Lock out notice to the STH?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is the problem though, they are not using the word correctly. It would be like if the players referred to the 94 strike as a lockout.

Wasn't it a lockout in 1994? I had this discussion before; and everything I could find indicated it was a lockout and not a strike.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There is, as always, a formal definition and a colloquial usage. Enoch Root clearly, and obviously, used the phrase colloquially, which anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand.

Not if you even knew what colloquialism even is. In informal conversation, when most people hear "work stoppage" they think that a union is taking action. They usually do not think that it means that the employers are preventing the workers from working. I am pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand that.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Wasn't it a lockout in 1994? I had this discussion before; and everything I could find indicated it was a lockout and not a strike.

You are right, I got it confused with the 1992 Strike.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Not if you even knew what colloquialism even is. In informal conversation, when most people hear "work stoppage" they think that a union is taking action. They usually do not think that it means that the employers are preventing the workers from working. I am pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand that.

I am quite certain that a union hack like yourself would hold to the dictionary definition, yes. Most people, I think, would consider "work stoppage" to be interchangeable with either a strike or lockout.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Did either of those words ever have the exact opposite meaning of what they have today smart guy? I will stand corrected if there ever was a time when inflammable meant an object that could not be burnt or was incapable of being burnt.

I think you need to learn the meaning of 'exact opposite'.

'Strike' and 'lockout' are not exact opposites.

"If you are incapable of comprehending the english language, that is your problem."

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Not if you even knew what colloquialism even is. In informal conversation, when most people hear "work stoppage" they think that a union is taking action. They usually do not think that it means that the employers are preventing the workers from working. I am pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand that.

Okay, I was joking before, but now you're kind of being a dick about the whole issue.

As I understand it, "work stoppage" referst to either, ie, all lockouts are work stoppages, but not all work stoppages are lockouts, the same is true if you replace "lockout" with "strike".

Yeah, it isn't the final word on anything, but wikipedia agrees with me.
So suck it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout_(industry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Not if you even knew what colloquialism even is. In informal conversation, when most people hear "work stoppage" they think that a union is taking action. They usually do not think that it means that the employers are preventing the workers from working. I am pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand that.

Yet another example of you taking something that isn't absolute and attempting to make it absolute in order to make your point.

I try very hard to not insult or attack anyone on message boards, but occasionally people deserve it.

[renny]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Not if you even knew what colloquialism even is. In informal conversation, when most people hear "work stoppage" they think that a union is taking action. They usually do not think that it means that the employers are preventing the workers from working. I am pretty sure anyone with an IQ over 50 would understand that.

Are you daft? Get over it. 99.9% of the audience understands what's going on regardless of the words being used. Stop thumping your bloody union book and get over it.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Oh yeah?
Then how come "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?
Who's got the problem now, smart guy?

They don't. Or at least they don't in "English". Only in "American".

"Inflammable" is an English word.
"Flammable" is an American word for those that can't figure out that "in-" means "leading into" rather than "not".

And there is really no reason - at least between adults - for the smarmy comments (not just you BBS, but the others as well).

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by renny

Are you daft? Get over it. 99.9% of the audience understands what's going on regardless of the words being used. Stop thumping your bloody union book and get over it.

I am - as a long-time self-employed professional - as far from a union supporter as one can get. And yes, we all "understand" that "work has stopped". It is the initiation of that action that is at question here. The action was taken by the owners and not the players. In legal, technical and jargon terms that is known as a "lockout", not a "work stoppage", regardless of the fact that "work has stopped".

The point - lost in the semantics - is that the Flames (and others) are trying to paint a picture that is untrue. Those who don't particularly follow the action are liable to be misled.

Is that anyone on CP? Probably not. Is it anyone in the mainstream? Quite possibly.

THAT is the point.

[KevanGuy]

Back on topic please. Any more bickering posts will be deleted.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

"Flammable" is an American word for those that can't figure out that "in-" means "leading into" rather than "not".

In- usually does mean "not", but "inflammable" meant "capable of being inflamed", which unfortunately caused a lot of people to think it meant "not capable of being flamed". So in the interests of safety, inflammable was changed to flammable. Wise, IMO.

The Flames used the neutral term "work stoppage" which doesn't specify the reason, instead of "lockout" which is always employer-initiated, for PR reasons. Not that it matters, everyone knows it was a lockout.

I didn't like still have to make the payments on the monthly plan when there are no games, but that's the reality of having tickets when there is a waiting list, the teams that are suspending payments likely don't. Some people actually pay in full in March (not me, I honestly can't fathom why anyone would do that), and they're only getting credits as games are cancelled so it puts everyone in the same boat.

[chedder]

Hah! Just got my STH email offering 2 free tickets to the Hitmen's Home Opener on Saturday. If only Edwards didn't own the Hitmen, would be a fun day with the kids!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by chedder

Hah! Just got my STH email offering 2 free tickets to the Hitmen's Home Opener on Saturday. If only Edwards didn't own the Hitmen, would be a fun day with the kids!

You're letting your hate over-ride your kids?

[van fan down by river]

Nm

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're letting your hate over-ride your kids?

The price of denying your children something fun and cheap is minimal compared to the satisfaction of impotently shaking your puny fist at nothing in particular.

[Smartcar]

So now that the games to November 30 have been cancelled, those of us on the payment plan are paid in full for the 30 games that are remaining. Apparently you can email (probably reply to the email notice send out yesterday will work) and ask the Flames not to take further payments until the season has been determined. If you do, and there are games added (such that it will be more than 30 home games) payment for those extra games will be required immediately.

Even if the season were to be salvaged, the chances of a full 82-game schedule are next to nil, so the one-shot payment won't be the sum of the four remaining payments. I'll take that chance, and I'd encourage everyone else to do it too. Just maybe, hopefully, the dried up cash flow will add a little more pressure to get things worked out.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

So now that the games to November 30 have been cancelled, those of us on the payment plan are paid in full for the 30 games that are remaining. Apparently you can email (probably reply to the email notice send out yesterday will work) and ask the Flames not to take further payments until the season has been determined. If you do, and there are games added (such that it will be more than 30 home games) payment for those extra games will be required immediately.

Even if the season were to be salvaged, the chances of a full 82-game schedule are next to nil, so the one-shot payment won't be the sum of the four remaining payments. I'll take that chance, and I'd encourage everyone else to do it too. Just maybe, hopefully, the dried up cash flow will add a little more pressure to get things worked out.

I'm going to do the opposite. In fact, I'd offer to float them a little extra cash if it will allow them to hold out longer and end up with a better deal or break the union (which I know won't happen).

[mikephoen]

I wonder if it's worth it to call my ticket rep and see if anyone dropped their tickets over this and it is possible to relocate to better seats...

[renny]

I know I dropped my tickets. I've moved on, the thousands I spend a year is better spent elsewhere.