eSJayDee

It would seem to me to only be worthwhile if he thought that he had a high likelihood of a successful suit (or settlement) AND it will amount to a significant amount of work. I would think that the physical pain of having your knee trashed & even if there are psychological impacts of rehab would pale in comparison w/ the crap he is and will have to endure having people know that he's suing the Bills. He better be prepared to move out of the area.

Thanks for the clarification. So it likely was a scratch event. But I'll stand by my comments that, depending on the course, a high single digit handicap would be capable of doing that w/ a good round or 2. It's more likely the results achieved of a low single digit handicap (again, depending on the course). I guess it also depends on what you consider a 'good' golfer. For me, especially considering he was an elite athlete, I don't consider it that impressive.

Your info doesn't indicate whether or not it's a handicapped event or how many holes it was. A high single digit handicap would get a positive score (no handicap) on a good day. Give'em 4 days & they could accumulate 36 points. Being a former NFL player (& a very good one), he's likely very athletic & coordinated.

Stuck in Cincy - Thanks for the input. Both contractors who quoted would tear off the existing roof & re-shingle. A 3rd, although the cheapest, didn't supply a written quote & didn't specify whether he'd remove the old ones or not. (Not going w/ him as I have reason to doubt his competence.) Bear in mind, w/ replacing the skylights, or even just the flashing, they'd have to tear up a significant portion of the shingles & paper anyway. The one I'm likely going w/ is also replacing the roof (or vents if he does over the garage). FWIW, this roofer is a member of the BBB w/ no complaints. Also, I asked for 3 references including a project in the works. I'm pretty sure the one I've checked was legit (i.e. it wasn't his 'cousin Vinny'). I might swing by that location this weekend just to take a look.

1st, convert the metric to English. 2.54 cm/inch, right? So it's like what 3/16 of an inch? Pretty small, maybe like an infected bug bite. How long has he had it? You're guessing just a couple of days. I'd wait a couple/few more to see if it changes, better or worse. Can you inspect it well enough to ascertain that there's not like a dead tick or something there?

I have no frickin clue. I have no plans to move or any reason to do so in the near future, but of course that could change. (Getting married, wanting/needing to move for a job, whatever.) I've lived here for 13+ yrs and although the plan was to live here for 'awhile' when I bought it, I wouldn't/couldn't have imagined I'd be here this long. So, who knows.

The house is 18 yrs old. Since I've lived here since '92, I'm relatively certain the shingles are the same age. I don't know what type of shingles (i.e. 20, 30, or 40 yr). FWIW, they still look like they're in decent shape. That's the thing. I'm not getting any substantial discount for doing the whole thing. Depending on the labor involved in replacing the skylights, he might actually be charging more on a square footage basis for doing the rest of the roof. WRT to matching the shingles, I've thought of the option of just buying the extra shingles & storing them above the garage (attic like space). Although I don't know to what extent those few extra years of fading will change the color of the shingles on the roof relative to those in storage and how long it will take for the difference to meld. Except that I get to keep that $3000+ in the bank for the next few years earning interest AND you also need to factor in that there's some probability that I'll be considering the same situation many years from now as well. (Or at least someone will which will/should indirectly impact the value of the home.) Best I can figure, there's nothing gained by replacing a roof prematurely. (Of course, it is costly to wait too long to replace it as this would cause some of the plywood or whatever was used to require replacement as well.)

There's a leak AROUND the skylight. To fix this properly, this requires reflashing, etc. To do that requires lifting up/removing the shingles. Since they're so old they're stuck together, and when doing this this this likelihood is that some/many will rip/break/etc. I've confirmed that they are indeed stuck together and unless the roofers are considerably more talented than I am (they probably are), I'd bet they'd still ruin a decent %age of them. Since no one will get up on the roof and do a PROPER repair for less than $1000 and considering the age of the roof & skylights, I figure it's best to replace that entire section ($2100 is the quote I'll likely take, although I had one cheaper) and skylights $700.

My house is 18 years old. I've got a couple of skylights (actually 3, but the other is small & elsewhere) one of which it leaks around. Considering their age, it seems prudent to replace them w/ new ones when the leak gets repaired. Since the shingles are so old, people basically want to do the whole 'section' which is about 40% of my total roof area. (From the quotes/esitimates I've rcv'd this definitely is the way to go rather than 'patching'.) Now the question I'm pondering is is it worthwhile to do the entire roof. Only 1 company (the one I'm likely to go w/) quoted to do the entire roof, & their rate on a sq footage basis was basically the same as just the skylight section. Considering that the rest of the roof (most of which is above the attached garage & is partially sheltered from sun by the higher other portion of the roof) is probably good for a few more years, I'm effectively loosing several hundred dollars of interest by paying to have that replaced early. (I'm also essentially losing an amortized portion of the cost of the roof replacing it needlessly). The only real downside I can see is that the roof will be somewhat aesthetically incongruous for a few years. (Including for a few more years after the rest of it is replaced due to fading.) The question is does it make sense to have it all done or only the skylight portion. TIA for your opinions & advice.

Might just be something 'normal' like Greg (not Greggggg ) or George. Sometimes the practice is used to differentiate between a father & son w/ the same name 1st name. George Dewey Jr would go by 'Dewey' whereas George Dewey Sr would go by 'George'.

WRT your opinion on where fumbles on QB sacks come from, you might well be right that at least as many come from 'up the middle' as blind side strips. Like you, I haven't seen any empirical data. However, if this is the case, one must also consider that there is more opportunity for sacks to come from 'up the middle' (i.e. more rushers come that way), than from the blind side. The way a drop back pass play unfolds, typically the only rushers from the 'blind side' are the RDE and the occassional edge blitzer, whereas typically on every play, 3 (or more) players are effectively rushing from 'up the middle' as even a LDE or edge blitzer is effectively in the QB's face. Likewise, I haven't seen any stats comparing sacks attributed to RTs as opposed to LTs. I will concede that typically/traditionally the RT is more important to running success. Most teams run more to the right than the left which puts the RT in position to lead at the point of attack. However, I believe that task of pass blocking on the unprotected (i.e. no TE) side is more demanding than w/ a TE there to prevent a rusher simply going around the block. This requires a LT to be more nimble/agile than the traditional job of the RT. Finding a player that is both agile and sufficiently strong to be an effective blocker is a rarity. As such, although a LT does not necessarily contribute more to the overall production of the offense than a RT, I think it is still a more demanding position.

The guy's 6 foot tall! Okay, maybe if some little kid mistook him for MJ, that might be understandable. But for anybody over 5'6" &/or 13 yrs old to mistake someone 6' tall for MJ, is just plain STUPID. Hey, maybe he should sue the general public for $416m, too. For that matter, if it really does bother him, why does he choose to shave his head?

Actually, from a statistical standpoint, I would think an OL giving up only 4 sacks is pretty good. I don't know how sacks are apportioned (i.e. likely Tackles give up more sacks than interior OL), but if you have 5 OL positions and even if you throw in a RB &/or TE, if each of them only gave up 4 sacks, that'd be 20-28 sacks/year, which is pretty good. Then again, and perhaps this is the case w/ Anderson , in order to 'give up' a sack, implies that you were blocking the guy to begin w/.

That thought actually entered my mind. I've subsequently learned that they did indeed lower a considerable # of properties, both during the informal and formal grievance procedures. So for some reason, they didn't like me and chose to put me through considerable stress, aggrevation, and expense. The good news is that after spending the morning at Town Hall, we lowered my square footage by about 15% and reclassified my house from Contemporary to Cape Cod. I brought the sq ftage issue up at the informal process (but w/o substantiating facts other than me telling him his figures were wrong) and during the formal grievance (W/ measurements and diagrams from the appraisal), but for some reason, they chose to ignore that. Now it's onto Small Claims Court, after filing 9 COPIES of the form along w/ supporting documentation, which could easily amount to 300 PAGES! Beauracracy at its finest.

This being a holiday weekend, I'm probably not gonna get much response, but this is as much to vent as to seek advice. Our town (Bethlehem, outside of Albany) has just done a re-assessment of properties supposedly reflecting their actual value. My house had been assessed at $122k (the price less incentives that I paid for it in '92). Had you asked me a few months ago how much it was worth, I would've guestimated ~$180k. After some informal research, I believe $200k is more accurate. It's assessed at $233k! I had an 'informal meeting' w/ the assessor where I presented evidence; about 6 weeks later I get a letter indicating the assessment will remain the same. So I then file a formal grievance, after paying for a professional appraisal. That appraisal came in at $186k (When are you happy when someone tells you what you have isn't worth much? ). Coupled w/ the fact that the house that the appraisal that my mortgage was based on & sold months b4 my house in '92 (& is VERY similar to my house) got it's assessment LOWERED from $190k to $158k during the informal process, I was quite hopeful of having it successfully lowered. No dice. Still $233k Apparently, you still have the option of going through like small claims court (although, as far as I'm concerned, this amounts to a SERIOUS amount of money, probably about $1000 /year). I just can't see how they justify this & was wondering how they derive their values and just how willing they are to change their assessments. p.s. Anyone wanna buy a house w/ high taxes for $233k?

What are the odds that we make the top 20?

Thanks for the work. If I'm to understand how to interpret your 'dead cap' column, it looks like both P.Price & Reed are going to make the roster unless something very unlikely occurs. i.e. Their cap hit if cut is quite high.

Granted, to some extent, we are helping out other teams, but in the same respect, their potential castoffs will help us, too AND if we didn't have another punter, we'd just have another player anyway. Further, what if Moorman gets hurt (knock, knock)? It's certainly better to have 1st hand knowledge of his replacement. As for endurance, way back in the day, my leg was good for 70-80 punts every other day w/ no ill effects. From what I understand, that's more than most punters do. I could easily see if they had a handful of potential returners and they wanted them to practice fielding actual punts rather than from the Juggs machine, you could easily exceed a punters endurance, let alone the fact that punters more likely want to work on their own thing at their own pace rather than be used to assist to the training and evaluation of potential returners.

Make that four. I was thinking of going to my Mopar forum & finding the avatar which has some little brat urinating on the Ford emblem.

Sounds like a scam to me.

Actually, I think Scientology is a "real" religion. Personally, I think it's a big scam, but I'm quite anti mainstream churches as well. I wonder why anyone hasn't brought up that this shirt is unnecessarily &/or unintentionally offensive (and derogatory) to homosexuals.

Little bit of a late notice, but I saw he's scheduled to be on Letterman tonight. I might catch some of it in the midst of my flicking.

I thought it WAS 80 + NFLE exemptions. Maybe the new CBA raised it. We did have several players over there, so we likely have a few exemptions from that. Also, it's possible that some players, I'm thinking specifically like TKO & Everett aren't really on the roster, but rather some 'list'.

You typically KO about 5 times per game. Likewise, that's about the avg punts/game. You of course rcv a like #. That means that if Aiken is among our best ST players, he'll be on the field for 20 plays. (He likely doesn't play on FG attempts.) Now the 3rd WR might see the field on 20 or more plays a game. But the 4th or 5th? I don't think so. Aiken can be a ST player 1st, & a WR 2nd. (Sorta like Tasker was; seemed to work out okay for him and that was in a day b4 53 man rosters.)

I'm confused... Seems to me that would indicate that it WAS necessary to stock up on beer. A case a week just won't cut it. Drink up, boys.