Dan

If you're certain that husband wasn't the murderer than you have some clue about who the perpetrator was. You had to rule out the husband based on some reasoning, correct? You've deduced based upon (for example) time of death, cause of death, location of death, etc. that the husband wasn't the perp. Hence, you can say that the perp was available at a certain time, able to inflict certain types of wounds, had access to the scene of the crime, etc. Consequently, you would indeed have a clue about the perpetrator and would not make the the initial statement. Back to the argument at hand, to say your positive about anything as complex and as lacking in thorough data as human evolutionary origins is not wise, especially when prefaced by a self-proclaimed statement that you have no clue about the subject. That's all I was implying.

The point I was attempting to make, that apparently was missed, is quite simple. If you state that you have no clue as to what happened, how can you say that you're positive about anything? "I don't know what the answer is, but based upon this evidence or that, I think we evolved from H. erectus."; is a much more reasonable argument. As for my opinion, it's largely irrelevant. I'm not an anthropologist, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, typically I defer to the experts in the field as opposed to making an unsupported claim and assuring everyone that I'm absolutely positive that's the right answer. However, you asked for my opinion, so I'll provide it. There are currently 2 primary theories on human evolution - Modern H. sapiens evolved from small, regional populations throughout Africa, Europe and Asia and all modern humans evolved in parallel from these earlier populations. The second theory proposes that modern H. sapiens evolved from a small, isolated population in Africa. And as this population expanded it outcompeted all early hominid species. As far as I know, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA studies best support the later theory. Hence, I would be inclined to cite that theory as most plausible, until evidence is discovered or presented to the contrary. As for the suggestion that modern H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, well that's largely speculation at best. If you prefer the multiregional theory of parallel evolution; then I think you could make an argument that H. erectus could have evolved further. However, if the "out of Africa" theory is more accurate, then it's less likely that H. erectus further evolved into H. sapiens. Given my preference for the later theory, I'm currently of the opinion that H. erectus was an evolutionary deadend. But, again, I would argue that much still remains to be learned about human evolution and therefore much remains to be rewritten.

In addtion, if you consider the early reports that the Bills want to go more no huddle, that would imply pass catching RBs. Of the 2, Rhodes is definitely the better pass catcher. So, sure, at the time Taylor looked like he would have been a good signing. However, given the sum of the offseason moves and reports of how the offense may be changing, I'm glad we got Rhodes.

Amen. This team hasn't had any fire in practice or on gameday in years. You know TO will change that on the offensive side. If it takes a rookie to do it on the defensive side, I'm all for him B word slapping a few people.

Flawed logic. The Bills' FO also brought in Coles before TO. Does that also mean they'd rather have Coles as the second WR? No, it just means they brought in FAs as they were available. The fact that they didn't offer Taylor "an offer he couldn't refuse" says more to how they valued him than when they brought him in.

So Jones is pissed about not getting good enough offers and doesn't sell the naming rights and that's fine? But, Ralph does the same thing and he's somehow seen as bad? So more of the whatever the Bills and Ralph do is bad; whatever anyone else does is good mentality.

You should post more.

You gotta love arguments like this. So you have no clue what happened, yet you're positive that you're right? Brilliant.

But Pit Bulls are not a violent breed by nature. At least not towards humans. It's a rather huge misconception. They were bred for loyalty to humans and to fight other dogs. I wouldn't have a pit bull and other dogs. But, as a sole pet, pit bulls are great dogs to have, even around kids. Most problems with pit bulls and children are the dogs get too excited playing with the child and knock the kid down or something such as that. Of course, if you keep a dog in a pen and raise it to be violent towards other people and animals well I'm not sure it matters what breed you have.

No. The easiest solution would be for the girl to learn how to dress herself. She goes to school dressed like a tramp and is upset when her picture comes out and she looks like a tramp? Incredible.

What the hey.. I'm bored. Actually, I think dogs and most animals do have rights. Hence, you cannot just kill and maim them at will. Ever hear of the Animal Welfare Act? I reckon not. Few animals will fight to the death like Vick and company were forcing these dogs. This argument is completely baseless. Dogs are trained to fight like this, by their nature, yes, they will fight. But, rarely do those fights result in death. So by your reasoning, all murderers and rapists are ok? Afterall, violence exists. Why should we punish anyone for bing violent? As Fez pointed out, there are laws preventing strays in almost every City/town in this country. I'm sure that if you reported a stray, the pound or Humane Society would be by to try and pick it up. I'm also pretty sure that if you had credible proof that a dog, stray or not, was killing your cats, that animal would be picked up and put to sleep. I'm certain there are quite a few people that would argue that a Vick was a thinking, feeling human while torturing his dogs. Yes, he did it for sport. And, that, is illegal in this country. Not to mention, so is the gambling and racketeering that was associated with the sport. So, regardless of any of your arguments , the bottomline is he was engaged in illegal activities, was caught, and was sentenced. If you really don't like that, why not petition to change the laws. The fact that he took it a step further and tortured the animals just makes it that much more deplorable.

And dumb. How hard is it to type "youtube.com" or "facebook.com" and hit 'enter'? Why would you ever need to search for youtube?

And who's gonna be our back up when Trent goes down? That's what I wanna know. Fitzy? JP? The Chroisen One? Of course, we all know who it should be, and TO is a big WR with VH1 here. And I just can't understand why Ryan Leaf isn't considered. Niagra Falls blows.

I think that's driven by demand. As many of us here think ESPN should be about sports, or MTV play music videos, or News stations actually report News; there are many more people out there that more interested in the gossippy, celebrity-driven fluff. I'd be willing to bet that ESPN has mountains of data indicating that their most watched programs are the obnoxious ones with pundits screaming about this or that; hence that's what they provide. Those of us that just want factual, intelligent reporting and programming need to just realize that we are in the minority. I agree, regarding TO. My question is... if the Bills were able to sign Coles, would they have gone after TO? I know its been suggested by numerous people that signing TO was a great PR move by the team. But, I'm more of the opinion that that's a corollary effect to the Bills needing a WR and TO becoming available with few options available for either the team or TO.

I don't see how Kelly loses any credibility. Jauron was extended at a time when the bills were 4-0 and on their way to 5-1. That's a pretty darn good start. Hell, it was even good enough to get some of the most pessimistic fans thinking things were turning around. The problem was not putting in an "out" clause if the season fell apart; or just eating the contract after it did. But, you have to recall at the time Jauron was extended, the Bills were the talk of the league, Edwards was on his way to a Pro Bowl, and Jauron was COY material. Which makes the horrendous decline over the 2nd half of the season even more mind boggling.

This is pretty much how I've seen it and it's refreshing to think maybe I'm not a complete idiot. But, for me, the most frustrating aspect of our team in recent years has been the complete lack of emotion before, during, and after games. Yes, I agree, you need to keep an even keel. But, you also have to get a little upset about losing. IMO, our coaching staff has fostered and environment that makes it OK to lose as long as you give it all you got. That may sound nice when you're a kid, but these are grown men begin paid big $, losing is not ok under any circumstance. The best thing about TO is that I don't think he'll accept a mediocre performance, let alone a losing one. And, that for me, is a good thing. It's also refreshing to hear someone (who presumably knows more about Ralph's mindset than me) state that there will be major changes if the playoffs are not made after this season. Maybe that'll be the motivation Jauron needs to wake up. And if not, well what's one more losing season after so many in a row.

We've had this discussion in the past, but I'm too lazy to look it up. But, I recall someone suggesting that they eliminate the OT coin flip. Why not have the opening kickoff determine who would get the ball first, similar to at the start of the 3rd quarter? Currently, if you win the opening coin flip, you have the option to defer. If you defer, you get the ball to start the 3rd quarter. Why not make it whomever gets the accepts the opening kickoff would also get the OT kickoff. It would add an interesting dynamic to the decision to defer. It's also an interesting idea regarding the placement of the kickoff. But, I also recall and article that linked the bias in recent years to the coin flip winner due to better field goal kickers not so much the kick off. FWIW.

Exactly! It's precisely this attitude that gets tiring and needs to be given a long overdue rest The Bills and Buffalo can never do anything positive or good without constantly being reminded of a past mistake or problem. Ever positive move is grounded in the firm cement of past failures. Let it go people. You can never move forward if you're continually living in the past; especially when you preferentially dwell in all the mistakes of the past. It's kinda like that article in the other thread. We signed TO, people are excited, the City is excited, the national media is talking positively of Buffalo. But, wait, lets bring up how bad it is in Buffalo and why we shouldn't celebrate and be happy. I'm sorry but its a loser's mentality. Yes, the Bills made mistakes. But they've also had successes. As others have stated, Ngata's success is largely a function of his current teammates. There's absolutely no assurance that he'd be the same player had the Bills selected him. Besides, draft a Safety at 8, sign a DT FA or draft a DT at 8, sign a S FA - what's the difference?

I'll contend that Trent clearly has the entire season on his shoulders. Yes, if/when he goes down it will get interesting. But, it's amazing.. Brady went down and people thought the Pats* were screwed. Young went down and the Titans were supposed to be screwed. Point is... you never know. Trent is no doubt the key to our success. If he can read the defense properly and make the right decision, he shouldn't need more than a few seconds from the line. You've got Evans, TO, a slot WR and/or RB/TE on each pass play. If he makes the proper presnap read and gets the ball out, how much time does he need back there? If he's dropping back expecting 5-7 seconds to scan the field and see an open receiver, we're screwed. If Evans is double covered, drop back and toss it to TO and vice versa. If both are doubled, hit your outlet receiver/TE/RB. He should be able to do that by now.

Thank you! I read the first post and as soon as I saw Ngata, I wondered how long it would take for someone to say we should have drafted him and we suck for not drafting him and the FO blows. It took 3 posts. Wow. Get over it people. We didn't draft him. It's done. No more validation of your GM smarts are required. Ngata would have been a good pick. We all get it. The problem is too many poeple think there's only one way to draft or build a team. And you refuse to believe anything to the contrary.

The article had a very clear tone of the old man standing on his front porch yelling at kids playing on lawn. wahh... wahhh. You young kids with all your hoopla and enthusiasm need to settle down out there. We don't do exciting things here. We just sit back and drink beer quietly in our back yard. Wahh.. wahhh.. no leave me alone and let me wallow in my misery in peace. I have to be at work at 9 in the morning. Sad in a way.

It seems fairly simple to me as well. You're an outdoor team, playing in a city notorious for its bad weather and tricky winds - you have to practice outside to become accustomed to that. But, you'd want to have some practices indoors to work on the details of your game plan. Seems, easy. Mix it up. You get the best of both worlds; more experience playing in the elements and the benefit of finely tuning your game plans in a controlled environment.

Accept the Chroise and all will be forgiven.

But no one would say that.. niggardly sounds so gay. Maybe our RB needs to be less thug or g. But then, someone would call me a poser. Crap, on second thought, maybe it's better to be gay.

In general, plantar fasciitis is a self-limiting condition. Unfortunately, the time until resolution is often six to 18 months, which can lead to frustration for [fans] and [internet posters]. Although the great majority of people heal in about 2 months. Maybe he's out dancin every night.. ya know shakin his... nevermind.