Page 3 of 3
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:06 pm
by Sparlimb
packerboy wrote:Sparlimb wrote:
So what you are saying is Cretin needs a goalie...
No, what I am sayin is that SSP is a town with character... and that alot of characters are raised there.
Maplewood? Whats that? Oh yah, they are the ones with the red leaf on the street signs. How interesting.
Maplewood has one thing going for it. It's shape. It is obvvious city planners took the leftovers and called it Maplewood. North St. Paul, on the other hand is more than just a snowman. I grew up knowing North = Good and South = Bad. Granted, North St. Paul holds one record in the state tourney books. Most overtime losses. Sad...Hehe...
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:20 pm
by Neutron 14
Sparlimb wrote:
Maplewood has one thing going for it. It's shape. It is obvvious city planners took the leftovers and called it Maplewood. North St. Paul, on the other hand is more than just a snowman. I grew up knowing North = Good and South = Bad. Granted, North St. Paul holds one record in the state tourney books. Most overtime losses. Sad...Hehe...
Castle Greens and the King Hi....
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:36 pm
by wbmd
Neutron 14 wrote:Sparlimb wrote:
Maplewood has one thing going for it. It's shape. It is obvvious city planners took the leftovers and called it Maplewood. North St. Paul, on the other hand is more than just a snowman. I grew up knowing North = Good and South = Bad. Granted, North St. Paul holds one record in the state tourney books. Most overtime losses. Sad...Hehe...
Castle Greens and the King Hi....
Thinking back a long ways I see.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:47 pm
by Neutron 14
wbmd wrote:Neutron 14 wrote:Sparlimb wrote:
Maplewood has one thing going for it. It's shape. It is obvvious city planners took the leftovers and called it Maplewood. North St. Paul, on the other hand is more than just a snowman. I grew up knowing North = Good and South = Bad. Granted, North St. Paul holds one record in the state tourney books. Most overtime losses. Sad...Hehe...
Castle Greens and the King Hi....
Thinking back a long ways I see.
Its been a long time since I'd be caught dead in NSP!
gov
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:51 pm
by eyeinthesky
don't forget about pawlenty
Re: gov
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:55 pm
by packerboy
eyeinthesky wrote:don't forget about pawlenty
Good one eye. Our Gov is also a proud Packer.
Re: gov
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:03 pm
by 2 for cheating
packerboy wrote:eyeinthesky wrote:don't forget about pawlenty
Good one eye. Our Gov is also a proud Packer.
He is? I thought he was a RINO.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:09 pm
by Goldy Gopher
wbmd wrote:Rossbury21 wrote:wbmd wrote:
Not attending classes today?
We have computers at school these days..........with internet.
Then screwing around in school.
Nothing wrong with screwing around in school. How do you think kids these days make it through?
SSP vs Simley
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:57 pm
by 2 for cheating
Did the future HOF play this game?
I'm suprised Cabela hasn't had anything to say about this game.
Re: SSP vs Simley
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:46 pm
by Rossbury21
2 for cheating wrote:Did the future HOF play this game?
I'm suprised Cabela hasn't had anything to say about this game.
yeah, he did
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:25 am
by Cabela10
Wilcox did play this game against Simley but what does that matter. If you weren't there, don't comment. If you didn't see the goals, then what do you possibly have to say? Nothing, so shutup.
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:07 am
by 2 for cheating
Cabela10 wrote:Wilcox did play this game against Simley but what does that matter. If you weren't there, don't comment. If you didn't see the goals, then what do you possibly have to say? Nothing, so shutup.
That's why I was asking.
How did the next Al Stalock not deliver against SIMLEY?
Good thing Hill didn't have to play against him.
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:20 pm
by Cabela10
2 for cheating wrote:Cabela10 wrote:Wilcox did play this game against Simley but what does that matter. If you weren't there, don't comment. If you didn't see the goals, then what do you possibly have to say? Nothing, so shutup.
That's why I was asking.
How did the next Al Stalock not deliver against SIMLEY?
Good thing Hill didn't have to play against him.
How didn't he deliver in this game? Simley should have won this game 5-1 or 5-2. The whole first period alone was 2 on 1s and 3 on 1's. Pretty tough to stop those all game long.
Again, if you have no clue, why comment about something. Show up to a game and form your own opinions, instead of reading the boxscore and getting fat.