Running Man, it doesn't take itself too seriously and is thus a true pleasure to watch.

I also watched Wesley Snipes as the hero in Passenger 57 [1992], which is a great movie! (It was a Snipes double-bill.) "Believable" would be the best word to describe this film. At least compared to most action films of the era and even today. The storyline (for the time period), the fight sequences, and the dialogue are all things I'd call "believable".

The storyline is straight-forward, while the fights are great simply due to Snipes martial arts background. One thing that really makes the film stand out is its lack of predictable action flick clichés. To top it all off, there are a few small scenes and bits of dialogue that you'd never find in most "actioners", due to their depth, subtlety and/or simple common sense.

Anyhoo...

I recently got Transformers Generations Kup and used a silver paint pen on his hubcaps. Was worried that I'd have trouble scraping away the paint in the few areas I went over onto the tires - I have a terribly unsteady hand - but it seemed worse than it really was and I did a decent job.

Decent version of Kup too. I still have the die-cast, non-Targetmaster "Generation 1" version of Kup I had as a kid. The last regular line of Transformers I regularly bought from was Cybertron. I thought Cybertron and Energon were great lines. I had to cut back on my spending after that.

I still consider someday picking up the three Dinobots from Animated. The only thing holding me back (and it's doing a good job) is that there's no Animated Sludge and (true) Snarl to go along with with Grimlock, Slag ("Snarl") and Swoop.

I love Energon Swoop though! Energon Grimlock, on the other hand, must be the embarassment of every Grimlock completists collection. Even McDonald's Grimlock is cooler! LOL! Fortunately I got Energon Swoop loose off eBay by itself.

Swoop and the much-neglected Sludge have always been my favorite Dinobots. I wrote some great Transformers stories as a kid that revolved around them. Like the other Dinobots they preferred being left alone by everyone, including the Autobots.

But, unlike the other Dinobots, Swoop and Sludge weren't quite as savage. At one point they basically took off and left both groups behind to just live in the wild. Of course, they came back just in the nick of time to play a key role in saving the Autobots and defeating the Decepticons.

But for now I'm just sticking to Generations and some particulars that have long been on my wish list. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to get around to culling most of my collection. Stupidly, I recently bought the G1 redeco of Voyager Mixmaster from "the film that shall not be named" off eBay. Too late did I realize that I had decided to use my customized Universe Classics Heavy Load as my Classics Mixmaster. *sigh*

Anyhoo...

This was a comment I posted in response to another comment to an article on TSN.ca about the new hockey arena planned for Québec City - "Labeaume predicts first-class NHL arena for Québec City" (The Canadian Press - January 20, 2010)

• During all the years the [Québec] Nordiques were in the NHL basement, they still managed to fill most of the Colisée [de Québec; now the Colisée Pepsi]. Growing NHL salaries and a much-needed new arena combined to do the team in. The [Eric] Lindros trade actually sped things up due to the quick return of a good number of higher-end/higher-cost players. I continually have to correct people who say the fans in Québec [City] weren't going to games, because they definitely were; and they will again!

For the record, here's the original comment I was replying to, by "Haze"...

• And even with all that return for lindros nobody went to the games. People seem to forget that. It's the reason the team left. Nobody cared enough to go. But as soon as they were leaving everyone cried, no...please come back...we will change. Sounds like a typical breakup. Let's say you do get a team. The novelty of having a team will wear off and the team will move again. You don't deserve a team. Get over it.

Anyhoo...

P.S. - This is my first LiveJournal post using the website's rich text editor. *fingerscrossed*

Anyhoohoo...

The National Hockey League Board of Governors just announced that it has come up a realignment scheme for all 30 teams, which the NHL hopes will be in place sometime soon. I assume most hockey fans are simply piqued by the news. Of course, like any change in something, no matter how minor or major they would actually affect things, the most fervent and harsh opinions tend to be the most audible, especially on the internet.

However, the NHL Players' Association still has to have their say before any such realignment can be implemented. And, despite the people who are aghast at the idea of switching to a new format next season, the NHL never said it would be next season, only "soon". (Though, if the NHLPA likes the idea and doesn't hesitate to give it the thumbs up, it logistically could be put into place for 2012/2013.)

Instead of today's two conferences, divided into four divisions of five teams each, the new alignment would consist of four conferences of either 7 or 8 teams. Most teams will play all of their conference rivals six times, with some teams in the 8-team conferences playing only five, but on a yearly rotation. And all teams will get to play each out-of-conference team twice, something that doesn't happen in today's NHL.

The top four teams of each conference would make the playoffs, and the first two rounds would consist of conference match-ups to determine the playoff champions of each conference. How those four teams would be matched up for the third round has yet to be determined.

But, the possibility of the end of "East" vs. "West" finals has to have many people excited about the prospect of two "Original Six" teams facing off in the Stanley Cup Finals for the first time in decades (e.g. Canadiens v. Rangers); or rivals from one of the current conferences (e.g. Avalanche v. Red Wings) finally getting to face each other in the finals for the first time.

Here are the four prospective conferences. (I'll get to the debate over what to name them in another post.) From the west coast to the east coast, for the most part ...

- Anaheim Ducks, Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, Phoenix Coyotes, San Jose Sharks, Vancouver Canucks

- Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago Blackhawks, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, Winnipeg Jets

- Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Florida Panthers, Montreal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Tampa Bay Lightning, Toronto Maple Leafs

- Carolina Hurricanes, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals

The one thing that sticks out the most to me is the placement of the Panthers, Lightning, Flyers and Penguins. There are a number of good reasons - the most obvious being state rivalry - that the first two teams and the latter two teams should be paired, but it fails me as to why those pairs aren't switched conference-wise.

Aside from time-zone, Florida and Tampa are clearly cut off from the rest of their conference geographically. In my opinion, Simply switching them with the Pennsylvanian teams would put them in a much better situation; while the impact on Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, if any, would be minimal.

I can tell you, that when the Phoenix Coyotes move next season (really, isn't it time to put that dog down?), whether they end up in Hamilton, Ontario or reborn as the new Quebec Nordiques, they'll eventually end up in the same post-realignment conference as Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.

Anyhoo...

For more than a month, starting in July, I had been wearing my older pair of plastic eyeglasses, since I'd broken my newest metal pair with all the obsessive-compulsive fiddling I'd done with them. Something doesn't feel quite right, I start making little bends or little twists and such to get them feeling better.

Of course, it's never long before I'm at them again. One nose piece broke off, which I just threw away; but then the frame around the lens broke near the bridge. Now, these are those "special metal" frames that even if you get them soldered, it might not take well. Sure enough, the soldering job didn't last long.

So I started wearing my older pair, which have a plastic frame and are much more comfortable. My coverage for a totally new pair was coming up in August, so I was just going to wait. Going to movies was fine, because of the big screen, but when it came to television (even with my huge flat-screen) and and the computer, I had to tilt the glasses forward or sit quite close, respectively.

By the time I had my check-up and ordered my new pair of glasses (with plastic frames; a much better choice for me) my eyes were starting to get pretty tired. Now I only had to wait until they came in. It didn't take long but it seemed like it, and to top it all off, with one relatively tame bending of the bridge, my plastic pair snapped in two! D'OH!

I spent the early part of that day listening to the radio. My eyes had gotten too stressed to even comfortably read a magazine. I called the optometrists' office to ask if and when my new pair would be in, but they weren't. Then, within about 15 minutes, I got a call back from the amused assistant at the office. Almost right after I called my glasses had come in. :-D

From past experience, I had always found that glasses always felt great when tried on right away. And that they usually always look fine and straight and such. Unfortunately, after an optometrist employee would "fit" them for me, the glasses wouldn't feel as comfortable as they originally did. And thus begins my process of destructive obsessive-compulsive tweaking.

This time, however, I tried them on, walked around, put them on and took them off repeatedly, and looked at my beautiful self in the mirror. ;-) They looked great, fit fine and, most importantly, felt comfortable. So I told the "fitter" of my past problems getting them adjusted, and said I'd best just leave them as they were and hope to keep my fiddling hands away from them. And, so far, I've been very successful in that regard. :-D

The plastic frames are mainly black, with a slight amber "wood grain" on the front and small raised rectangles on the arms. Aside from a dip in the middle at the bridge, the rims are quite straight across the top and meet the top of the arms quite squarely. They look much "nerdier" than any pair I've had before; but I hear that's "in" at the moment. I know I see a lot of cute girls wearing "nerdy" specs! I have an affinity for "alternative/nerdy/strange" girls. :-)

So, that's the story about my new pair of glasses. Now, I'm going to look online for the same model of frames my last plastic pair were, so I can use the lens from my old pair again. I hadn't thought about that idea when I left my metal pair and the lenses at the optometrist's. If I had the lens I could be looking for a new pair of the frames online instead. Oh, well. *shrug*

Anyhoo...

Hmmm... Well, by process of preservation, first and foremost I'd have to keep my sight, since film is so important to me. I'd keep sound next; not so much because of its ties to film, but because of its importance to communication. And it would be incredibly tough to be without touch, especially if you lose it after having it. Also, in a number of situations it could be very dangerous to not have a sense of touch.

That leaves taste and smell, which are quite intimately linked. Together, they allow us to experience flavor. Without smell, we are limited to the five basic tastes. Without taste, we can still experience countless smells. Smell also warns us about food that's gone bad - before we put it in our mouths *blech* - and other things that may be more dangerous to us (chemicals and such). So, if I had to choose, I'd rather be able to smell my food than taste it. ^_^

Of course, we do have more than five senses. Those were just the "basics". Off the top of my head, other senses include balance (pretty important for walking), direction, hunger (real hunger, that is), pain (if your sense of touch fails, your sense of pain might kick in), temperature (substitute touch with temperature in relation to pain), time (which combined with one or more other senses can give you "timing"), and that sense of where you're own body parts should be (see amputees and "phantom limbs")

Anyhoo...