Dan

Isn't this kinda like how many golf balls are in the air at any given time in Canada? So, I'm going to say all of them, because math hurts.

You pretty well summed up by thoughts on this topic. The Shout song IS the Buffalo Bills. Plain and simple. What's next change the logo to a slug-looking atrocity just because it's new and "stylish". Maybe we should ditch the Bills name and call them the Bandits or something that's cool. Yeah, anything that's older than 10 years should be changed because we want to be hip and have other people like us. If you don't like the Bills, why don't you follow some other team? And the Shout Song is every much a part of the team as is the Bills logo and team colors.

I got one of those for an office, I believe upon your advice, a wile back. Thanks! You're completely right. There are some good, solid, affordable machines out there. I just think Macs can have their place as well. You'll pay more, but for some people price is less of an issue

Good points and granted I wouldn't say take your child into any and every bar. But, most kids learn all about the f-bombs right at their house long before they ever hear it in public. Besides, was so !@#$ing wrong with a little assertive language from time to time. But, aren't each of those comments valuable things you should teach your kids? Don't get drunk and be an idiot like that guy. If you can't hold your liquor, don't try and drink it. I learned these kinds of valuable lessons from my dad, some in bars, some in family get togethers, some watching the Bills play in the 80's. Maybe he was wrong to call me an f-ing idiot for sneaking too many beers at my Aunt's wedding (when I was about 10). But, I learned you better hold your liquor or you'll be an f-ing idiot.

Excellent point. I didn't mean to blame the OS; it was the various software prgrams that cause the majority of the problems that I meant to refer to. However, it is the less stringent requirements of Windows that allows programmers to get "lazy". But, like I said that keeps the price down. So I guess its a trade off. I also agree. The best way is to buy a blank computer and install all things, including Windows. I've done that a few times. It actually takes me less time to install everything, fresh, on a blank drive than it does to delete and deconfigure a pre-setup Dell or godforbid HP machine. HP's have to be thte worst! I'd disagee, very much. They can be for the computer illiterate. But, if you know what you're doing you can change almost every aspect of the OS and the way many programs work within in. The majority of Mac owners, I know are quite computer literate and go through all levels of customizing their machines. There's a misconception that Macs are not serious computers, although that's completely not true. As well as, the misconception that Macs are for people that don't really want to do "work" on their computer (hence the commercials with the business guy vs the "cool" guy). Funny thing though, why are all the good games only for non-Macs? Intersting but a side point. Certainly, Macs are more expensive. By far the most expensive, I'll say. But, if you have the cash to splash and buy a top of the line maxed out Mac; you'll be hard pressed to find a faster, more robust personal computer. Granted you can build your own and usually beat all pricing and specs, but what percentage of computer users build their own? We're not talking about that crowd at all; I would think. Like i've always said: buy the computer that does what you need. Why buy a top of the line 64bit quad processors when for the next year 90% of your use will be with an old 32bit application? Some buy for price, some for certain software, some for looks, some for portability, to each his own.

I hope to never upgrade to Office 2007. I absolutely hate it. I've installed it on quite a few work computers for other people, thinking we should begin to get used to it. But, I'm hoping at some point in the future they'll realize that ribbon idea with all the stupid icons is just plain dumb and counterintuitive. My biggest beef... they keep making changes just for the sake of making changes. Is the program actually any more stable, faster, smaller hard drive foot print? Something? All I see are new colors, everything moved around, and entirely too much pre-formatting of text. Just because I type 1. doesn't mean I want a bulleted list. Why turn my websites and emails into blue, underlined links? I hate that and all the other preformatted we know what your writing should like cap. Maybe it's just the control freak in me, but I like to control my computer not the other way around. Which, incidentlly, is why I've always preferred Macs. The software on them is much, more intuitive and the programs don't take over your computer, installing crap all over the place and automatically restarting your computer running in the background. In recent years, they've lost some of that but its still light years better than a Windows PC. (never used Linux, so no idea about it) Of course, Apple's very strict software standards, while making for a much more stable platform, has the downside of causing software developers to hire a separate group of developers which runs the price up.

Good point. Also, Clayton says.. " the veterans will be exposed to injury for only about a quarter or two longer than the current system. In the current four-game preseason, veterans play about six or seven quarters." But his math is off. If they currently play 6-7 quarters in preseason. You take half those away when you cut the final 2 games. So, they'd play about 3-4 quarters in preseason (I rounded up); plus the 8 quarters of the 2 addtional games. So over the 4 games, they'd go from 6-7 quarters to 11-12 quarters. Add in your point about going full speed and the risk for injury/wear and tear goes up considerably.

This is what I don't get. So your dad took you to places like that and you turned out all right (I'm making the assumption, here.) So, why is it something you wouldn't do with your kid? I don't get it. I hear that all the time from friends and sisters. What makes today that much different from yesterday, other than we've all gotten overly paranoid about potential problems? I say take your kids to a bar, teach them how to order drinks properly, how to tip, and let them have some fun. Money says when they eventually get to drinking age/college; they'll be much more responsible.

I'll tell ya one thing I have noticed from watching the short clips on bb.com... Edwards seems to take longer to make a decision before throwing. Brohm's passes seem to come out a few seconds faster. Granted these videos are by no means good for evaluating performance, but it it noticeable. I can tell you this, though, the QB that gets the ball out the fastest is going to do best behind our line.

I very much agree with you. However, I think you can cover for a below average line easier than you can a below average QB. A strong run game combined with a short, quick passing game means the line doesn't have to hold their blocks for that long. Of course, you're right, they'll still have to block and occasionally hold their blocks longer. If all your passes are quick slants and outs, the defense will still play up and jump the routes. So, they'll have to go deep on occasion. However, give a bad QB a really good line and he'll still make bad decisions and bad throws. I'm not suggesting that our offense will be fine this year, I'm suggesting that 8 defenders in the box, playing the run, can be backed off with a quick passing game. Not all passes need to be 7 step drops, while you go through your reads. A healthy dose of 3 step drops with quick passes to the 1st target, covered or not, can be effective. But, our QB has to be able to execute that quick passing game.

Considering none of us have seen anything of the offense the team will be running, I think it's entirely too early to panic about how our offense cannot react to opposing defenses. However, there are an increasing number of indications that point towards our offense be heavily reliant upon the run game. The above bolded comment is critical, IMO. Because once you establish a run first, run often offense; defenses will react with various looks and crowd the line ans stop they run. At that point, we have to have a QB that can recognize the defense and make the proper hot reads. That's what we've been missing for years. There's no evidence that Trent can do that. So, once again, it all comes down to the QB. He's going to have to read the defense, audible, and make the proper throws to receivers running routes (as opposed to guys that run 15-20 yards down field, stop, and turn around waiting to have the ball thrown). The line doesn't have to block long, if the QB can make a presnap read and throw the ball within a couple of seconds. But, to do that, not only does the QB need to have some brains and accuracy, he also needs some balls. Do that and you begin to back the defense up a little, which helps to open some running lanes. Don't do that, and we see the same thing we've seen for years - Moorman punting.

Agreed. And good points. But, I don't know that they made up a new law to set this fund up. BP decided to do it out of their desire to take responsibility, at the proding and suggestion of the White House. I don't think the $20 billion is the end all be all. It's probably some number they all pulled out of their collective asses. But, in some article I read on it somewhere, it was suggested that this is most likely just the beginning and the finally tally will ultimately depend upon the number of claims and lawsuits that will come. I just haven't seen anything that indicates any specific law or process was circumvented. It's unprecedented, that's for sure. But, that's my point in all this... for once a politician didn't just talk and blow smoke for the cameras; something was actually done. If there were actual laws broken, then I'll reasses but until then I say this is the only positive development in this whole damn mess.

But there's the dichotomy. We don't want the rich or the government paying for this disaster. BP is the responsibile party. So, why is it so bad that had a meeting and decided to set aside money to fix this? Should we just trust that BP will fairly compensate everyone? Does the government have any responsibility to ensure that BP pays up? If so, how do they get them to do that? Should we have just let it all get fought out in courts for years with no end in sight? Quite honestly, I give BP credit for doing this, just as much as I give Obama credit for making sure they did this. It's a rare occurence when the government and a corporation actually seem to have done the right thing together. I just don't see how the Constitution was circumvented. BP has admitted guilt and apparently after some lengthy discussion decided it was in their best interest to do this. I've seen no evidence they they were threatened with jail time or anything if they didn't. (Let's be realistic, Tom was exagerating to prove his point. Amendements 4-10? Search and Seizure? Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Construction of a Constitution? The Preamble? Come on.)

As I see it, something's got to give. NFL contracts have essentially become useless. Owners can back out whenever they want; and now players are backing out whenever they want. Hayneswortth is just one of the most talked about recently due to the amount of money; but look at Revis. He signs a long term contract. The Jets think theye've done well. One good season and lots of great press; and now Revis demands to be the highest paid DB in the league. Nevermind that he still has 3 yrs left on his contract. Similar situation with Peters and a dozen other guys we could mention. Of course on the flip side, teams want to back load the contract so they can dump a player after a few years and never give him the big payout. And, more often than not, they do just that. It just seems the contracts have become useless. No one, player or team, seems to honor them. The only way I see out is to make contracts, ya know, actual binding documents. Players have to play out their contracts and teams have to pay out the contracts. Knowing that you have to pay 100% might make owners think about these huge long-term deals. And by the same token, knowing they can't demand trades might make players think twice about sitting out. of course, you'll always have players sign contracts ane then never live up to expectations. But, that's just part of life. Nothing can ever be guaranteed; its the nature of free agency. Which is why building a team with big name, high priced FAs has never been the way to build a team. It's just a mess.

He has a signed contract that he continued to honor when he took the bonus money this spring. What more assurance can you possibly expect? Should they have had mirrors in the room to make sure his fingers weren't crossed behind his back? Haynesworth has a signed contract. He knows full well the Skins are switching defenses. He accepted the bonus, meaning he plans to continue playing. But, now he changes his mind? As stated, he want his cake and wants to eat it too.

I stopped reading right there. No good could possibly come from a post that entails thinking and such.

That's my problem with it. What are you gaining by adding 2 more games? Nothing, I say. Increasing the chance for injuries, poor play when teams have the playoffs wrapped up with 4 or 5 weeks still to play, shorter player careers, dilution of the NFL product all around. IMO, 16 weeks is pushing it. But I guess the league has run the numbers and shown that they'll make a ton of money with 2 more regular season games. And, afterall, what's more important... making money or putting the best product on the field? Easy decision when you think about it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Got it. Here's some good Antivirus advice: Consumer Digest Forum Linky

If you think about it... all the best ones had very little gore or effects. It's a trivia question about how much blood you see in Halloween or Psycho. Because there is none, but you're sure there's blood... you remember seeing it. That's' how good those movies are. They put the images in your head, they don't have to show them to you. The Shining is up there as one on the scariest ever. As an adult that thing can still scare you late at night. Another rare one... I Saw What You Did (1965). For kids that used to like to sit home on Fridays and prank call, that movie pretty much ended that. I haven't seen it in years, so maybe it doesn't hold up. No mention of Friday the 13th? I figured someone would have by page 3.

Allow me to ask a dumb question... if your music is on an external drive, why not just unplug it from the one computer and then into the other to transfer the files? I'm not sure why you have to network the two if you have an external drive. Unless you just want them on the one drive, but want both comps to share them?

No option to select the Chorisen One? biased poll, this is.

And yet we still endure post after post detailing how upset the team is with Lynch and they're just waiting to trade him. By all accounts, Lynch is liked by his teammates and the FO/HC want him playing here. Yet, to read some posters, Lynch is this poison seed that's a locker room disruption and the team is readiy shopping. It's like some weird sociological experiment watching posters project their wishes onto that of the team.

As has been stated here... beer pong and other such drinking games are one thing. They can be fun, competitive, all sorts of things. You opt in to play them; that's the key. But this icing thing is completely gay. It's not a game in any way. If you don't have the balls to say screw off, why not just walk around with one of those crappy drinks in your back pocket? Then you never have to drink. I don't know the whole premise seems stupid. As far as what you do at parties... what ever happened to trying to get laid at a party? If I'm a young single guy... no way I'm walking around trying to get other guys drunk. Just typing that, I sound gay. So, for the single guys here... what are you going to parties for, if it's' not to meet hot chicks? And do you really think you're impressing the ladies by icing some guy? (Again, that just sounds...)

Old enough to be that young girl's father, although I'm no sure what that has to do with anything..