After one inconsequential game, a reporter asks about what Coach Theriault and Hayden think of the future of hockey with their former star player playing with his husband. Theriault says some shitty PR nothing answer laced with so much disdain that Hayden just. can't. take. anymore.

Obviously his team wants him to shit-talk his best friend and de facto brother-in-law who happen to be playing the best hockey of a generation (he will never let Ilya know he thinks this). The reporter obviously is chomping at the bit for a "dissension in the locker room" story that will make his life even more miserable. So, fuck the both of them.

"and how about you Hayden, what do you think about the future of hockey with Hollander and Rozanov?"

"Well, I think they should get on having kids, like surrogacy or adoption of something"

Dead silence, the reporter blinks in confusion. He can feel the glare coming off Theriault burning into the side of his face. He doesn’t turn his head and blithely goes on.

“Yeah, specifically 3 girls. I have 3 girls so if they have 3 girls, we’d have a whole hockey team to start in the pee-wees and get to the PWHL. My Ruby would obviously be a defender. She’d spend her whole life in the box, but she'd be such a good enforcer, especially if she was playing with her sisters.  Jade is sneaky fast, so forward for her. And I know Amber is a baby, but I swear she’s got goalie eyes. My son Arthur is already the peacemaker of the family, so Uncle Shane could start training him up on all the rules so he can be our ref. But Shane and Ilya would have to get themselves another defender and a right or left wing with a center. Yep, that’s the future in hockey I’d love to see with Hollander and Rozanov”

"Anyhow, there’ll be plenty of jam in heaven, that’s one comfort,” he said complacently. Anne nipped a smile in the bud.

“Perhaps there will . . . if we want it,” she said, “But what makes you think so?” “Why, it’s in the catechism,” said Davy. “Oh, no, there is nothing like that in the catechism, Davy.”

“But I tell you there is,” persisted Davy. “It was in that question Marilla taught me last Sunday. ‘Why should we love God?’ It says, ‘Because He makes preserves, and redeems us.’ Preserves is just a holy way of saying jam.”

“I must get a drink of water,” said Anne hastily. When she came back it cost her some time and trouble to explain to Davy that a certain comma in the said catechism question made a great deal of difference in the meaning."

“Ms. T, why would his parents name him that?”

I frantically flip through the possible Civil War leaders they could be referencing. “… Well, you know how Stonewall got his nickname, and we’ve talked about Tecumseh, so there’s Sherman, and -”

“No, not them.” They roll their eyes at my ignorance, then pivot back to the point at hand. “That other guy. Useless.” As this describes a number of Civil War leaders, I blink uncomprehendingly at her. “You know, Ms. T, Useless. Useless Grant.”

“Um. … Well -”

Another child raises their hand. “Ms. T, I don’t understand number three.”

Number three is a question about the Battle of Bull Run, asking for explanations about a Confederate victory despite Union advantages. “What paragraph are you looking in?” I ask in a monotone, because I’ve been fielding this question all day.

The student points at the correct paragraph, even focuses in on the quote about Jackson holding off a Union advance. “It says Jackson and the men ‘screamed like furries,’ Ms. T, but why would that help?”

I cough. I cover my mouth with both hands. “That’s ‘furies,’ sweetie,” I inform them, still wheezing. “Like they’re insane with anger,” I elaborate, deciding to skip describing actual furies at this point in time. “Not … not like furries.”

15 minutes later this old guy came up to the counter with his address written on a napkin & he said “me and my wife have a whole herd of dexters and a couple of new calves. come on over any time”

so after work I was like ok fuck it & I drove to the address and I parked at at the gate & I walked down the driveway to the barn and this woman was like “oh my husband told me you might stop by! come see our cows” and she introduced me to every single cow. made my whole week.

and so I will eat this small block of fancy cheese, for morale. I will take a break and drink some tea, for morale. I will pick up that weird bug, for morale.

When you're talking about the design of the boat, you say "it".

When the boat is still being built, your say "it".

When the boat is nearing completion, you can say "it" or "she".

When the boat is floating in the water you probably say "she", unless there is still a lot of work to be done (e.g. no engine yet) then you say "it".

When the boat is officially launched and operating, you say "she". If you continue to say "it" at this point you are not incorrect but suspiciously untraditional. You are not playing the game.

If you are referring to a boat you don't really know anything about you may say "it" ("there's a big boat, it's coming this way"). But if you know its name, it's probably "she" ("there's the Waverley, she's on her way to Greenock").

If you are talking about boats in general, you say "it" ("when a boat is hit by a wave it heels over")

If you speak about a boat in complimentary terms, it's "she" ("she's a grand boat"). If you are being disparaging it may be it, but not necessarily ("it's as ugly as sin", "she's a grotty old tub").

If she has a boy's name, she's still she. "Boy James", "King Edward", "Sir David Attenborough"? The pronoun is she.

If it's a dumb barge (no engine), you say it. But if it's a rowing boat (no engine), you say she.