birdog1960

nope. as honest and candid as humanly possible. have you noticed my new signature? appropriate, yes?

yes, pseudo posters concern me as well.

yes, you can tell much about someone from the emoticons he chooses

there you go, talking about yourself again... oh, and people generally type for me, it's really not a good use of my time. - i dictate.

shocking…if there were anything more diminutive than lower case available, i'd have typed in that.

disagreeing with your stance does not make one a moron. it's a badge of honor and a measure of intellect. i'd bet him over you with huge odds on any objective measure of intelligence. it's truly pathetic when people feel compelled to attack on obviously fundamentally excellent person only because they disagree with him. not like he's making intellectually dishonest arguments or anything.

it was the fuse, non? luckily, it was disarmed.

cynicism is easy. change is difficult. i actually like difficult.

ask dev/null. he seems to think it was admirable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SosPuPjf3W4

strong work, atlanta. i really like that town. plenty of good folks there: http://www.wyff4.com/national/group-that-waved-confederate-flags-indicted-on-terror-charges/35848350?utm_campaign=WYFF&utm_content=561f426504d30155. thank God, we are still mostly a country of rules and laws, right and wrong.

it's not! the author is suggesting it would have been smart to keep both. sure seems reasonable to me.

lets start with the thread deletion.

since it's no longer available on the dem debate thread, i'll repeat it here: you are among the many shameless, intellectually dishonest and simultaneously fearful (of honest, straight forward, civil debate) posters here on PPP.

that's the threshold? not completing a single pass? sorry, i don't believe and certainly hope that the coaches, owners and anyone not named whaley that works for the bills disagree.

yes, but" ignore is for puzzies". reminds me of the students at a college my wife taught at for a while. they all seemed determined to be unique. there was this trend that they dressed mostly in black. it was supposed to be cool…but then it wasn't. because it was the norm. kind of like here and being a renegade yet simultaneously being an establishment conservative, at least for this little "campus". oh yeah, and the establishment controls the school newspaper. no idea what is meant by the "old board". enlighten me.

i'm pretty sure deleting an entire thread revealing several of the establishment crowd here as fools is a bigger puzzy act.

I think you are correct but I also think this supports bills vet's theory on whaley's motivation.

I think their value on the open market speaks to that cassell wasn't worth much nor was taylor. I think we can be somewhat confident in assuming manuel had little trade value since they chose to keep him over cassel. that reflects on whaley, not the players.

don't believe I qualify as a basher. however, I certainly don't feel his value to the team is consistent with his draft position. i'll be very happy if he plays well Sunday but the odds are not in favor of that based on a fairly long history.

so once again, how do you reconcile whaley signing cassel twice and being a good gm while having that opinion of cassel? I think there should be another poll option: "whaley is not a good (or at least great) gm".

so how do you defend whaleys decision to sign him not once but twice?

objectivity is so refreshing even when it's uncomfortable. how bout gay, who they later cut anyway?

flag for straw man...it was widely reported fred would have renegotiated to stay and he's not costing seattle much. cassell was resigned cheap as well