ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Random entry AND a post on the railing:

If you have that much trouble trying to assign a point to the post, maybe you should consider the possibility that it is simply informational. I only used the words "joke thread" in my very short intro because I used the phrase "Sign of the Necropolis" (rather than "sign of the apocalypse") as a "tag" in the thread title. But you caught that, right? The ACLU often represents minorities and the downtrodden or less popular parties against more powerful or more popular interests, so it is facially surprising that they sided with a billion dollar NFL franchise against the American Indian "minority" in this particular case. It's not really a sign of the apocalypse, though, because they did so based on their interpretation of free speech principles. I'm fine with that. If you need to assign a "point" to an informational post, maybe you're the one with an agenda.

As "Veins" pointed out, that isn't such a bad idea. I wouldn't mind seeing Dareus at FB on the goal line knock some Patriots on their a$$, like Refrigerator Perry did in the Super Bowl:

If you think this is a joke thread, you'd be wrong - - filed in federal court on 3/5/15: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/2015_03_05_-_doc_76-2_-_aclu_amicus_brief.pdf

OK, I get the part about him being "a rookie because he really has only played 2 years in the NFL." Score 1 on "thinking outside the box" for you. But there's president for the Bills successfully moving an undrafted WR to the defensive backfield, even after he spent a few years on the practice squad working his way up as a WR. https://evonsports.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/for-bills-wilson-path-to-success-has-been-well-traveled/ George Wilson was the MAN in the Bills secondary. He almost single-handedly beat the Patriots one game when the guys actually drafted to play in the secondary gave him a little help. http://www.wgrz.com/sports/article/136185/4/Bills-Defense-Intercepts-Win http://www.titansonline.com/team/roster/George-Wilson/7b7c030f-af43-473c-bcb2-8885200ee734 It's not Wilson's fault he didn't grow up on a corner lot. But he became a very good safety - - good enough to still be on the Titans roster TODAY. Hogan could be even better at CB. I don't know about you, but I'd like to actually beat the Patriots again some day. Scoff if you want, but Hogan to CB might get us there.

Well, OP does want to Bring Back [Craig] Ferguson . . .

Pay attention - - "corner lot" suburbia according to my source - - not "middle of the block" suburbia. Don't shortchange the guy just cause he's not as aptly named as Reggie Corner.

I have it on semi-unreliable authority that he grew up in a house on a corner lot - - so he should be a natural.

I hope your real name's not Darryl. I've got enough of those! Glad the info was useful.

Couple factoids that don't get a lot of publicity: 1. Most people know that the 10% early withdrawal penalty (on top of regular income tax) goes away for IRA withdrawals made when you are over 59.5 years old. But if a person separates from an employer's service after age 55, he or she can take early withdrawals from that employer's 401(k) or 403(b) plan without paying the 10% penalty - - even if he or she isn't yet 59.5 years old. So if you think you might want or need to use some of the tax-deferred money after age 55 and before 59.5, you might want to investigate rolling over some of your old 401(k) money into your current employer's 401(k) plan, and/or rolling over some of your wife's 403(b) money into her current employer's 403(b) plan. This is only a benefit if you or your wife will separate from a then current employer's service after age 55 and before age 59.5. If you roll 401(k) plan or 403(b) money into an IRA, you lose the ability to take the money out before 59.5 without penalty. Actually, there is still a way to avoid the penalty before 59.5, but it must be done over a period of years and is much more complicated and beyond the scope of this post. 2. If your wife currently contributes to a 403(b) plan, she can DOUBLE the amount of her allowable annual tax deferred contributions if her employer also offers a 457 plan. The 403(b) plan and the 457 plan each have the same individual annual contribution limits, but you can max out allowable contributions to both plans without penalty. I was very skeptical of this when I first read about it, but it's true. I mention it because a lot of people in your "over 50" age bracket are trying to max out their contributions, and this tax wrinkle rarely gets mentioned. Apparently it may also be possible for an employer to offer a 401(k) and a 457 plan per this link, but I am certain about the 403(b)/457 combo: http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/401k_457plans.moneymag/index2.htm

The underwater UFO thread on a football message board in the offseason - - what were you expecting?

My brother Darryl says It's when coal dust from black lung disease crosses the areolae into the blood stream and migrates to the heart.

From his member profile (not sure when it was written, though):

Loved the commercials where he took the beer back from the snobs.

Just a suggestion - - when you've narrowed your search to a brand new crossover that you like and have a pretty good idea what it will cost, test drive a low mileage used Infiniti EX35 or FX35 (F is roomier for people and cargo than E) of whatever age that would cost about the same.

I was gonna rant about people who change thread titles in the middle of a contest, but then Darryl informed me that wouldn't exactly be random. Screw it, I'm not a sheep - - who gives a flying' f*** about thread control:

My brother Darryl says - - if you don't like the noises he makes then pick somebody more quiet to bring into the stall with you.

"post" I win.

A lone mosquito making sporadic flights in a darkened bedroom (I will not sleep until one of us dies - - and I'm still here).

This time of year, watching some small time but rising college basketball program with a good record (but no respect yet) use unselfish team play to beat teams from the "power" conferences in March Madness. Examples: Florida Gulf Coast - - I never even heard of the school and they made a run as a 15 seed while playing with a "bring it on" attitude; Butler - - one half court shot from winning it all; and Gonzaga - - when they were first on the rise (but not now).

I guess we have the answer - - too bad it wasn't a decent QB rather than a very good RB.

Don't know what level of detail you already have, but my brother Darryl thought this was pretty informative:

It was sort of a reverse Kobayashi Maru scenario. The coaches should be cast as Star Trek villains.

I think the game could have gotten pretty entertaining at the end, if the referee had allowed each team to shoot at the wrong basket. The game would have switched from the team playing the worst getting the desired loss, to the team playing the best (but shooting at the wrong basket) getting the desired loss. It essentially would have turned into a "winner's outs" situation, too - - if a team A shot at the wrong basket and scored 2 points for team B, team A would get to take the ball out and try to do it again. But they would have a 10 second "score" clock (not a shot clock), because if team A didn't score in the wrong basket quickly enough, the refs would call a 10 second back court violation - - like they actually did once in the real game. But let's say team B starts playing defense to prevent team A from scoring points in the "wrong" basket for team B - - what does team B do when they get the ball? If they take the ball over half court in the wrong direction, it's an "over and back" violation. So team "B" either has to take shots at the "wrong" basket from beyond half court, or somehow be awarded the ball out of bounds. If I remember right, you can inbound the ball from the front court into the backcourt, so long as the player catching the ball is already in the backcourt when catching it. So if team B plays good defense and gets possession of the ball before team A can score in the "wrong" basket, does team B try to make the ball go out of bounds off a team A player - - so they can pass the ball into their own backcourt without being called for "over and back?" But there's some other wrinkles. What if team B starts fouling team A before team A can shoot at the wrong basket? The refs will make team A take foul shots from the proper free throw line. Team A could intentionally miss the free throw, but would have to make sure they at least hit the rim with the shot - - otherwise team B gets to take the ball out directly underneath the "wrong" basket that team B will try to score at. And even if team A successfully rebounds the intentionally missed foul shot, team A would need to shoot at the wrong basket from beyond half court or figure out how to be awarded the ball out of bounds - - because team A now has possession in the front court and has the same potential "over and back" problem when heading to score in the wrong direction. The possibilities are mind boggling. How about this scenario? What if team B fouls team A before team A can try a shot at the wrong basket, so the refs walk everybody to the other end for team A to take a foul shot. And then - - wait for it - - the team A player turns around and shoots a 3/4 court shot at the wrong basket? If the long wrong-way shot misses everything, then team B obviously gets the ball out of bounds at the end where the team A shooter was standing. But what if the wrong way 3/4 court "foul" shot hits the "wrong" rim? Better yet, what if team A's wrong-way 3/4 court "foul" shot actually goes in? Does it count as 1 point for team B? And which team gets the ball out of bounds if the long wrong way "foul" shot goes in? Wonder if there's a rule that requires a forfeit if you can't put at least say 3 eligible players on the court? At some point, would a team fearing that it might not be able to lose on the scoreboard, try to foul out enough of its own players to require it to forfeit the game? And even if there's no minimum number of players rule, what happens if a team fouls out every last one of its players, wouldn't THAT require a forfeit? And what if the ref refused to call fouls to prevent such an intentional forfeit - - would players fake injuries to try to reduce the number of available players (to zero if necessary) to get the forfeit? I'm not sure a ref would risk requiring a player take the court if the player claimed to be injured. What's the ref gonna do, award a forfeit against the team trying to throw the game? That's exactly what they want. I think it would have been fascinating watching how creative each team would get in trying to lose the game if the refs had simply let them play and just enforced the existing rules. Sometimes I ain't right.