Dan

I'm sorry that you couldn't detect my somewhat sarcastic and snarkish language in that particualr post. I guess it's my fault for thinking someone might have the intelligence to see through the language on a few items that I would think are pretty well common knowledge. I'll dumb down my humor in the future.

I remember that. Awesome game, absolutely unlike any MNF game in years! God, I just wish we could win one of those. It seems every great game we're involved in... we lose.

My intentions are quite simple.. to better understand complex issues, discuss them, and hopefully allow others in the discussion to better understand the complexity. Plus it passes the time while the Bills are lifeless.

Actually, I didn't realize I was being treated like an idiot. I guess ignorance really is bliss. He suggested I "stop driving cars, using plastic bottles and taking medications". Now that's getting pretty ridiculous. Especially, when just a few posts north I clearly stated I'm not against drilling. I just think there are consequences that need to be considered regardless of where you drill. And driilling in some remote artic tundra such as the ANWR can have consequences which my be just as impactful as this mess in the Gulf, depending upon your viewpoint. So, what huge leap did I make again? The post said "anyone who wants to restrict drilling anywhere". That's a pretty radical statement. It suggests that no one should restrict drilling anywhere. Which leads me to think he wants no restrictions. Hence, the question I asked.

So you're suggesting that we just drill without restrictions, constraints, or concerns? Just let these companies have at it regardless of any consequences or liabilities? Do you share similiar beliefs about every industry?

ok. Provided, of course, any actually inspects.

What you're essentially talking about here is an occupation. Take over the country village by village set up our own people and never leave. Because regardless of all te good will and happiness you create, once you leave that village, it goes right back to where it was.

Again, you're confusing safer and easier to control. You're also making the assumption that there's no or very little environmental damage if you spill oil on a frozen tundra. Again, just because its easy to control that doens't mean it's safer or would cause less harm to the environment. If I may digress... some people like to "restore" degraded wetlands. Why? Because they're full of a monoculture of phragmites with limited bird and fish species. They do this in the name of species diversity, because a "restored" wetland has more species of birds and fish (plus it looks much nicer). However, in this degraded habitat there is a huge species diversity. It's just species no one cares about.. insects, spiders, different plants, birds, etc. So, which is better a nice pristine looking wetland or an impacted wetland without pretty birds? It depends on your perspective. If you're truly after species diversity, it probably doesn't matter though. What does that have to do with the price of oil in Alaska? Well, what's better destroying an artic tundra or destroying the gulf coast? It depends upon your perspective. But, there is an incredible natural ecosystem that would be destroyed by drilling the ANWR, with or without a spill. Just because some people perceive it as safer or less of an environmental impact, that doesn't make it true. My point is let's not use this mess as a call for drilling in other areas OR for stopping all drilling. Because neither of those solve the problems we have. How do we drill safer and with less environmental impact? What safe guards do we put in place? Who actually monitors/regulates all this crap? How do you stop/clean up the eventual spill? How do we/Can we develop an alternative energy plan for the Nation that not only actually reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but oil all together?

As all things do... it relates to a football game.

Just because the spill could be brought under control quicker, that doesn't necessarily make it safer. That boat in Alaska only spilled 11million gallons, nothing compared to this little mess; but it pretty well screwed that area did it not. So, yes, in some respects the affects of the spill is lessened, but I wouldn't in any way say it's better or safer. My original point was more that this current mess didn't happen because it was a deep water well. It happened because all companies involved were wreckless and threw caution to the wind for the sake of short-term profit. In addition, the regulatory agency, responsible for making sure these companies weren't wreckless was completely incompetent. So, for me, any discussion regarding how to continue drilling for oil should start with those 2 points long before we discuss where to drill.

In a word, no. An oil spill is a spill, not to mention the ecological damage of getting to and transporting out that oil. There's little debate, really, drilling in the ANWR will effectively disrupt that ecosystem to the point that it no longer resembles the current natural state. Now, granted, its a stretch of land that few people ever see and therefore you could argue the impact is less. However, that's a separate argument all together... do we want to protect the planet - all of the planet - or not? From what I've seen of the ANWR debate, it essentially comes down to one side that says screw it, no one lives there who cares about some moose and antelope; versus the other side, all animals are precious and we shouldn't do anything that will ever kill or in any way harm any living creature. It's an interesting debate. But, one that will probably never be answered and becomes far more about politics and who's getting the money. My question is.. would drilling the ANWR actually solve anything or would it just give a few more gallons of oil for a couple of years to line a few pockets. I'm not sure of the exact amount of oil up there, does anyone know. But, as of today; I'd say drill the hell out of the gulf, we've already screwed that up. Why screw up another place? I agree. We need oil. I'm not saying stop drilling. I'm just saying that if you drill, there will be ecological effects that are far reaching and potentially disasterous even to animals and ecosystems that most people may not really care about. And I agree, we need a responsible, alternative energy plan for a variety of reasons.

Thanks. I'm a relatively new/infrequent visitor to this forum. But, lately it's far more interesting than discusing why Lynch is/isn't a thug.

You've said you have a strategic plan that you think is better. I would like to hear it, regardless of the verbosity of the post. Seriously, I would appeciate the perspective.

Ya know what's really predictable? The fact that each side will use something like this mess to further their respective agendas. On one hand, because of the current oil spill; we have to stop all drilling. On the other, because of the current oil spill; we have to drill in the ANWR. Neither notion will solve any problems associated with this or future oil spills, but I guess it's convenient.

I must admit... that's it for me. With both of these wars, no one has ever been able to say what the "goal" is. What is the definition of victory? And no matter when we leave, whether it be tomorrow or 20 years from now; the mess just starts all back up again. It has for thousands of years and to think we can fix it; is highly narsicistic thinking to say the least. The problem as I see it, you can't just force a few people out, have an election, and magically you have stability in the country/region. The people have never had stability and don't really want stability. They want to completely eliminate anyone that doesn't agree with them. They turn everything into a holy war. And you can't win a holy war unless you exterminate or completely and entirely demoralize them. And therein lies the problem. To "win" in Afghanistan we have to roll through Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and probably half a dozen other countries; go village to village and kill everyone we find until you completely stamp out their will to fight in the name of some god that's not there anymore. Or drop a bunch of nukes. But that's it. Does anyone think if we fought Japan with today's rules that we would have ever won that war? Japan was not surrendering. The idea was not even available to them, until we went island to island and killed every one we found. And started dropping nukes on the mainland. At that point, and only at that point, did they realized life with the shame of defeat was better than extermination from the planet. So the real question for me is... do we really want to "win" over there? Or do we just want to keep the problems there and not have them make their way to our shores again? If it's the former, start dropping nukes. If it's the latter, get our troops home and develop an entirely new strategy for an entirely new type of warfare. IMO, we should have dropped the nukes after 9/11. We had the justification and it would have ended this mess much quicker. Plan the bombing so the fallout takes care of half of Pakistan. Of course, the world would have been pissed; but if you don't drop them after that; when do you use a nuke?

We have a few Ford and Chevys at work used for towing trailors, carrying equipment, getting around, etc. The Chevy is by far the better drive. Ford's I find to be very much uncomfortable to sit in for any sort of drive. Plus the cab space seems really tight. More like a car than a truck, imo. Now, as far as actual performance... I'd say they're about equal. We've had both Fords and Chevys on the road for 5-10 years, a couple with over 200,000 miles, with various transmission, axel, brake, whatever problems. So, good and bad for both. But, I think the Chevys, overall, give us fewer problems. That's only about a penny's worth, but it's all I got.

I'd say about 9 out of 10 young, inexperienced QBs have those porblems trying to transition to the pros. The biggest problem with JP was he had a horrible coaching staff, that drafted a kid that everyone said would take a few years to develop because he was raw. Then they gave him 1 year and expected greatness.

He's not on all the OTA highlight films lighting up the QBs, so I'm here to call it first.... BUST! The guy will never amount to anything. Must be a locker room cancer, too. I've never heard any of his team mates say anything good about him. Another wasted draft pick. Damn Ralph.

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.