The Goat Pen

Random fuckery.

Word to the masses, trying to scare people to Jesus is the most ineffective mode of recruitment...

Bklyn wrote:Word to the masses, trying to scare people to Jesus is the most ineffective mode of recruitment...

Amen. Er...I mean...you go!

Crazy

http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-19/n ... hn-bolaris

(this almost happened to me in London back in '99/'00, but my hood RADAR was still strong then, even though my visage may have made some people think that shit was sweet)

Damn and double damn

Wow. Glad homie stuck to his guns.

Middle age man with ends getting the bum rush from two early twenties chicks in a bar is usually a recipe for shenanigans. Good for him that he didn't take AMEX's shit and fought it.

Because we don't have subfolders on here like we did on WC, I'm making this The Clinic too...

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/05/0082932

Thank heavens. If I have to listen to any more talk about Friday's fake game, I'll puke on your shoes.

Yes, I mean you.

I'm so glad the NHL always has fighting, controversy & concussions

who bit who? did that a deserve a suspension?

That's about all I can keep up with and it keeps me in the loop at the water cooler.

If they ever banned fighting & hits to the head I would take a professional hit.

I'd be exposed if I ever had to talk true hockey strategy.

I think they only have two strategies. Out skate your opponent if you can, if not beat the hell out of them.

I live in Toronto redbird

that shyt wont skate, no pun intended

(actually, yes it was)

Long before game time on Wednesday, long before the idiots began hurling bottles and rocks and a full-blown riot ensued, there were subtle signs of the impending mayhem.

The first signal, an offence so minor that it has become a synonym for all petty offences: spitting.

I spent most of the final series between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins on the plaza at the CBC, which jointly, with the City of Vancouver, created the official fan zone. The zone expanded and contracted in size, depending on how many people happened to show up.

The raised grassy area near the coffee kiosk became a refuge for families with children who wanted to avoid the more boisterous crowds on Georgia Street.

On Wednesday, though, as Canucks fans gathered early to watch Game 7 on the big screens, the families found themselves competing for space with mostly young men, many of them with overactive saliva glands. Gobs of spit dotted the paving stones and slabs of slate.

The second sign was another minor offence: littering.

By 4 p.m., still more than an hour before game time, the ground was littered with fast-food containers, drink cups, liquor bottles, empty beer cans and other debris.

This hadn’t happened during the previous six games, and while certainly not a reason to call out the riot squad, it was an indication that this was clearly a different crowd.

If you’re a subscriber to the broken-window theory, this was that theory in action, only it was playing out over a number of hours rather than days or weeks. The spit begat more spit. The litter granted permission to litter.

Unlike the previous gatherings, these people appeared to care little about their surroundings.

The spit and litter were followed by a minor skirmish at one of the entry points when a group hoping to get in at game time was told the area was full. Some of the young men pushed the fence while others attempted to climb over it. When more people arrived, the solution was to remove the fence and let them in.

Then came the vomit – on the street, on the sidewalk, and in the foyer of the CBC building. A semi-conscious young woman propped up against the library wall was covered in it. She was eventually taken away in an ambulance.

Meantime, in the grassy area that had been the domain of families, groups of shirtless young men smoked pot, and cigarette smokers disregarded the unspoken courtesy of moving to the edge of the crowd to smoke.

By the end of the second period, with the Canucks now down 3-0, the families and some of the more decent-looking young people began to file out.

By the middle of the third period, people began to climb onto things: the post office awnings, the shelter covering the walkway on the plaza of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. They raised their arms in triumph and looked down to the crowd for approval.

This, it turns out, is classic postgame, pre-riot behaviour, according to Jerry Lewis, a professor emeritus of sociology at Kent State University in Ohio.

Prof. Lewis has spent decades studying the behaviour of crowds following major sporting events. He has observed soccer hooligans and postgame basketball riots – all from a safe distance.

His criteria for a riot: championship play, deep in a series, with at least five years since the team has won a championship. He says what’s also needed is a cadre of young, white males in an urban environment. Check on all counts.

Why do they climb things? “To draw attention to themselves and to accomplish what their team was not able to.” He says flagpoles and lampposts are particularly popular.

Prof. Lewis says whether the Canucks had won or lost, there would have been a riot. “Riots can be either celebratory or punishing. In this case there were no fans from Boston to punish, so they punished the environment.”

Then there’s the drinking. Alcohol, he says, is complicated. “If you’re falling down drunk, you’re not likely to riot, but a few beers give you permission to do what you wanted to do anyway,” says Prof. Lewis, who has studied these behaviours for 35 years.

Looking at my not-quite-as-academic indicators such as litter and spit and vomit, I arrived at the same conclusion long before the game began.

Stephen Quinn is the host of On the Coast on CBC Radio One in Vancouver, 690 AM and 88.1 FM.

It was a top shelf, triple A rated riot. I'm oddly proud of the Canadians. I didn't think they had it in them.

Bklyn wrote:It was a top shelf, triple A rated riot. I'm oddly proud of the Canadians. I didn't think they had it in them.

heh, vancouver's rep before this was much different

the city is a bit of a "HAMSTERDAM", in the sense you can easily smoke weed and not really get harassed, everyone knows british columbians indulge... but more in a "hippie, peace pipe, pass that bong and let's max out & chill" type of way

the morning aftergame 7 the people in our office all heard that some shyt went down, but thought nothing of it, then we saw the pics and were like: WTF Vancouver? Where did THAT come from?

as far as hockey goes, their fans are considered WAY less rabid than the fans in quebec, montreal & toronto. I dont think anyone saw this coming.

it takes a lot to get a bunch of pot smokers off the sofa but once they get up watch out.

When did Canada discover fire?

If McIlroy doesnt win this.. he replaces Bron as the biggest choker of 2011

Yeah, like my wife is buying into this shit...

But, she says, we are to some extent trapped in our culture. It is one thing for the Inuit men to have “temporary wives,” whom they take along on trips when they leave their other wives at home, and for pregnant Bari women, in Venezuela, to have sex with multiple men, all of whom are considered responsible for the eventual child. Their societies have very different ideas about marriage. “I think you can combine a high tolerance of flings with a de-emphasis on jealousy in long-term relationships,” Coontz said, “but usually that is only in societies where friendships and kin relationships are as emotionally salient as romantic partnerships.”

In the 18th century, according to Coontz, American men could mention their mistresses in letters to their wives’ brothers; they could mention contracting syphilis from a prostitute. Men understood the masculine prerogative, and they countenanced it, even at the expense of their own sisters. “That would be unthinkable today,” Coontz said. “For thousands of years it was expected of men they would have affairs and flings, but not on the terms of honesty and equality Dan envisions. I can certainly see the appeal of suggesting we try and make this an open, mutual, gender-equal arrangement. I’m a little dubious how much that is going to work.”

It was not until the 20th century that Americans evolved an understanding of marriage in which partners must meet all of each other’s needs: sexual, emotional, material. When we rely on our partners for everything, any hint of betrayal is terrifying. “That is the bind we are in,” Coontz said. “We accord so much priority to the couple relationship. It is tough under those conditions for most people to live with the insecurity of giving their partners permission to have flings.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magaz ... wanted=all