birdog1960

sadly, he's not likely to be very pleased in many post game interviews.

i think the next poll should ask what vegetable ralph most reminds you of. i vote for rotten tomato. before he was rotten, he was one of those tasteless supermarket slicers.

the hall of fame bust

agreed and well put. i've answered similarly before but got lured in this time. the bigger question is "what defines success( a winner)?" and i don't think it's as simple as a bank balance or an award from a group connected to your business.

1. i'll leave that to others 2. 2 post grad degrees and a post doc 3. many 4.yes and it's doing fine. thanks for asking. 5.yes 6. yes 7 no 8.yes 9. yes, adjunct faculty at one 10.yes 11. my time and money 12. don't know a quantitative measure. do you? 13. that's for others to judge. am i worthy to criticize wilson now? how bout your pedigree?

a dualist? really? and wilson and his apologists are nuanced in comparison. relatively speaking, wilson has been cheap and inneffectual over his tenure as owner. is that gray enough?

sorry jw. if that's the best example of wilson's benevolence to fans, i'll stick with my original thesis.

yes, that would be well received, especially from you. but i eagerly await a return personal attack in lieu of a reasoned argument (only to be later edited out). if wilson was cheap for 30+ years and not for 20- years (and that remains debatable as evidenced by this thread), does that not, on balance, make him cheap? Bob in Stl nailed it with the ordering of wilson's allegiance: league, franchise, staff, players....fans are not even on his list..and we've witnessed, over 50 years, how that translates to wins and losses for the team.

internist

no. benadryl is significantly better at blocking H1 receptors than any other available oral antihistamine..if you went to the er with a severe allergic rxn you would likely be given iv benadryl, steroids and possibly epinephrine. drugs like zantac block H2 receptors that play a minor role in histamine mediated immune response. you shouldn't take "a lot" of zyrtec. 10 mg is the max recommended daily dose and will block receptors almost as well as any higher dose. zyrtec, claritin and allegra are roughly equal in potency. (all are less than benadryl at max doses). be careful of what you read on the internet concerning medicine. i spend a good amount of my day debunking myths that people latch on to from it. if benadryl isn't working, zyrtec won't either.

go get steroids from your doc.

prednisone is the most efficacious treatment (usually given in a dose pack of decreasing dose over 6 days). the shot mentioned is likely a depot steroid, usually depomedrol. for severe cases, both the shot and pills are given. i'm unaware of desensitization shots for poison ivy. if they are available, i've never seen them used. given the worsening problem, they may become available. ivy block used preventatively works very well. it's a lotion that binds the allergen in the poison ivy resin and is available otc. if you know you've been exposed, wash the area with soap and water as soon as possible(preferably within 10 minutes). i keep dishwasher detergent in my shower to wash after yard work as it dissolves oil well and the resin is an oil. i also use otc hydrocortisone cream on areas likely exposed 1 or 2 times on the day of exposure. an antihistamine like benadryl can help but it's very sedating. i prefer claritin even though it's less potent.

so, once again, if the meaning is self evident, why do we need a supreme court at all, much less 9 justices? the "interpretation" should be clear to everyone without disagreement or dissent.

i'll bet that you're more likely to label judges activist that don't share your views. doesn't make it true. law is rarely absolute. if it were, there would be no need for juries or more than 1 supreme court justice.

you really see the constitution as black and white? the justices don't. how many 5-4 supreme court decisions have there been?

the government is meant to answer to the voting public and i agree, all too often it doesn't. is the answer then to give up and let unelected wealth, influence and power run unchecked or fix the system to make it work as designed? it won't be easy but we should at least try. if it still doesn't work, then the system should be called a failure, scrapped and replaced.

your ideologic brother in arms argued quite recently that our founders were selfishly motivated profiteers...and no one disagreed. if you buy this premise, one must conclude that this is the legacy you so desperately want continued

i don't support greed on either "side". undue influence from unelected persons on any governmental policy is destructive. why don't we remove that straw man from the argument and discuss oligarchy on its merits or evils.

Sanders nailed it. I don't see anyone disputing the actual data here or elsewhere. how does it not bother all these patriotic, freedom loving ideologues that money and consequently power is becoming more and more concentrated in a few hands? every further step in this directions further cheapens the already miniscule value of a single vote. i would wager that almost no one on this board has ever even met any of the ultras, yet they effectively run our world with little oversight and no input from us. how can anyone support oligarchy or corporatocricy? yet, i see it supported here, over and over. talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

what a cynical, pessimistic, souless reply.

agree with the thesis or not, it is finely crafted art, no?

do you mean that the world really works something like this?jensen schools beale

it's at least the 12th round so i'll end with a question? are you ralph wilson?