Cathy wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

goal-free period, dab

---

 Oh, and overtime, if you're lucky enough to have it.

---

 and guaranteed one-goal game.

Cathy wrote:

---

goal-free period, dab

---

 Oh, and overtime, if you're lucky enough to have it.

goal-free period, dab

And I'm still on the fence about "Fight".

Homer wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

Homer wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

Maybe a duplicate post square?

lol

---

"2nd post by team".  Good idea.

So, so far

Remove - "Penalty free period"

Add "Shouda had that" or "Whoops"

Maybe add "Fight?" 

---

 

I actually meant two of us post the same thing in the game thread at the same time. But second post works too.

---

 lmao. we mentioned that not too long ago too. But I like the 2nd post by team square. 

---

 And maybe informally it means second post-and-out, if their first was post-and-in, then the second is just a post. Because adding ambiguity is always fun.

Cathy wrote:

---

Homer wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

Maybe a duplicate post square?

lol

---

"2nd post by team".  Good idea.

So, so far

Remove - "Penalty free period"

Add "Shouda had that" or "Whoops"

Maybe add "Fight?" 

---

 

I actually meant two of us post the same thing in the game thread at the same time. But second post works too.

---

 lmao. we mentioned that not too long ago too. But I like the 2nd post by team square. 

Homer wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

Maybe a duplicate post square?

lol

---

"2nd post by team".  Good idea.

So, so far

Remove - "Penalty free period"

Add "Shouda had that" or "Whoops"

Maybe add "Fight?" 

---

I actually meant two of us post the same thing in the game thread at the same time. But second post works too.

Cathy wrote:

---

Maybe a duplicate post square?

lol

---

"2nd post by team".  Good idea.

So, so far

Remove - "Penalty free period"

Add "Shouda had that" or "Whoops"

Maybe add "Fight?" 

Homer wrote:

---

I think that one could qualify for a WTF ref.

---

 So based on that replay, should it have been a penalty?

Maybe a duplicate post square?

lol

SensKat wrote:

---

Is that ACTUALLY the crowd, or is that pumped in sound?

---

I'd be shocked if they were using "Refs you suck" as synthetic audio. That would technically be the team directly criticizing officials.

SensKat wrote:

---

Is that ACTUALLY the crowd, or is that pumped in sound?

---

 Has to be crowd.  Can't see NHL allowing "Ref you suck" chants pumped in.

Homer wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

Homer wrote:

---

Ref you suck chant from the crowd, but that was a deserved penalty. 

---

Well *they* clearly thought it was WTF Refs.

---

 but slightly biased. lol

---

One man's Lube is another man's Refs Suck.

-Confucius

I think that one could qualify for a WTF ref.

Cathy wrote:

---

Homer wrote:

---

Ref you suck chant from the crowd, but that was a deserved penalty. 

---

Well *they* clearly thought it was WTF Refs.

---

 but slightly biased. lol

Homer wrote:

---

Ref you suck chant from the crowd, but that was a deserved penalty. 

---

Well *they* clearly thought it was WTF Refs.

Ref you suck chant from the crowd, but that was a deserved penalty. 

Crowd "refs you suck" chant automatic WTF Refs dab??

senior wrote:

---

Cathy wrote:

---

senior wrote:

---

BBQed up a mess of burgers and chicken tonight. Finished up and closed up the shed and went inside. About 2 minuets later I looked out the door and the skunk was digging around looking for his dinner. Maybe he would have liked a burger.

---

 *the* skunk, like, he's a regular?

---

 We see it 2 or 3 times a week. Very careful if go outside after dark.

---

 Aww, he's cute! {she says safely from another country}