So what did European hockey fans think of the smaller ice?

I'm sure most of you watch the NHL as well since you are on HFboards but what did you think overall of the WCs and playing it on the small ice? Does it change the international game at all?

Do you prefer the regular big ice of Europe or the North American rinks for these championships? What did you think of the WCs in general?

Horrible. A lot of fight along the boards but not a single long combination.
Scrum - perimeter shot - scrum - pp - goal after weird bounce... This surface degrade game to the compition between stars and size. Keep in mind the ice was horrible and as Fedorov said these rinks even smaller than in NHL.

Honestly the small ice ruins the game. It gives less skilled minor nation teams who do nothing but trap and counter attack an advantage. The big ice high lights skill and speed and this does completely the opposite.

But overall the WC was a very good one. Lots of fans and despite it being in Canada, it had a very good international atmosphere.

I think its a lot better... The pace of the game is a lot faster on NA rinks.. And a lot more battles for the puck.. definitely better then european rinks..

Honestly the small ice ruins the game. It gives less skilled minor nation teams who do nothing but trap and counter attack an advantage. The big ice high lights skill and speed and this does completely the opposite.

But overall the WC was a very good one. Lots of fans and despite it being in Canada, it had a very good international atmosphere.

Disagree. For a individually skilled players like Semin, especially shooters this surface basically mega, supa advantage. Skate through neutral zone... bump, you already have a good chance to score. Passing? Do not even think twice just shoot this damn puck and hope it bounce from Ovechkin ass into the net. Honestly our hockey on last WC >>> this year.

There may be more advantages for some teams, but when it comes to Canada-Russia it doesn't really matter. They'll provide a show no matter on what size the rink. The better athletes adapt easily between the big and small ice.

Good and bad aspects to it obviously. Too much digging in the corners, but a more intense game on the other hand....

I think they are too narrow. KHL already claimed they will make their rinks smaller but not for 4 meters (NHL type) but for 2 meters (Finnish type). I think this will be ok.
What I really didn't like is when the game was going 5 on 5 and the defenceman got the puck on the blueline he would likely make a stupid dump somewhere close to the net while on the bigger rinks he would pass it to the opened partner.

KHL already claimed they will make their rinks smaller but not for 4 meters (NHL type) but for 2 meters (Finnish type)

Ah? Source?

I like hockey on any surface. Even grass.

i was an advocate for the larger ice surface, but no longer. When teams play defensively, the size of the ice is irrelevant. Its not soccer, contact and battles are a great part of the game. Cutsy passes and nifty moves are great when they are rare; when you see them every shift they become reduntant.

What I really didn't like is when the game was going 5 on 5 and the defenceman got the puck on the blueline he would likely make a stupid dump somewhere close to the net while on the bigger rinks he would pass it to the opened partner.

I think that might be more because of coach's orders/playbook than availability of team mate.

I'd like to see the game played in a 2 meters wider rink but with NHL lines. Just out of curiosity. Though I do think that the larger offensive zone has caused the teams play very passively in front of their own net, like basketball type zonedefense.

I think I like the NHL surface more. Those puck battles in the corners I really miss during most international events. That being said, I wouldn't mind an increase of about a metre or so in the NHL width.

What are the dimensions for international and NHL?
is it possible to go in between NHL and international dimensions? haha

i was an advocate for the larger ice surface, but no longer.
Same here.

I don't regularly follow/watch NHL so during the first matches of the tournament it was kind of agonizing to watch... after the couple of matches it felt just fine and when I happaned to watch some clips from youtube with IIHF rink - now that looked weird. :) I think the ideal size is between NHL and IIHF.

I have probably a hole in history but at which point (years?) NHL's and IIHF's minds got separated about the size of the rink? When I watch e.g. early '90s NHL clips from youtube, the rink definitely looks bigger... is it just my eyes?

What sized rink Salt Lake tournament had?

-

Same here.

I don't regularly follow/watch NHL so during the first matches of the tournament it was kind of agonizing to watch... after the couple of matches it felt just fine and when I happaned to watch some clips from youtube with IIHF rink - now that looked weird. :) I think the ideal size is between NHL and IIHF.

I have probably a hole in history but at which point (years?) NHL's and IIHF's minds got separated about the size of the rink? When I watch e.g. early '90s NHL clips from youtube, the rink definitely looks bigger... is it just my eyes?

What sized rink Salt Lake tournamnet had?

Salt Lake had IIHF dimensions. It's just your eyes for the NHL rinks. The dimensions were the same in the 90's and have been for quite some time.

Salt Lake had IIHF dimensions. It's just your eyes for the NHL rinks. The dimensions were the same in the 90's and have been for quite some time.

BTW, I was wondering why was that the choice and why Vancouver decided/was allowed to go with smaller ice?

Watching on larger ice is like watching a mighty ducks movie.

BTW, I was wondering why was that the choice and why Vancouver decided/was allowed to go with smaller ice?

I think it had to do with there being more seats if it is an NHL rink as well as the fact that it is actually used by the NHL and would have to be quickly converted back so the Canucks could use it.

What are the dimensions for international and NHL?
61×30 m and 61×26 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_rink)

I think it had to do with there being more seats if it is an NHL rink as well as the fact that it is actually used by the NHL and would have to be quickly converted back so the Canucks could use it.


I undestand of course the reason, I am surprised the IIHF allows play on small ice, and I am surprised the SLC did do that ....

I undestand of course the reason, I am surprised the IIHF allows play on small ice, and I am surprised the SLC did do that ....
How come surprised when they played on NHL rink for the past two weeks :)

How come surprised when they played on NHL rink for the past two weeks :)

And I have been surprised for the last several months since I learned ....

61×30 m and 61×26 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_rink)

ah thanks. so to end this argument of which ice to play on why not play on 61x28? haha like really..

ah thanks. so to end this argument of which ice to play on why not play on 61x28? haha like really..

I'd like to see 61x27 personally.

BTW, I was wondering why was that the choice and why Vancouver decided/was allowed to go with smaller ice?Simple - the Canucks previous owner got greedy.

When the city won the Olympic bit, the Organizing Comittee stated that the hockey games would be played in GM Place without actually having an agreement with the then-Canucks owners for using it. The owners, seeing that the OC had no other choice jacked up their rate for the rent to about 3 times what the OC was expecting to pay - hence they were no longer able to afford (with other rising costs factored in) the cost of converting the facility to use IIHF sized ice.

Probably something in-between the two is the best for hockey.

There's nothing better than watching two supremely skilled teams go at it on the big ice. However, the big ice can also lead to a trapping borefest between two unskilled teams.

Ah? Source?

http://www.sovsport.ru/gazeta/article-item/291281

I think international ice hockey should be played on the large ice surface.

Something inbetween would be the diplomatic answer, what i mean is that the int. dim should be downsized to 61x28, then it would be equal for euros as well as NA's.

Personally, I've always been partial to smaller rinks, and this championship just made my opinion stronger. I watch mainly NHL hockey anyway, and the game just looks a little odd (players look slower and clumsier) on the international sized rinks.
Most of the games I've seen on bigger sized rinks, I've attended (ecxept for the world champs), and when you've a couple of beers in your belly, and you're singing and shouting with the fans the size of the rink doesn't matter that much ;)

I'd like to see 61x27 personally.

Would even that be too hard to acoomplish by some arenas/teams? I think even one meter of extra width would help in the current NHL. It could force the defending team to come out of their shell a bit more.

I prefer smaller rinks, I love the speed in those games, SEL gets me frustrated when I watch it after I have seen an NHL-game. These games only solified my feelings about that. In a bigger rink you can't use the body when you defend as much because if you miss a hit you are far away from your own goal and very out of position.

I undestand of course the reason, I am surprised the IIHF allows play on small ice, and I am surprised the SLC did do that ....

The majority of the worlds hockey players and arenas are and have always been in North America. By holding all international competitions on the large ice surface, it served as a way to close the gap between Canada and the European teams. Obvioulsy the Europeans no longer need any extra help. At the very least international tournaments hosted in NA should now be held on the smaller surface.

Honestly the small ice ruins the game. It gives less skilled minor nation teams who do nothing but trap and counter attack an advantage. The big ice high lights skill and speed and this does completely the opposite.

I read several times "trap" and "trapping". What's the exact meaning of this term? :help:

edit: question is settled. I only knew the therm neutral zone trap, but I wasn't aware that the term is used for the passive, no risk game.

It dose without anydoubt benefits the Russians and Canadians the most. US was basically the same.

But the Russians are forced to play a more simple straight ahead game and there is less room to be tactical against them.

It looked better than i thought but not as good as small ice. big ice is like real hockey.

Simple - the Canucks previous owner got greedy.

When the city won the Olympic bit, the Organizing Comittee stated that the hockey games would be played in GM Place without actually having an agreement with the then-Canucks owners for using it. The owners, seeing that the OC had no other choice jacked up their rate for the rent to about 3 times what the OC was expecting to pay - hence they were no longer able to afford (with other rising costs factored in) the cost of converting the facility to use IIHF sized ice.

It came down to construction costs. It was estimated that it would cost about 10 million CAD to retro fit GM Place to go from an NHL sized rink of (200 feet by 85 feet) to (200 feet by 100 feet).

Vancouver and its surrounding communities have been experiencing a real estate boom since about 2002. Housing prices have skyrocketed by about 60% in 5 years. As a result, construction costs are gone way up. The 2010 Organizing Committee had to dig into their emergency fund to cover the rising costs of construction.

So, an extra $10 million in savings goes a long way. And that money can be used to maintain other Olympic ventures like the Oval over the next couple of decades.

I undestand of course the reason, I am surprised the IIHF allows play on small ice, and I am surprised the SLC did do that ....

I would not be suprised if we see a "common" ice size between the IIHF and the NHL in a few years or so.

The small rinks are way better IMO, the 200 by 85 foot NHL rink is just fine by me. The play on the small rinks is more physical and higher scoring, the big ice often has more of a skilled game but it's less scoring and traps and other defensive systems seem to be to work better which can often lead to boring games.

I love it. Higher tempo, more north/south play, less time in the corners, more one-on-one battles (both physical and technical), more general physical play and more scoring chances. Even a tight, tactical "trapping" game becomes better on small ice, imho.. I wish the SEL adopts the NHL sized rinks, but I'm not holding my breath..

Simple - the Canucks previous owner got greedy.

When the city won the Olympic bit, the Organizing Comittee stated that the hockey games would be played in GM Place without actually having an agreement with the then-Canucks owners for using it. The owners, seeing that the OC had no other choice jacked up their rate for the rent to about 3 times what the OC was expecting to pay - hence they were no longer able to afford (with other rising costs factored in) the cost of converting the facility to use IIHF sized ice.

Your example is only greed to the fool who was taken advantage of. It's simple economics working in favor of the Canucks owner. It is their property, and they are entitled to fair market value for the use of that property. If a changing marketplace creates greater demand for that property, then it is only fair that price increase to accommodate the increased demand.

Should they have taken an unnecessary financial hit to accommodate the OC and its poor planning? No more so than one would expect you to take 33% of your current salary in order to accommodate your bosses.

It's amazing how easy we dispense financial advice. I do wonder whether we'd heed our own if forced to act on it.

I would not be suprised if we see a "common" ice size between the IIHF and the NHL in a few years or so.

If hockey in North America and Internationally want to come together at some point (not as one league, but some sort of club level tournament or something like the Champions League in soccer) then they will have to have rinks being the same size. Soccer fields all over the world are the same size, basketball courts, the same. I don't see why hockey rinks in different countries are different sizes.

The majority of the worlds hockey players and arenas are and have always been in North America.

That's not a good enough argument for a change for me

I'd like something a little wider than the NHL sized rink, but not as wide as the international one.

If hockey in North America and Internationally want to come together at some point (not as one league, but some sort of club level tournament or something like the Champions League in soccer) then they will have to have rinks being the same size. Soccer fields all over the world are the same size, basketball courts, the same. I don't see why hockey rinks in different countries are different sizes.

Wrong in continental Europe, Spain and Italy peaches always way bigger than in UK... and for the same reason more space for skilled plays not for skilled players no but for skilled plays. Im sure Ovechkin like NHL rinks, he can shoot from everywhere and every his shot dangerous. But i want to see damn combinations! I want beautiful team ES movies. Too many crappy rebounds goals and "battles", not enough soviet hockey.

That's not a good enough argument for a change for me

I could make the argument that since we have used European sized ice almost exclusively for the last 60 years, that to be fair we should use NA sized ice exclusively for the next 60 years.

Using NA sized ice for tournaments hosted in NA is fair and makes sense economically.

There is a bit of a safety concern when guys like Morozov step onto a small rink with the likes of Doug Murray, but to me that's part of the game.

Using NA sized ice for tournaments hosted in NA is fair and makes sense economically.


Yes, of course. And let's stick with big ice when it's in Europe.


There is a bit of a safety concern when guys like Morozov step onto a small rink with the likes of Doug Murray, but to me that's part of the game.

Well, this has nothing to do with rink size.

Yes, of course. And let's stick with big ice when it's in Europe.

Agreed, that is the way it should be. If Europeans decide they prefer the smaller ice, then that is up to them. If they prefer Bandy rinks, then god help us that is up to them also.

Well, this has nothing to do with rink size.

I find it's easier to hit guys on the smaller rinks.

I would not be suprised if we see a "common" ice size between the IIHF and the NHL in a few years or so.

Perfect sized ice surface was the Memorial centre in Kingston, Ontario it was the middle ground you are talking about. Definitly the best of both worlds.

From wikipedia: The former home arena of the Frontenacs was the Kingston Memorial Centre, with a seating capacity 3,079 seated, and 3,300 including standing room. Built in 1950, its ice size has unique dimensions of 200' x 92'.

One aspect to take into consideration is how much bigger players are getting. With larger bodies on the ice there’s just far less space to work with (a big reason why games of the past seem much more wide open IMO).
Seriously, 15-20 years ago a guy like Kjell Samuelsson was considered an absolute giant. Today, however, it’s not uncommon to see a 6-6 235lb player.

If this trend continues, watching a game on NHL ice will be like watching the sport being played in a phone booth.

. Too many crappy rebounds goals and "battles", not enough soviet hockey.Thank god. 'Soviet hockey' as you describe it is more like soccer on ice.

Thank god. 'Soviet hockey' as you describe it is more like soccer on ice.

Yep. Hockey needs to find its own niche in the sporting world if it wants to prosper and the physical element is part of it. Unfortunately, the IIHF seems to hate North America, so I doubt anything will ever change.

Thank god. 'Soviet hockey' as you describe it is more like soccer on ice.

Well i mean you got Canadian hockey which is the same thing as WWE and soccer is the #1 sport in the world so Soviet Hockey > Canadian hockey.

But seriously, that's a very ignorant statement. If you can't appreciate this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8j9ag_FnSE

You don't care about hockey and are just a rabid western homer.

Yep. Hockey needs to find its own niche in the sporting world if it wants to prosper and the physical element is part of it. Unfortunately, the IIHF seems to hate North America, so I doubt anything will ever change.

Got any more cliches for us? Maybe something about giving 110%?

Well i mean you got Canadian hockey which is the same thing as WWE and soccer is the #1 sport in the world so Soviet Hockey > Canadian hockey.

But seriously, that's a very ignorant statement. If you can't appreciate this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8j9ag_FnSE

You don't care about hockey and are just a rabid western homer.
Wait, what's the latest NHL storyline? Who is Lidstrom now? Same character, or is he now playing the 'evil Swedish monster-villain coming along to steal the cup from the Canadian super-hero"?

WWE...seriously?

And, yeah, soccer is popular. The thing is, though, that hockey, and the NHL, has never been soccer. When they start putting hitting into soccer, they can take it from the NHL.


I can appreciate that clip, but I don't think the NHL needs to move any closer to soccer than they already have. If you don't think finesse players can excel in the NHL, you probably haven't been watching enough NHL hockey. Need I remind you that most of the stars for the team Russia that just won the worlds are also stars in the NHL. They make the same play here, make the same plays in Europe, and the only difference is that in the NHL, you need to really go out there and pay the price for success.

Seriously, if you can't appreciate this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eorWhtV9Aqk

then you don't care about hockey.

Oh, wait...I guess Ovie has no skill because he's not bogging pucks around to techno music (though the music in the video I posted certainly does suck). The point is, the NHL has as much finesse as your soviet guys because, damn, the Russians PLAY IN THE NHL.

Kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand but the NHL needs to allow teams to make the ice surface whatever size they want so long as it is somewhere in between NHL and IIHF standards (and proportional, nothing too square obviously). Basically I just want the IIHF to be more like FIFA. :laugh:

I dont watch hockey on the intl ice too often but I dont think it is intrinsically better hockey than that played on the NHL surface. It takes on a different nature; in some ways could be viewed negatively, and in some ways can be viewed positively.

Im mostly only watching Canada though so im not viewing from the perspective to which the thread usasking 'European' hockey fans what they though, this post is completely unnecessary.

:monkey:

Both rink sizes have ther good and bad points.

It might be just the lack of skill in this year's Team Finland, but it seemed to me that "lesser" nations (Norway as prime example) had easier time to slow the game down and block the center ice than years when the game was played on international ice.

If my observation is right and that is due the smaller ice size, I definetly hope that they continue to use larger ice size on international tournaments.

If you don't think finesse players can excel in the NHL, you probably haven't been watching enough NHL hockey.
Such names as Mozyakin, Sushinsky, Kaigorodov say something to you?

I think the finnish SM-liiga is played on 61x28m... Can anyone confirm this?

I like both sizes. The bigger ice though gives you much more room to dangle and speed is much more of an advantage than in the smaller rink. I also like that the defensemen have to play much smarter on the bigger rink and less board battles. Keeps the flow somehow for me. On the other hand the small rink is much more intense and strength and size play a much bigger role. It really depends on what you like mor eI guess. I always enjoy the NHLers on big ice though. It widens the gap between a starplayer and a regular player IMO. Stilll like to watch NHL though ;)

I think the finnish SM-liiga is played on 61x28m... Can anyone confirm this?

No. Good god, you're a Finn, you should know better. :shakehead Only a few teams have a smaller rink nowadays, most play on international size.

Well i mean you got Canadian hockey which is the same thing as WWE and soccer is the #1 sport in the world so Soviet Hockey > Canadian hockey.

But seriously, that's a very ignorant statement. If you can't appreciate this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8j9ag_FnSE

You don't care about hockey and are just a rabid western homer.

Hi Pot, my name is kettle. ;)

No. Good god, you're a Finn, you should know better. :shakehead Only a few teams have a smaller rink nowadays, most play on international size.

Do you think i go to games to measure the rinks? I didn't find any info on the size of ice surfaces. Care to educate me?

i like the nhl size cuz it creates more chances. somebody said it already if 2 good teams play against each other it dosnt matter, i just prefer the nhl size when it comes down to the crap teams who like to dump the puck + the national size is boring to watch, its sometimes like soccer

Such names as Mozyakin, Sushinsky, Kaigorodov say something to you?

I'll see them and raise you Jagr, Ovechkin and Kovalchuk.

I was amused by Ken Campbell's analysis of the series. I'm wondering if he's just filling the role most have attributed to The Hockey News over the past decade or so (bought and paid for NHL PR men), or if he honestly prefers NHL sized ice surfaces. I've long thought Campbell to be one of the magazine's better and more opinionated writers:

Russian hero Ilya Kovalchuk said it best when he summed up his team’s ability to come back from a two-goal deficit to win the gold medal game of the World Championship against Canada in overtime Sunday afternoon.

“When you’re playing on the big rinks and you’re trailing by two goals, it’s always tough to come back,” Kovalchuk said.

There is a certain contingent of hockey snobs that look down their noses at the NHL product, all the while claiming the international game to be far superior, in large part because the players have so much room to display their creativity.

They are wrong, so wrong.

What the gold medal final of the World Championship – one of the best hockey games witnessed by these eyes in years – proved beyond a doubt is that the game is played at its highest level when the best of the North American pro game and the European game are married to one other.

Of course, any game that boasts the kind of talent the gold medal game had is bound to be exciting, but it’s even more so when the game is played at a frenetic pace instead of the choreographed and predictable set plays we see so often at the NHL level. This certainly wasn’t Columbus in the middle of February.

And most of what made that possible was that the game was played on an NHL-sized ice surface of 200-by-85 feet, rather than the 200-by-100 expanse used in the international game. If anything, the World Championship this year proved the smaller ice surface is not to blame for dull hockey. In fact, if the International Ice Hockey Federation is serious about improving the quality of the global game, it will take its game to the smaller ice surface.

It would force hundreds of rinks around the world to retrofit - to be sure at something of a significant cost - but it’s certainly a lot easier to make a rink smaller than it is to take out seats and make it bigger.

The international ice surface seems more like an ocean than a hockey rink sometimes. Shots from the faceoff dot on the big ice usually require a boarding pass because the distance is so much further and they often land harmlessly in the goalie’s glove. Quick shots off the sticks of the best players from the same spot on the North American-sized ice are dangerous and often result in goals.

Beating a defenseman to the outside on the international ice is almost impossible because even the slowest-footed blueliner has all kinds of time and space to angle off his attacker. But on smaller ice, that same defenseman will simply run out of room and if the skater is quick enough and slippery enough to get by him, he’s bound to create an outstanding scoring chance for himself.

The bigger, wider ice provides a neutral zone that needs its own area code, which makes it easy for coaches to dumb the game down by getting an early lead, then simply dumping the puck into the opponents’ zone and lining five players up along the blueline. The Czechs were absolute masters of doing that during their days of world dominance in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There were times watching games involving the Czechs and Swedes at the World Junior Championship that I was yearning for a set of knitting needles to insert into my eye sockets rather than be subject to a second more of that kind of torture.

What you saw in Sunday’s gold medal game – at least until Canada imposed an NHL mentality on the proceedings and decided to sit back and defend rather than continue with their puck possession game – was an exhibition of hockey that was wonderful to behold. The small rink allowed the fastest players to dart around without wasting energy skating through useless ice. It permitted the big power players to assert themselves on the game because they commanded so much valuable ice and it allowed skill players to make plays that actually meant something because they were being made in areas of the ice where they would be rewarded with a scoring chance.

There are so many ways to change the game for the better, but making NHL rinks bigger to fit the dimensions of the international game is not one of them. And if there were ever any way the NHL could convince the rest of the world that downsizing would be a good thing, the game at all levels would be the better for it.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/16130-Campbells-Cuts-Game-better-off-on-NHLsized-ice.html

Well i mean you got Canadian hockey which is the same thing as WWE and soccer is the #1 sport in the world so Soviet Hockey > Canadian hockey.

But seriously, that's a very ignorant statement. If you can't appreciate this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8j9ag_FnSE

You don't care about hockey and are just a rabid western homer.

Was that spin move by Fetisov? The breakout play was a display of mastery.

I have the '72 Summit Series on DVD. Granted, the absence of WHA players (and Bobby Orr, due to knee surgery) handicapped Canada somewhat, but the play of Kharlamov and Tretiak was incredible. Bobby Clarke should have been thrown out of the tournament and given a lifetime ban from international hockey for what he did to Kharlamov. It was disgraceful.

If Kharlamov had remained healthy, Russia might have won that series. He was that damed good.

more action but primitive type of hockey - hit and run.
no beautyfull passes or great moves.

only fully loaded team with elite talent can sucess with nice hockey.
but it is more exception than habbit...

Well i mean you got Canadian hockey which is the same thing as WWE and soccer is the #1 sport in the world so Soviet Hockey > Canadian hockey.

But seriously, that's a very ignorant statement. If you can't appreciate this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8j9ag_FnSE

You don't care about hockey and are just a rabid western homer.

If Russia is so great, why do you live in NYC?

If Russia is so great, why do you live in NYC?

:sarcasm:

I dunno if I'd say the Soviet leagues were better than the NHL, but they certainly made some big contributions to the hockey world. The international tournaments of the '70s and '80s had a number of effects on the NHL, most notably they dragged coaching kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Guys like Punch Imlach, Harry Sinden, and Jack Adams essentially acted like glorified babysitters. They made pep talks, cursed out and threatened players who didn't perform up to expectations, and did bed checks at the hotel. With the exception of a few true early greats (Scotty Bowman, Toe Blake, Tommy Ivan, and Fred Shero), most NHL coaches didn't devote much time to strategy or minutia. Soviet hockey changed all of that.

They created teams that played hockey like Harlem Globetrotters did basketball, except they pulled off those moves against world class teams, and usually won. These guys spent their lives training together, all learning the strength, conditioning, agility, and puckhandling drills based on the classic Montreal Canadiens system, from the time they were in pee wee.

And while Avy may prefer classic Soviet hockey, that doesn't mean he would like to live in the Soviet Union of yore (run with an iron fisted totalitarian government), or the Russia of today (a lawless nation run by the mob and the oil barons).

By the same token, there are many things I love about Québec. Montréal has great Jewish delis, and Québec City is full of great architecture. Unibroue makes the best beer I've ever tasted. The jazz festival, drum festival, and numerous Quebec metal bands create some of my favorite music in the world. I have several good friends there, and in Québec, I have met some of the kindest, smartest, funniest, and most gorgeous women I've ever known.

But I know I couldn't survive there. I'm an Anglo from Detroit, and I know very little in the way of French. Québec has mandatory language laws, and a certain segment of the population views "outsiders" with deep suspicion. The province suffers rampant unemployment and crushing poverty, which will likely worsen if they ever succeed from Canada (which remains quite likely).

Now consider that I have similar feelings about Toronto and Boston, also cities that I love, and have multiple friends in. I currently live in Detroit. It's a former industrial city in sharp decline, a mere shell of its former glory. I would like to leave, but have to finish school first, as well as find a job that will sustain me. The better the neighborhood I wish to inhabit, the more expensive the rent will be. I have committed myself to a profession with scarce wages and little job security.

We are all forced to make difficult choices and harsh compromises. This is life. If peace and quiet were the natural way of the world, we'd still be living in caves and trying to avoid fire, instead of wondering how to cook with it and make torches.

And BTW, I really liked that backing music. I've seen bits of Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev before (a very long and dry movie), but didn't know if he featured Artimev's scores in that movie. I did some searching on Artimev, and it looked like Tarkovsky worked with him extensively. The particular piece from the hockey montage reminded me of The Kronos Quartet, set to space rock like Pink Floyd or maybe Camel.

I still need to see Solaris, which a number of friends highly recommend to me.

Do you think i go to games to measure the rinks? I didn't find any info on the size of ice surfaces. Care to educate me?

Pretty much every hockey publication in Finland listed has them before the start of a season. Plus it's been mentioned in numerous thread at jatkoaika.com.

If Russia is so great, why do you live in NYC?

Well first off, i am Russian but i am not from Russia. I am was born in Moldova and while it was a very nice place to live during the days of the USSR, now it is a worthless piece of **** of a country these days. Since the USSR doesn't exists any more, i have no country to go back to. Luckily i live in NYC where there are half a million immigrants from the USSR and where it feels a lot more like the USSR i came from then Russia during the mid 90s. If it wasn't for NYC, i would be gone from this ****ed up country in a heart beat.

Well first off, i am Russian but i am not from Russia. I am was born in Moldova and while it was a very nice place to live during the days of the USSR, now it is a worthless piece of **** of a country these days.

Nice, unless you were Jewish or a dissenter.

Since the USSR doesn't exists any more, i have no country to go back to.

No emigrant can ever REALLY go home. The Irish in America spent decades yearning to return. A few eventually did earn the money to go back. They found the country they left no longer existed.

Luckily i live in NYC where there are half a million immigrants from the USSR and where it feels a lot more like the USSR i came from then Russia during the mid 90s. If it wasn't for NYC, i would be gone from this ****ed up country in a heart beat.

New York City has people from all over the world. You can walk down a block and hear languages from every corner of the planet. It's the most polyglot city in this country, and unlike anywhere else. Of course, many Americans hate New York for this reason, but I ignore them for obvious reasons.

Depending upon your perspective, New York is either the most American of cities, or the least.

Nice, unless you were Jewish or a dissenter.

Well, there were so many Jewish and so few dissenters, that yes, I'll second that, that as a nice plays to live, albeight way tooooo provincial for my taste

Nice, unless you were Jewish or a dissenter.



No emigrant can ever REALLY go home. The Irish in America spent decades yearning to return. A few eventually did earn the money to go back. They found the country they left no longer existed.



New York City has people from all over the world. You can walk down a block and hear languages from every corner of the planet. It's the most polyglot city in this country, and unlike anywhere else. Of course, many Americans hate New York for this reason, but I ignore them for obvious reasons.

Depending upon your perspective, New York is either the most American of cities, or the least.

Actually i am half Jewish and my Jewish side of the family owes EVERYTHING to the USSR. The other part of our Jewish family that didn't live in the the USSR, the ones that lived in the so called free western world, were shot in the streets like dogs if they were lucky and sent to concentrations camps if they weren't. Kishinev, which is the capital of Moldova, was full of Jews and like Odessa, a very nice place for Jews to live in the USSR.

Please explain to me what a dissenter is, because as far as i know 99% of the population of the soviet union was critical of the USSR for one thing or another. The are other parts of soviet history besides the GULAG days.

As for NYC, you are right, it is the most American and yet the least American place in America.

that as a nice plays to live, albeight way tooooo provincial for my taste

That's what made it nice. Kishinev is beautiful and green, Moldova it self is a nice hilly, blooming country and the black sea is right there too. During the 80s it was more modern then places like Moscow because for the most part it had to be rebuilt during WW2, that and we were very close to the west and could get things people in the mainland couldn't. Benig provincial and racially mixed meant people in Moldova could get away with a lot of stuff people in Moscow or Leningrad couldn't

That's what made it nice. Kishinev is beautiful and green, Moldova it self is a nice hilly, blooming country and the black sea is right there too. During the 80s it was more modern then places like Moscow because for the most part it had to be rebuilt during WW2, that and we were very close to the west and could get things people in the mainland couldn't. Benig provincial and racially mixed meant people in Moldova could get away with a lot of stuff people in Moscow or Leningrad couldn't

I dunno, I fled the glorious city of Tiraspol for Moscow. Never complained. I think you exagerate about it being more modern in the 80-s. But I agree that the screws generally were more loose over there during the nostalgic Stagnation...

Actually i am half Jewish and my Jewish side of the family owes EVERYTHING to the USSR. The other part of our Jewish family that didn't live in the the USSR, the ones that lived in the so called free western world, were shot in the streets like dogs if they were lucky and sent to concentrations camps if they weren't.

The holocaust was possibly the worst act of genocide in human history, but Jews in Stalinist Russia fared little better. I realize Stalin was the nadir of Soviet history, but Jews remained second class citizens after his death.

And note that Jews enjoyed much better civil rights in Argentina, The United States, Canada, India, Great Britain, Burma, and Australia, for most of the 20th century.

Mr. Gorbachev has picked up and expanded Stalin's wartime flirtation with the traditionally anti-Semitic Russian Orthodox Church and in his appointments to the Politburo and Secretariat has shown a disturbing preference for Great Russians. To Mr. Gorbachev, as to the kingly Brezhnev and the last czars, Russia's Jews stand out as troublesome subversives, eager to depart the socialist motherland, and Mr. Gorbachev is no Lenin.

~The New York Times, 1990~
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DD143DF933A15751C0A9669582 60


The Russians have done all they could to discourage Jewish religious observance. Since 1956 the number of active synagogues has dropped from 450 to 97. There is only one kosher butcher shop and only one seminary for rabbis in all of Russia. Just before Passover last month, the Soviet government expressed its good will toward the Jews by allowing Moscow's chief rabbi to open a special matzo bakery. Two days later, it was closed down as a health hazard, and customs officials confiscated matzos shipped to Russia by American Jews.

Jewish Names. Sometimes persecution takes a more malevolent form. About half of all persons sentenced to death in recent years for such crimes against the state as black marketing and embezzlement have had Jewish names. In some parts of the Soviet Union, notably in Nikita Khrushchev's Ukraine, Jews constitute about 80% of the criminals sentenced to death.

Delegates to the Washington convention believe that the Soviet party bosses suspect Jews of having divided loyalties, and want to assimilate them forcibly into the mainstream of Russian life. At the end of their meeting, the Jewish leaders talked with President Johnson and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, urged them to use their "good offices" so the Soviet government would be aware of U.S. concern for Russian Jews.

~Time Magazine, 1964~
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,875826,00.html


Textbooks were rewritten either to remove the Jewish role in history, or to provide negative stereotypes of Jews. Government texts dealing with Germany and World War II mentioned neither the Jews nor the Holocaust. The Russian pogroms were reinterpreted as justified retribution for the capitalistic excesses of the Jews. The Soviet government attacked all forms of religion, but Judaism most of all.

~The Independent Institute~
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=359

Believe me, none of these sources were government sanctioned or run by aparatchiks of a particular political party or ideology.

Please explain to me what a dissenter is, because as far as i know 99% of the population of the soviet union was critical of the USSR for one thing or another. The are other parts of soviet history besides the GULAG days.

I am referring to the act performed by anyone who was a dissident.

Who was a dissident, beyond persons who chose to exercise religious freedom? Believe me, I'm no fan of religion (one of the biggest con games in history), but all freedoms are dependent upon the freedom of conscience. If you are not allowed to think for yourself, you cannot form your own beliefs, and cannot act upon them. Soviet government ordained that all life had to support the glory of "the state," and thus any individualism ran counter to the ideals of the revolution. Dissent was fatal. Imagine Dostoevsky trying to work in that environment. It would have been impossible. Most of Tarkovsky's films were heavily censored. Why did you think that was?

Dissidents were routinely rounded up and arrested. They might later be released, but their release had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The same was true of execution. Many persons innocent of dissent were also arrested, and the government knew they were innocent. You've heard the expression "show me a man and I'll show you his crime?" The idea was that you could arrest a random group of people, treat a few of them well and release them, torture a few more, and execute a few more. This was done at random. The government then told the friends and families of the prisoners that the treatment of prisoners depended upon the behavior of those persons who were still free. Within a very short period of time, persons living outside the prison became informants to the government. It never failed. The Soviet government picked this trick up from the Nazis.

And it didn't just happen to the average citizen.

One of the Soviet Union's most outspoken critics, nuclear physicist Dr Andrei Sakharov, has been ordered into internal exile.

Officials in Moscow were angered by an interview Dr Sakharov gave American television last week, in which he called for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

It was the final straw after the Nobel peace prize winner had escaped arrest during more than 13 years of dissident activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/22/newsid_2506000/2506763.stm

As for NYC, you are right, it is the most American and yet the least American place in America.

Self-contradiction is the central element of the American experience. I find it oddly appropriate that most Americans are unable to understand irony.

I dunno, I fled the glorious city of Tiraspol for Moscow. Never complained. I think you exagerate about it being more modern in the 80-s. But I agree that the screws generally were more loose over there during the nostalgic Stagnation...

Tiraspol and Kishinev is a big big difference friend. It's nice to see you enjoyed your time in moscow tho, i can't say the same.

As far as Kishinev was more modern in the 80s, its true, while it wasn't star wars, all the infrastructure was new because it got destroyed during ww2. In the 80s, most of the buildings were 20-30 years old and the city planners got to redesign a lot of the new city making it clean, green, modern and aesthetically pleasing.

The holocaust was possibly the worst act of genocide in human history, but Jews in Stalinist Russia fared little better.

You see, after you say something like that and then quote a bunch of **** from Americans and Brits who read some thing somewhere once, how can you expect me to have a discussion with you?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are you saying my family and I imagined our lives in the soviet union?

I am sooo tired of the western community and their revisionist history BS. You hear it these days all the time here in the west, "Stalin is worse then Hittler", "The soviets were worse then the Nazis!" The truth of the matter is while the united states was turning back boat loads of Jews fleeing the Nazis and while my family in non USSR Europe was being sent to death camps, Stalin the horrible and his horde of murdering evil russians evacuated us soviet Jews at the cost of many many Russian lives to be safe.

The Jews that were already living in Argentina, United States, and Canada before WW2 can take their civil rights and shove them up their ass. They have NOTHING to do with us. Yet a lot of the time they are the ones that are most vocal about the mistreatment of jews.


Your rant about freedom is the same kind of bs we heard from westerners during the Yeltsin years. Id rather live under the most restrictive form of communism then live through the freedom Yeltsin years again.

The whole idea of there being a "western community" participating in some form of groupthink is absurd. The United States and its "allies" were often politically and economically at odds with each other. The concept of the United Kingdom and United States being "western" and China and the USSR being "eastern" all comes down to the idea that there's some imaginary "center" of the earth, around which all things revolve.

The central theme of the Cold War was not ideology. Does anyone really think Nixon and Brezhnev sat around arguing about Karl Marx and Adam Smith? They discussed territories and weapons treaties. The US and USSR were imperialist powers, carving up the globe between each other. Anyone caught in the middle would be crushed, and so the first world nations all took "sides," while second and third world nations were exploited by proxy (often by the US and USSR simultaneously). This is how empires function.

Stalin was a liberator? Ask the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I doubt you'll get much of an answer, but I also doubt they found much freedom in death. The compassion and understanding of the Lenin years evaporated under his rule, like so many positive things that died with him. This is the downfall of a totalitarian state. Absolute power is easily corrupted.

The US turned back boatloads of Jews? You must be referring to the S.S. St.Louis. The US government refused to make an exception in immigration policy for the Jewish refugees, but President Roosevelt (who met often with Jewish leaders, and appointed Jewish justices to the Supreme Court) arranged for the ship's passengers to be taken in by other European countries and avoid being returned to Germany.

Russia in the 1990s? Yeltsin's government was horribly corrupt and co-opted by organized crime, but Putin's was worse. We're partly to blame for this. The United States purposely brokered the break-up of the Soviet Union so that most of the businesses and government posts would be controlled by former KGB officers and party members, who had experience organizing operations. It was a horrible mistake.

You hear it these days all the time here in the west, "Stalin is worse then Hittler", "The soviets were worse then the Nazis!"

I've heard these arguments as well, and recognized them as obvious *********. No rational person makes such claims, but some Americans continue blindly fighting the Cold War. These people are typically hardcore laisez faire capitalists, who see no difference between their religious affiliation and "patriotic duty." They buy into the propaganda of all American conflicts being arch struggles between good and evil.

It's a remnant of the sort of rabid nationalism American public schools have long pushed on children. This thinking is slowly changing. By the same token, many Americans used to believe that negative reports about the Soviet government were all US government propaganda. The view began to change when Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago. It was shattered when the Berlin Wall came down, and many atrocities became undeniable.

On topic. Twenty years ago I would've said smaller ice is better, but now I am for larger rinks. Reason being that the players have gotten bigger and faster, defences better and so on. Smaller ice leads to more physical games, which is a plus, but more room makes for more entertaining offencive games. The way I see it, bad games are worse in larger than smaller rinks, but the good ones even better.

Stalin was a liberator? Ask the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I doubt you'll get much of an answer, but I also doubt they found much freedom in death. The compassion and understanding of the Lenin years evaporated under his rule, like so many positive things that died with him. This is the downfall of a totalitarian state. Absolute power is easily corrupted.

The US turned back boatloads of Jews? You must be referring to the S.S. St.Louis. The US government refused to make an exception in immigration policy for the Jewish refugees, but President Roosevelt (who met often with Jewish leaders, and appointed Jewish justices to the Supreme Court) arranged for the ship's passengers to be taken in by other European countries and avoid being returned to Germany.

Russia in the 1990s? Yeltsin's government was horribly corrupt and co-opted by organized crime, but Putin's was worse. We're partly to blame for this. The United States purposely brokered the break-up of the Soviet Union so that most of the businesses and government posts would be controlled by former KGB officers and party members, who had experience organizing operations. It was a horrible mistake.



I've heard these arguments as well, and recognized them as obvious *********. No rational person makes such claims, but some Americans continue blindly fighting the Cold War. These people are typically hardcore laisez faire capitalists, who see no difference between their religious affiliation and "patriotic duty." They buy into the propaganda of all American conflicts being arch struggles between good and evil.

It's a remnant of the sort of rabid nationalism American public schools have long pushed on children. This thinking is slowly changing. By the same token, many Americans used to believe that negative reports about the Soviet government were all US government propaganda. The view began to change when Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago. It was shattered when the Berlin Wall came down, and many atrocities became undeniable.


Yes the SS St. Louis is an example of the true ambivalence the west really had for Jews. Many of the returned Jews died in the holocaust once the Nazis invaded those countries.

I think you really like to see your own words more then you like to discuss things, because instead of commenting on what i say, you just go on and on about the philosophy of empires and the cold war. This irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Then you go ahead an say something like "Yeltsin's government was horribly corrupt and co-opted by organized crime, but Putin's was worse" and expect any one to take you seriously. Please, oh wise westerner, tell us how you have come to this conclusion. Oh and thank you oh so much for pointing the superiority of the Yeltsin years over the Putin years. Obviously your scholarly knowledge and supreme intellect out weighs the collective experience of our people.

You are the A typical westerner. You think you know everything about a place because you read a book once and that the people who lived through it are just simplistic idiots who don't know any better. Stalin was an *******, any Russian will tell you that, but to judge everything the soviet union was, just based on him is like judging America solely based on the millions of Native Americans that were killed and displaced.

I type purely for the ego trip? I like to draw attention to myself? Pot, meet kettle.

My great aunt Zosia lived through the goulags. She witnessed Stalinist Russia first-hand. I'm glad none of your family suffered oppression behind the iron curtain. Mine was not so lucky. My friend Sasja grew up in Latvia during the 1970s and '80s. He often feared for his life. I went to high school with Fedor Fedorov. He had no desire to ever go back to Moscow or speak to Victor Tikhonov again, and neither did his brother.

But of course, I know nothing about Russia. :shakehead


Why do I bring up politics and philosophies? You call me a "westerner" and refer to my worldview as "typical." These views are based on nationalism, which sees all foreign cultures with suspicion, and takes on an expansionist mindset. The very idea that some nations are "eastern," and others "western," implies the perverse idea that the world has a center. Where is this center? It's wherever you live, of course.

http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_nationalpride_preview.jpg

I type purely for the ego trip? I like to draw attention to myself? Pot, meet kettle.

My great aunt Zosia lived through the goulags. She witnessed Stalinist Russia first-hand. I'm glad none of your family suffered oppression behind the iron curtain. Mine was not so lucky. My friend Sasja grew up in Latvia during the 1970s and '80s. He often feared for his life. I went to high school with Fedor Fedorov. He had no desire to ever go back to Moscow or speak to Victor Tikhonov again, and neither did his brother.

But of course, I know nothing about Russia. :shakehead


Why do I bring up politics and philosophies? You call me a "westerner" and refer to my worldview as "typical." These views are based on nationalism, which sees all foreign cultures with suspicion, and takes on an expansionist mindset. The very idea that some nations are "eastern," and others "western," implies the perverse idea that the world has a center. Where is this center? It's wherever you live, of course.




I was posting here about hockey until someone asked me why i live in NYC. I answered and you came here to discuss your opinions on the USSR, which no one wanted to hear.

Trust me when i say my family is well too familiar with the GULAGs as we have had members that got sent there for both unjustified and justified reasons. And while Stalin was a ****ing *******, that doesn't give you, an outsider, any right to **** on a country where 99% of the people were good, honest people, trying to enjoy life. Nor does Stalin's evilness out weigh the positive accomplishments the people of the soviet union worked so hard for.

Why do i call you a westerner? Because you aren't Russian and you aren't Chinese. And any one who praises the days of Yeltsin over the days of Putin is most definitely not a friend of Russians and most certainly a westerner.

Please explain to me what your friend sasja was afraid of in Latvia in the 1980s? Modern Talking? Boney-M?

http://991.com/newGallery/Modern-Talking-Cheri-Cheri-Lady-153395.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/Boney_M._-_Love_For_Sale_(1977).jpg/615px-Boney_M._-_Love_For_Sale_(1977).jpg

Note that I criticized the Soviet government, not the Russian people.

The government is not a nation. A nation is comprised of its people. The government merely represents the state, and the state carries out the legal and ceremonial functions of the nation.

Any government which claims to embody its people is assuming a gross abuse of authority. A democratically elected government may represent its people, but it cannot replace the role of its people in shaping culture, commerce, and events.

A government rules with the consent of the governed, and any ruler who forgets this has violated the consent of the people.

I was posting here about hockey until someone asked me why i live in NYC. I answered and you came here to discuss your opinions on the USSR, which no one wanted to hear.

You're right. I thought it was unfair that he made fun of you. I should have kept my mouth shut and let things take their natural course. :sarcasm:


Please explain to me what your friend sasja was afraid of in Latvia in the 1980s? Modern Talking? Boney-M?

Probably Rotor

http://static.metal-archives.com/images/1/4/2/5/14253.jpg

Absolutely terrible Judas Priest clone from Hungary.

The holocaust was possibly the worst act of genocide in human history, but Jews in Stalinist Russia fared little better. I realize Stalin was the nadir of Soviet history, but Jews remained second class citizens after his death.


Wow, I'll second Vald actually on this one. I mean, yes, may be not the second class citizens, but likely 1.1 class, but saying "a little better" then in Nazi Germany - wow, that's just wow....:shakehead

Well first off, i am Russian but i am not from Russia. I am was born in Moldova and while it was a very nice place to live during the days of the USSR, now it is a worthless piece of **** of a country these days. Since the USSR doesn't exists any more, i have no country to go back to. Luckily i live in NYC where there are half a million immigrants from the USSR and where it feels a lot more like the USSR i came from then Russia during the mid 90s. If it wasn't for NYC, i would be gone from this ****ed up country in a heart beat.

Still you could have gone to Russia instead of the US. I think it's apparent by your posts that you are a pretty bitter guy. Do you feel guilty for abandoning your people in their time of need?

I just jumped from page one to page four... umm, what in the world is happening in this thread? :laugh:

Still you could have gone to Russia instead of the US. I think it's apparent by your posts that you are a pretty bitter guy. Do you feel guilty for abandoning your people in their time of need?

I did go to Russia first, but with the soviet union gone, the Yeltsin years made Russia seem more foreign to me then familiar. I am not FROM Russia, there was nothing there for me. If the soviet union didn't dissolve, i would have never left, as would probably 80% of the immigrants that left the USSR in the 90s. The majority of "my people", Russians and Jews from Kishinev, came to NYC, so i didn't abandon any one, i just joined them in Queens and Brooklyn. I don't feel guilty ONE BIT. I served in the army, i was a good citizen and what did i get in return? I got the ground pulled out from under my feet. What was i supposed to do? Flap my wings and fly? You have to realize that the majority of the people in 9 out of the 15 soviet republics voted AGAINST dissolution of the USSR and yet it happened any way against the will of the people. Of course i am bitter, most Russians are bitter. How would you feel if in Canada, the Quebec separatists got their way and succeeded from Canada and then all of a sudden Canada switched to a lets say a totalitarian regime and your economy went into the *******? Then how would you feel if people around the world said it was for your own good and celebrated it as one of the great defining moments in human history?

I did go to Russia first, but with the soviet union gone, the Yeltsin years made Russia seem more foreign to me then familiar. I am not FROM Russia, there was nothing there for me. If the soviet union didn't dissolve, i would have never left, as would probably 80% of the immigrants that left the USSR in the 90s. The majority of "my people", Russians and Jews from Kishinev, came to NYC, so i didn't abandon any one, i just joined them in Queens and Brooklyn. I don't feel guilty ONE BIT. I served in the army, i was a good citizen and what did i get in return? I got the ground pulled out from under my feet. What was i supposed to do? Flap my wings and fly? You have to realize that the majority of the people in 9 out of the 15 soviet republics voted AGAINST dissolution of the USSR and yet it happened any way against the will of the people. Of course i am bitter, most Russians are bitter. How would you feel if in Canada, the Quebec separatists got their way and succeeded from Canada and then all of a sudden Canada switched to a lets say a totalitarian regime and your economy went into the *******? Then how would you feel if people around the world said it was for your own good and celebrated it as one of the great defining moments in human history?

Now that "The tide has turned", do you have any intention of going back to Russia or Moldova? Do you have any feelings of appreciation for the country that took you in during these turbulent years? Who do you blame for the collapse of the USSR?

Now that "The tide has turned", do you have any intention of going back to Russia or Moldova? Do you have any feelings of appreciation for the country that took you in during these turbulent years? Who do you blame for the collapse of the USSR?

I have spent more time in NYC now than i have in Moldova. Since Moldova stopped being part of the USSR, they switched the language from Russian to Romanian/Moldavian, changed the alphabet, renamed all the streets and changed everything. I, like the majority of people who lived in Moldova, don't speak Moldavian/Romanian and don't care to learn it. As i said, my country doesn't exist, so I have no place to go back to.

The tide has turned for the new generation, the ones that never lived under communism, for them things will get better and they will be happier because it can't get any worse then the Yeltsin years. It was heart breaking to see kids growing up in the mysery of the 90s in Russia, especially considering how easy, fun and safe my childhood was in 70s and 80s was.

My feelings with America are very complicated. I love NYC, i think it is the best and the closest to the American ideal you can get to. The people are hard working, intelligent and open minded. But as you leave places like NYC and start getting to less cosmopolitan places with less and less immigrants, you start losing these characteristics in the population and America starts losing its appeal. I honestly feel very bad for Americans, they are good people, but they are being completely taken advantage of by the political and economic situation in this country. The burden the health care system here puts on the average person is disgusting and criminal. The economic drain that sending kids to college is unreasonable. The lack of public transportation and suburban culture divide Americans along race and income lines, leading to fear, violence and America's addiction to oil. This all contributes to the fact that in America, people live so they can work where all other civilized societies, people work so they can live. Because of this the country is stressed, pissed off, divided and undoubtedly miserable. This is not where i want to raise my kids.

As far as who do i blame for the break up for the soviet union? Partially nationalists in places like the Baltic republics but most of all i blame the government of the soviet union. If they spent a quarter of the money they spent on military equipment for a useless pissing contest with the west, on consumer products and citizen quality of life issues, the USSR would still be around and would be a great place to live.

I have spent more time in NYC now than i have in Moldova. Since Moldova stopped being part of the USSR, they switched the language from Russian to Romanian/Moldavian, changed the alphabet, renamed all the streets and changed everything. I, like the majority of people who lived in Moldova, don't speak Moldavian/Romanian and don't care to learn it. As i said, my country doesn't exist, so I have no place to go back to.

The tide has turned for the new generation, the ones that never lived under communism, for them things will get better and they will be happier because it can't get any worse then the Yeltsin years. It was heart breaking to see kids growing up in the mysery of the 90s in Russia, especially considering how easy, fun and safe my childhood was in 70s and 80s was.

My feelings with America are very complicated. I love NYC, i think it is the best and the closest to the American ideal you can get to. The people are hard working, intelligent and open minded. But as you leave places like NYC and start getting to less cosmopolitan places with less and less immigrants, you start losing these characteristics in the population and America starts losing its appeal. I honestly feel very bad for Americans, they are good people, but they are being completely taken advantage of by the political and economic situation in this country. The burden the health care system here puts on the average person is disgusting and criminal. The economic drain that sending kids to college is unreasonable. The lack of public transportation and suburban culture divide Americans along race and income lines, leading to fear, violence and America's addiction to oil. This all contributes to the fact that in America, people live so they can work where all other civilized societies, people work so they can live. Because of this the country is stressed, pissed off, divided and undoubtedly miserable. This is not where i want to raise my kids.


New York city is a great city. You are very lucky to be an American. Maybe one day you will cheer for the stars and stripes. The qualities you love about NYC are hardly unique to NYC however. In fact many cities such as Toronto have an even higher percentage of immigrants than NYC. As for the rural areas, like anywhere they are a little unsure of outsiders. Your children might have a different experience from you.

I have spent more time in NYC now than i have in Moldova. Since Moldova stopped being part of the USSR, they switched the language from Russian to Romanian/Moldavian, changed the alphabet, renamed all the streets and changed everything. I, like the majority of people who lived in Moldova, don't speak Moldavian/Romanian and don't care to learn it. As i said, my country doesn't exist, so I have no place to go back to.

The tide has turned for the new generation, the ones that never lived under communism, for them things will get better and they will be happier because it can't get any worse then the Yeltsin years. It was heart breaking to see kids growing up in the mysery of the 90s in Russia, especially considering how easy, fun and safe my childhood was in 70s and 80s was.

My feelings with America are very complicated. I love NYC, i think it is the best and the closest to the American ideal you can get to. The people are hard working, intelligent and open minded. But as you leave places like NYC and start getting to less cosmopolitan places with less and less immigrants, you start losing these characteristics in the population and America starts losing its appeal. I honestly feel very bad for Americans, they are good people, but they are being completely taken advantage of by the political and economic situation in this country. The burden the health care system here puts on the average person is disgusting and criminal. The economic drain that sending kids to college is unreasonable. The lack of public transportation and suburban culture divide Americans along race and income lines, leading to fear, violence and America's addiction to oil. This all contributes to the fact that in America, people live so they can work where all other civilized societies, people work so they can live. Because of this the country is stressed, pissed off, divided and undoubtedly miserable. This is not where i want to raise my kids.

As far as who do i blame for the break up for the soviet union? Partially nationalists in places like the Baltic republics but most of all i blame the government of the soviet union. If they spent a quarter of the money they spent on military equipment for a useless pissing contest with the west, on consumer products and citizen quality of life issues, the USSR would still be around and would be a great place to live.

Feel free to leave anytime then. Trust me, we probably won't miss you, because as most on here can tell, you aren't probably contributing much to society which explains your bitterness towards America.

Here is an article from Zaugg this year at the Worlds
http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship/news/news-singleview-world-championship/browse/4/article/zaugg-small-rinks-big-thrills.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1573&cHash=ef941acaec

New York city is a great city. You are very lucky to be an American. Maybe one day you will cheer for the stars and stripes. The qualities you love about NYC are hardly unique to NYC however. In fact many cities such as Toronto have an even higher percentage of immigrants than NYC. As for the rural areas, like anywhere they are a little unsure of outsiders. Your children might have a different experience from you.

Luck has nothing to do with it. It is not like i built a kite and went where the wind took me and it just so happened that i landed in america. But you are wrong about NYC, it is very unique, i have been all over and nothing comes close. I love Toronto tho, i come up there for business often. And i wasn't talking about rural places, i was talking about the suburbs and smaller towns. The suburbs are a cancer on this society but luckily with gas prices going up, which will never go down, they will soon be a thing of the past. My kids are 1 and 2, we are moving soon, there is no way i am raising them here. They can root for the stars and stripes on television.

because as most on here can tell, you aren't probably contributing much to society

How would you know?

Feel free to leave anytime then. Trust me, we probably won't miss you, because as most on here can tell, you aren't probably contributing much to society which explains your bitterness towards America.

See this is a typical American reaction. I am an American citizen. I probably paid enough taxes in my 18 years here in america to buy 2 very nice houses at least in Bonny Slope over there in Portland. But since i am a cynic and a dissenter i must be a worthless, non contributing traitor. This is the same mindset the Nazis and Stalin had and yet i am in the wrong. Instead of trying to improve this country when they see something wrong, Americans typically have the reaction of, "Well if ya dun like it....giiiiit aaaouut!" I make a good living so my kids won't have to worry about any thing but lets say i was an average Joe. My work isn't all that safe and if i didn't come home tomorrow, how would my wife be able to afford medical care for her self and my kids and how would she send them to college? No one gives a **** about any one here because frankly, this place isn't a civilized country yet. So you will be happy to know , Mr G-unit, that I am leaving as soon as my kids are old enough to travel.

I am leaving as soon as my kids are old enough to travel.

Where?

Where?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png/777px-Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png/777px-Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png

OMG, unless it's Sydney or Melbourne, you'll die of boredom. Then, if it is Sydney, it is the same suburbian set up that you don't like. Just don't see why this is better than the US.

The suburbs are a cancer on this society but luckily with gas prices going up, which will never go down, they will soon be a thing of the past. My kids are 1 and 2, we are moving soon, there is no way i am raising them here. They can root for the stars and stripes on television.

Don't worry, your government will attack another oil rich country before it lets the suburbs die.

OMG, unless it's Sydney or Melbourne, you'll die of boredom. Then, if it is Sydney, it is the same suburbian set up that you don't like. Just don't see why this is better than the US.

I travel to Aussieland regularly, trust me, it is head and shoulders above the states. I had enough excitement in my youth in Moscow and in NYC, i have kids now, exciting is the last thing i need. That said, i don't find Australia boring at all.

See this is a typical American reaction. I am an American citizen. I probably paid enough taxes in my 18 years here in america to buy 2 very nice houses at least in Bonny Slope over there in Portland. But since i am a cynic and a dissenter i must be a worthless, non contributing traitor. This is the same mindset the Nazis and Stalin had and yet i am in the wrong. Instead of trying to improve this country when they see something wrong, Americans typically have the reaction of, "Well if ya dun like it....giiiiit aaaouut!" I make a good living so my kids won't have to worry about any thing but lets say i was an average Joe. My work isn't all that safe and if i didn't come home tomorrow, how would my wife be able to afford medical care for her self and my kids and how would she send them to college? No one gives a **** about any one here because frankly, this place isn't a civilized country yet. So you will be happy to know , Mr G-unit, that I am leaving as soon as my kids are old enough to travel.
If you are making a good living, you should have a significant amount of life insurance to pay for things like medical care for kids and college in case you die.

If you have a 'good job', and you don't have at least $250K of life insurance per kid, you aren't doing your job as a parent IMO.

JMO, Europe's 'everyone deserves a good life' attitude is far more dehumanizing than the American 'you deserve a chance, but you have to earn a good life' general attitude.


Oh, and when you move to Australia, if you are a US citizen, you'll still owe taxes to the US Government, so thanks in advance for contributing to the cause even when you live around the world.

Don't worry, your government will attack another oil rich country before it lets the suburbs die.

Even if the states take over Saudi Arabia + Venezuela it will only postpone the inevitable for a short time. At current population growth rates, we will straight up run out of every drop of oil on this planet by 2050. It will be economically not viable WAY before that. The states are way behind schedule to get ready for this. I am a geologist originally and if people knew about the truth and scope of the world's oil situation, they would be hording fuel and charging the white house with torches and pitchforks.

If you are making a good living, you should have a significant amount of life insurance to pay for things like medical care for kids and college in case you die.

If you have a 'good job', and you don't have at least $250K of life insurance per kid, you aren't doing your job as a parent IMO.

JMO, Europe's 'everyone deserves a good life' attitude is far more dehumanizing than the American 'you deserve a chance, but you have to earn a good life' general attitude.


Oh, and when you move to Australia, if you are a US citizen, you'll still owe taxes to the US Government, so thanks in advance for contributing to the cause even when you live around the world.

As i said, my kids don't have to worry about it. I can die right now and they wouldn't have to work for **** in their lives. But this is not true for the average parent and that is a major problem.

Your comment about "people deserve a good life" being dehumanizing is disgusting and is the very reason i don't want my kids growing up in that kind of abused wife mentality. Yes, universal health care is dehumanizing, but letting people ruin their lives because they can't afford to pay for health care is a noble thing. You ****ing make me sick.

Why would i pay a cent in taxes in the states if i wont live there anymore? If the IRS wants it, they can come to Australia and pull my taxes out of a kangaroo's ass. Regardless, my wife and I are exempt for up to $160K not counting our kids and i am going to become an Australian citizen asap. So trust me, one way or another, i aint paying ****. You can flip my share from now on.

Even if the states take over Saudi Arabia + Venezuela it will only postpone the inevitable for a short time. At current population growth rates, we will straight up run out of every drop of oil on this planet by 2050. It will be economically not economically viable WAY before that. The states are way behind schedule to get ready for this. I am a geologist originally and if people knew about the truth and scope of the world's oil situation, they would be hording fuel and charging the white house with torches and pitchforks.

The human race did okay before oil and we will do okay after. Could be some rough spots along the way though. The real question is whether the planet can really sustain 6 + Billion people, or if that number is artificially high due to fossil fuels.

Regardless, if the s*** hits the fan, you don't want to be somewhere that you are looked upon as an outsider.

See this is a typical American reaction. I am an American citizen. I probably paid enough taxes in my 18 years here in america to buy 2 very nice houses at least in Bonny Slope over there in Portland. But since i am a cynic and a dissenter i must be a worthless, non contributing traitor. This is the same mindset the Nazis and Stalin had and yet i am in the wrong. Instead of trying to improve this country when they see something wrong, Americans typically have the reaction of, "Well if ya dun like it....giiiiit aaaouut!" I make a good living so my kids won't have to worry about any thing but lets say i was an average Joe. My work isn't all that safe and if i didn't come home tomorrow, how would my wife be able to afford medical care for her self and my kids and how would she send them to college? No one gives a **** about any one here because frankly, this place isn't a civilized country yet. So you will be happy to know , Mr G-unit, that I am leaving as soon as my kids are old enough to travel.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: you are such a freakin joke dude. Thanks for a good laugh. :laugh:

The human race did okay before oil and we will do okay after. Could be some rough spots along the way though. The real question is whether the planet can really sustain 6 + Billion people, or if that number is artificially high due to fossil fuels.

Regardless, if the s*** hits the fan, you don't want to be somewhere that you are looked upon as an outsider.


Before oil was the 1800s where a majority of peopleon the earth lived like animals. I don't want to go back to that time in history.
The problem with oil is not just locomotion, but the fact that oil is used for plastics. Plastics make up probably half of the things around you. Computers rely on plastics and the medical industry relies very very very heavily on plastic. Contact lenses, IVs, prosthetic limbs and hearts, sterile packaging, all the blood, urine and fecal test equipment; the medical industry is basically 90% plastic. The world's food supply depends very heavily on petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides and hydrocarbon based irrigation. Are wooden credit cards the future? By the time we discover replacements for all the petroleum based products, how many billion will have died?

As for the population, by 2050 we will have 10-20 billion people on the earth at current growth rates. If you split that number between mars(that wont happen), and and earth it would still be too much. I don't see how we can support more then 2 billion people on the planet with out the oil based technology we have now. That means in our life time, the **** is going to hit the fan HARD.

I am an outsider in Russia, I am an outsider in the states, i am an outsider in Australia. So that aspect makes no difference.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: you are such a freakin joke dude. Thanks for a good laugh. :laugh:

Thank you for engaging me in a thought full and productive discussion. People like you only make America look worse by giving us the typical American sample of baseless anger when anyone casts light on problems in the country and blissful ignorance when you know they are right. All the smiley faces in the world won't discount the truth of the things i have said. USA! USA! USA!

Before oil was the 1800s where a majority of peopleon the earth lived like animals. I don't want to go back to that time in history.
The problem with oil is not just locomotion, but the fact that oil is used for plastics. Plastics make up probably half of the things around you. Computers rely on plastics and the medical industry relies very very very heavily on plastic. Contact lenses, IVs, prosthetic limbs and hearts, sterile packaging, all the blood, urine and fecal test equipment; the medical industry is basically 90% plastic. The world's food supply depends very heavily on petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides and hydrocarbon based irrigation. Are wooden credit cards the future? By the time we discover replacements for all the petroleum based products, how many billion will have died?

As for the population, by 2050 we will have 10-20 billion people on the earth at current growth rates. If you split that number between mars(that wont happen), and and earth it would still be too much. I don't see how we can support more then 2 billion people on the planet with out the oil based technology we have now. That means in our life time, the **** is going to hit the fan HARD.

I am an outsider in Russia, I am an outsider in the states, i am an outsider in Australia. So that aspect makes no difference.

Fear not, necessity is the mother of invention.

Fear not, necessity is the mother of invention.

Cliches and a lack of forward thinking will not feed mouths or save lives. I have no doubt the eventually we will find alternatives, but even after they have been found, it will take decades to switch over the whole infrastructure of a country, especially one as splintered and resistant to change as america.

Cliches and a lack of forward thinking will not feed mouths or save lives. I have no doubt the eventually we will find alternatives, but even after they have been found, it will take decades to switch over the whole infrastructure of a country, especially one as splintered and resistant to change as america.

Your positive outlook is an inspiration!

Your positive outlook is an inspiration!

I am a realist, that coupled with the fact that i was in the petroleum and natural gas industry shapes my point of view. The average person still thinks that the earth has an unlimited oil supply and that we just have to find it. I won't lie to my self or to those around me about the cross roads our civilization is at right now.

Ok. Thats it folks.. This has gone OT for long enough.. Closed.