Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 02-01-2018, 12:47 PM   #281
Cowboy89
Franchise Player
 
Cowboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toledo OH
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard View Post
He doesn't really do that though. I've yet to hear him claim he's a victim; He spends very little of his overall time talking about how people treat him, and when he does, he usually says that he receives basically no hate mail. He talks about how people attack him at times, but presents it more as though the people accusing him of positions he doesn't hold are victims of identity politics instead of how he is a victim of their misrepresentation. I think he considers himself a benefactor of it (See his quip about monetizing social justice). He's good enough in interviews to avoid being victimized by tactics like the ones used on Channel 4 and has a large enough base of supporters to severely limit the effects of the various hit pieces about him.

Rather, he tends to go on about how you have to be strong and tell the truth, something that definitely plays well with his fans.
Agreed. He's the antithesis of identity based victim-hood politics. Makes very little sense for him to trade in the currency of a worldview that he so strongly opposes.
Cowboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:48 PM   #282
sworkhard
First Line Centre
 
sworkhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Fair enough. I don't mind walking that back a bit. Would it be more fair to suggest that he posts something incendiary like to generate a reaction from the left because it's generally been good business for him?
That's possible, but I don't really see him as a provocateur along the lines of Milo. If he did post this tweet for that reason he seriously misjudged the reaction as many people who generally think quite highly of him responded that what he said was basically BS.

I think it's more likely this is just one more case of him mapping too much meaning onto an ancient or popular tradition or story, something he does routinely. When he starts going on about the meaning he finds in different tales, he starts to remind me of Deepak Chopra. Sam Harris called him on this tendency, and he basically said the difference between what he says and what the New Age movement produces is that he's more careful. He probably is, but that's not exactly difficult and doesn't make doing so any more reasonable.

Last edited by sworkhard; 02-01-2018 at 12:51 PM.
sworkhard is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sworkhard For This Useful Post:
Old 02-01-2018, 12:49 PM   #283
woob
#1 Goaltender
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
But anyway, I'm not particularly surprised by this answer, because you already think he's basically evil. You're happy with an interpretation that confirms that view, despite others being available. People don't realize how strong confirmation bias is - you can't set it aside even if you're actively trying to, and you don't seem to be trying, likely for the same reason.
What's the usefulness of this part of your post? Rube has already stated that a) he's read and watched a bunch of Peterson's stuff, and b) he's open to having his opinion changed, but so far that hasn't happened with what he's read and what people have provided.

Why do you, in many of you dealings on this board, feel the need to interject passive aggressive little bits like this? It's tiring to read, unnecessary, and adds nothing to the debates.
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Old 02-01-2018, 12:57 PM   #284
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob View Post
What's the usefulness of this part of your post? Rube has already stated that a) he's read and watched a bunch of Peterson's stuff, and b) he's open to having his opinion changed, but so far that hasn't happened with what he's read and what people have provided.
Not to dwell on it, but I was observing something about confirmation bias that appeared evident in his post - there was an opportunity to take a statement in multiple ways, but he immediately seized on the one that was uncharitable while others said they didn't read the tweet as necessarily saying what he claimed it said. He declined to interpret it any other way, despite himself acknowledging that the interpretation meant that Peterson was taking a position that was very obviously stupid, callous and absurd. The only way you'd be disposed do that is if you already thought he was stupid, callous or both.

It wasn't particularly inflammatory and we've been carrying on a pretty civil discussion despite having some obvious differences on a morally charged subject like "what counts as being honest when engaging with someone's views in an opinion piece", and I don't have any ill will towards Rube.
Quote:
Why do you, in many of you dealings on this board, feel the need to interject passive aggressive little bits like this? It's tiring to read, unnecessary, and adds nothing to the debates.
I think there are many posters who are far more snarky with this sort of thing than I am (including Rube, at times) - and as I say, it was relevant to the discussion. I think you're attuned to me doing it because you happen to side ideologically with Rubecube. So I guess if I've got a speck of sawdust in my eye, well...

That being said, usually when people make a post like yours, a moderator comes in and says "discuss the topic, not the posting style", so why don't we just leave it at that.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 01:09 PM   #285
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard View Post
Either way, it seems that this tweet is referring to something obviously false; the idea that sex was traditionally confined to marriage to preserve one's reputation and/or reduce the risk of sexual assault. These are both obviously not the case as marriage throughout almost all of history was about successfully raising children.
The two are connected. Marriage was typically arranged by families as a kind of economic union, as inherited property was the foundation of your security and prosperity. Everyone wanted to make sure they were getting an even deal, and that they knew the providence of their children and grandchildren. This is easiest in a society where sex is confined to marriage.

Human nature being what it is, the more unmarried men and women have social contact with one another, the greater the opportunity for socially unsanctioned sex - both sex outside marriage and rape. In most traditional societies, young men and young women aren't allowed to mix without chaperones or other monitoring. This is to protect families from unwanted unions, girls from rape and unwanted pregnancies, and men from raising children who aren't their own.

It's a fallacy that rape wasn't a crime until recently. It's a crime in every society we know of. It just wasn't a crime applied universally the way we apply it today. It wasn't applied to unwanted sex in marriage, and it didn't afford protection to women who were outside the normal social structures - slaves, prostitutes, impoverished widows. But it's not as though people would just shrug it off if a guy raped his neighbour's wife or daughter. Our ancestors weren't monsters.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.

Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-01-2018 at 01:14 PM.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 01:09 PM   #286
woob
#1 Goaltender
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
But anyway, I'm not particularly surprised by this answer
Indeed.
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 01:14 PM   #287
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
But it's not as people would just shrug it off if a guy raped his neighbour's wife or daughter. Our ancestors weren't monsters.
Welllllll...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClifffFletcher
It wasn't applied to unwanted sex in marriage, and it didn't afford protection to women who were outside the normal social structures - slaves, prostitutes, impoverished widows.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 01:21 PM   #288
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard View Post
I think it's more likely this is just one more case of him mapping too much meaning onto an ancient or popular tradition or story, something he does routinely. When he starts going on about the meaning he finds in different tales, he starts to remind me of Deepak Chopra. Sam Harris called him on this tendency, and he basically said the difference between what he says and what the New Age movement produces is that he's more careful.
Archetypes aren't confined to New Age thinking. People like Joseph Campbell were pretty well regarded thinkers. I think there's value in recognizing unconscious universals in human myths and stories, and ardent atheists like Harris go too far when they reject that thinking out of hand as so much mystical nonsense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 01:46 PM   #289
sworkhard
First Line Centre
 
sworkhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Archetypes aren't confined to New Age thinking. People like Joseph Campbell were pretty well regarded thinkers. I think there's value in recognizing unconscious universals in human myths and stories, and ardent atheists like Harris go too far when they reject that thinking out of hand as so much mystical nonsense.
Undoubtedly Archetypes are useful, and I don't think Harris would deny this. However, I think you can agree that it's very easy to abuse the concept and use them inappropriately.

Just cause you can archetype something doesn't mean you should. The primary benefit of archetypes for Peterson is that it makes him a significantly better storyteller as he is able to use them to help people identify with the points he's trying to make.

They can easily become harmful by enabling forms of doxastic closure that otherwise wouldn't be possible when you try to say they are true. If you've ever had a discussion with a Muslim presuppositionalist about the scientific truth of Islam you'll see how effective archetyping is at insulating an the holder of an idea from dealing with rational criticism (It's not limited to this particular case either, it's just the one I've experienced). Archetypes may help us understand things about the world and ourselves that are true, but that doesn't make them true. I find Peterson's form of epistemological pragmatism unsatisfying and unnecessary to appreciate the benefits and harms of archetypes.

Edit:
The big challenge with archetypes is that they are very easy to assert and very hard to debunk even if the archetype proposed is very inaccurate; it is from this that the harms arise. I should also say that the Muslim presuppositionalist in my example didn't recognize that he was using archetypes as he wouldn't have known what they were, but in practice he was very much using them to try make his case.

When used as a method of organizing literature in was that make it easier to engage with listeners, I find archetypes extremely useful, but when I find them dangerous when taken beyond that

Last edited by sworkhard; 02-01-2018 at 02:07 PM.
sworkhard is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sworkhard For This Useful Post:
Old 02-01-2018, 02:23 PM   #290
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Not to dwell on it, but I was observing something about confirmation bias that appeared evident in his post - there was an opportunity to take a statement in multiple ways, but he immediately seized on the one that was uncharitable while others said they didn't read the tweet as necessarily saying what he claimed it said. He declined to interpret it any other way, despite himself acknowledging that the interpretation meant that Peterson was taking a position that was very obviously stupid, callous and absurd. The only way you'd be disposed do that is if you already thought he was stupid, callous or both.
Again, I'm going to take someone's words at face value unless they volunteer a different interpretation or are quite clearly speaking metaphors. It's not up to the reader to choose the writer's words for him. I asked for people to provide me with examples where Peterson elaborated and no one did.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Old 02-01-2018, 02:35 PM   #291
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Again, I'm going to take someone's words at face value unless they volunteer a different interpretation or are quite clearly speaking metaphors. It's not up to the reader to choose the writer's words for him. I asked for people to provide me with examples where Peterson elaborated and no one did.
Sure, I understood you, I just think you have a predisposition to one interpretation, which you refer to as "face value". Because of your prior view of the guy, that interpretation is the worst one available. As you've seen, some other people read it differently. Your request that someone conclusively demonstrate the wrongness of your interpretation is reminiscent of David Pizarro's explanation of motivated reasoning:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizarro
On the other hand, when we are exposed to information that contradicts a cherished belief, we tend to pay more attention, scrutinize the source of information, and process the information carefully and deeply. Unsurprisingly, this allows us to find flaws in the information, dismiss it, and maintain our (potentially erroneous) beliefs. The psychologist Tom Gilovich captures this process elegantly, describing our minds as being guided by two different questions, depending on whether the information is consistent or inconsistent with our beliefs: “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?” 
Anyway, that universal human tendency is what I meant. I didn't mean to dwell on it or keep talking about it, and I don't think it's very important to the discussion as a whole. I'm perfectly happy to let it go.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 02-02-2018, 01:37 PM   #292
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
But it's not as though people would just shrug it off if a guy raped his neighbour's wife or daughter. Our ancestors weren't monsters.
I'd say the outrage was more due to rape being seen as a violation of property rights, rather than selective concern for certain women. Wives and daughters belonged to a man, so other men weren't allowed to touch, but any woman who belonged only to herself was always in danger of being claimed, whether she willed it or not.

Our ancestors may not have been monsters, but they were in many ways monstrous. Wondrous, too, considering the milieu of poverty, ignorance, and death they lived in, but we should expect much more of ourselves than what would come of harking back to social structures based on a fundamental inequality of men and women.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 03:08 PM   #293
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
I'd say the outrage was more due to rape being seen as a violation of property rights, rather than selective concern for certain women. Wives and daughters belonged to a man, so other men weren't allowed to touch, but any woman who belonged only to herself was always in danger of being claimed, whether she willed it or not.
That's simplistic, doctrinaire feminism talking. You honestly don't think men felt affection for their sisters, their daughters, and their neighbours? Women weren't simply chattel. They had rights and a role to play in every society. People loved one another, and had strong bonds with their community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
Our ancestors may not have been monsters, but they were in many ways monstrous. Wondrous, too, considering the milieu of poverty, ignorance, and death they lived in, but we should expect much more of ourselves than what would come of harking back to social structures based on a fundamental inequality of men and women.
Of course we should expect more. The past was unjust in many ways. Everything you say about women also applied to men who had no property (which was the vast majority of them). Those higher up the ladder provided protection in exchange for their grinding toil.

But that does not mean the world from 4,000 B.C. to 1960 was one undifferentiated nightmare. Or that social structures that could be oppressive didn't also provide security, mutual obligations, and meaning to people's lives. There's a reason why there's nothing settled peoples dread so much as social breakdown. Get rid of those structures and then the wolves really are at the door.

It might boggle our mind that people who didn't believe a man could rape his spouse* would genuinely care about rape in other contexts. I have no doubt that in a century it will boggle the minds of our descendents that we get outraged over stories about mistreated pets while filling our bellies with the meat of animals that spent their entire lives in misery before being industrially slaughtered and packaged. People are complicated.

* Even that's a simplification, as in most societies a woman from a high-status family could divorce if she was mistreated. Historically, the greatest disparity in how people are treated and what rights they have aren't along gender lines, but along class and status lines.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.

Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-02-2018 at 03:25 PM.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 02-02-2018, 03:14 PM   #294
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

I was going to say; the ingrained instinct to feel greater affection for, and a need to protect, family members including children and mates is rooted in evolutionary biology, and therefore far predates any formal concept of property rights.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 07:04 PM   #295
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
I'd say the outrage was more due to rape being seen as a violation of property rights
Emphasis added, as it's clearly needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Lots of stuff tangentially and tenuously relevant to my point.
For a man who decries identity politics, you've certainly identified a host of positions I didn't imply and don't hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
I was going to say; the ingrained instinct to feel greater affection for, and a need to protect, family members including children and mates is rooted in evolutionary biology, and therefore far predates any formal concept of property rights.
That could be true as well. There's no kind of one-to-one motive to behaviour mapping, nor did I claim there was. The idea of people as property had legal force less than 200 years ago in many countries, though, and marriage in that time (and past it) bound women to servitude/slavery as owned things. This is no feminist conspiracy, but historical fact. UTism (us vs them), familial affection, and jealousy of ownership are sufficient - and not particularly moral - reasons that explain the discrepancy in the treatment of in-group and out-group women by the ordinary, amoral man.

If Peterson was arguing that an ameliorative strategy that would minimize the rape of unattached women is to get those uppity bitches attached, which is how it seems, then he is dangerously misguided. Marriage cannot be what it was, because we are not what we were. He'd best come up with better ideas than that, or he'll end up looking like the Pope does whenever that old fraud speaks out against contraception - a fool.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Old 02-03-2018, 07:40 AM   #296
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
The idea of people as property had legal force less than 200 years ago in many countries, though, and marriage in that time (and past it) bound women to servitude/slavery as owned things. This is no feminist conspiracy, but historical fact.
Some women were treated as property, some weren't. The great majority of men were effectively indentured servants to the powerful as well. Low-status men could be beaten or killed at the whim of powerful women.

But that's a more nuanced narrative than feminist ideologues want to acknowledged. Far easier to present a simple and emotionally-satisfying narrative that all women were oppressed by all men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
UTism (us vs them), familial affection, and jealousy of ownership are sufficient - and not particularly moral - reasons that explain the discrepancy in the treatment of in-group and out-group women by the ordinary, amoral man.
In-group out-group behaviour is hardwired into all humans, men and women. Look at what would happen to a captured enemy handed into the tender mercies of the women of a community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
If Peterson was arguing that an ameliorative strategy that would minimize the rape of unattached women is to get those uppity bitches attached, which is how it seems, then he is dangerously misguided.
Now who's identifying a position someone doesn't hold? Security and freedom are a trade-off. Give people more freedom to do as they like, and they will expose themselves to more risks, more unforeseen and unwanted experiences. In a liberal society, we accept that price because we value the autonomy it affords us as individuals, and the dynamism it gives us collectively. There's less street crime in places where there's a curfew. Less drunken violence in places where alcohol is prohibited. Less campus rape in cultures where men and women go to different schools.

The more social contact you have between unattached men and women, the more opportunity there is for predatory behavior, unwanted pregnancy, or even awkward and embarrassing encounters. Not long ago, single men and single women could not live in the same apartment buildings (not just suites, but buildings). Parents of young women living on their own felt more comfortable that way, and I doubt it was because they regarded their daughters as property (unless you think your grandparents didn't really love your mom).

But the daughters said no, we're going to be liberal and live in the same apartments as men, and go to co-ed dorms. The young women knew this would make them more vulnerable to predatory behavior, unwanted pregnancy, and awkward and embarrassing encounters. But they were willing to take those risks to be more free. That's one of the big divides between older and younger feminists today - the older ones threw off the stifling protectiveness of their youth knowing that with more freedom comes more danger. That doesn't mean you have accept that greater danger. But any adult recognizes that liberal freedom is inherently less safe than conservative conformity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 05:00 PM   #297
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Now who's identifying a position someone doesn't hold?
In the one case we have commentary on a public message whose ambiguous content could be taken in several ways, none of which I can directly ask the author about. That's why I use words like "if" and "seems to be the case." when I discuss my opinion of what I perceive to be his meaning; you'll further note I make a direct counter-statement which bears upon the content I perceive, and not any motivations or ideological framework beyond that.

In your post, you impute several paragraphs of beliefs to me that you could actually just directly ask if I hold or not. Instead you go off on a rant about liberal values vs "feminist" dogma. Do you see the difference? I can assert that most women were treated as a kind of property without believing the patriarchy is alive, well, and must be overthrown by any means necessary. That is nuanced belief rather than groupthink, which I would hope - as someone who purports to be against identity politics - you would appreciate.

You are an articulate and thoughtful poster, and you're not necessarily aware of the habit of assuming everyone who disagrees with you must be an illiberal of some type, but - you do. It detracts from your message, as every debate is transformed into another opportunity in The Struggle against Evil and Ignorance. Indeed, that is one of the qualities I find suspect about the cheerleaders for any philosophy, from Marxism to feminism to libertarianism: not everything fits on the back of one's favorite hobby-horse.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Old 02-28-2018, 09:05 AM   #298
CaramonLS
Retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
The conservative comment aside, I'm not sure why you have an issue with that article. The author directly addresses Peterson's own words and he isn't taking them out of context.

New Yorker piece on Jordan Peterson and 12 Rules for Life


Rube, just so you can understand the difference between the hit piece that Cliff posted and the link I posted above. Here is a good, balanced article from a left leaning news source which talks about Peterson in general and his new book.

It's generally a pretty thoughtful and fair analysis that isn't completely lazy.
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 09:21 AM   #299
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

I'm a just leave this here.

https://twitter.com/user/status/810165492522455040

__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2018, 09:53 AM   #300
Ashasx
Franchise Player
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
I mean, virtually anything Peterson has written on this subject is not congruous with this tweet. He has a lot of tweets that can really be seen as him thinking out loud.

Not that that's a good idea, but the tweet also came a little before he had as much media attention as he does now.
Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:03 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021