BuffaloHokie13

So far I'm through 2. The first is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quite from the abstract It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things.

Uh huh. So after informing me that I don't know what you think or really mean you make a post with no salient points. Just links, and you expect me to form your conclusion for you? I am genuinely confused on what you expect me to 'counter'. Look, this type of post honestly has no business here and is not in good faith imo. A good faith post would have presented points and backed them up, as necessary, with linked source material. This feels like, and I could be mistaken, a post where you had no actual informed points, so you googled the topic and pasted some links - even admitting that some of your sources are lacking credibility. It legitimately boils down to ' Well, there are some studies out there from the past 15 years.' Regardless, I will take a look at them over time (my office blocks all foreign domains and social media, so 75% has to wait until 6 or later).

Not sure how I could've been clearer But sure, by all means, please clarify what you meant by I'm still eagerly awaiting backup of any kind.

So you're abandoning the part about because absolutely and almost illogical typically describe things that are simple to point out. That was your response to my statement, which clearly included racial and gender inequity. If you didn't read that far before making your statement I understand though.

Football is far and away my favorite sport, with hockey next behind it, but I truly believe the best thing to watch in all of sports is Tiger Woods playing golf well.

Well, the Green New Deal certainly did, and I pointed out that it was one of the reasons that the bill absolutely was NOT about a serious discussion. See below. Here was your response Here's my subsequent request And then radio silence. So please, tell me about how climate change specifically impacts different races and genders more than others. If you want to argue class, that's certainly a discussion and there are points on both sides, but definitely not race or gender.

With the 39th pick in the 2019 NFL Draft, the Tampa Bay Bucs select Rock Ya-Sin, CB, Temple With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL Draft, the Tampa Bay Bucs select Erik McCoy, C, Texas A&M @Alphadawg7 and the Broncos are on the clock.

Catch any Ben Burr-Kirven tape? He's not in my top tier, but he caught my eye more than once while I was watching Byron Murphy film

Depends. He hasn't been on to review them. Like I said, hopefully all is well.

I'm fine either way. @Alphadawg7 can hold off until at least noon. I hope you're feeling better bud! I just got real bored tracking no changes for 7 'on the clock' hours and not even a log-in

My comp there is still Greg Hardy, though I do see the workout comparisons to JPP.

He was on the clock at 6ish last night for his first pick based on the timestamp from NewEra. Day ends at 10, right?

Sounds like at least McCoy isn't locked in until 12. Maybe you're in luck?

the first pick was due this morning though, right? I was mostly operating with the knowledge he hasn't been on in 18 hours. So I don't think he's evaluating trades or anything. We'll see in ~50 mins!

unofficial picks. disregard

Or Baltimore, which I think is an interesting fit. Obviously lower volume of passes, but with all the running and misdirection he could have a ton of 60+ yards TDs.

Ed Oliver fits their mold as well, fwiw. I can see DK being the pick, but I'm not sure how that translates to the field. Right now our starting 3 are (in my eyes) John Brown, Robert Foster, Cole Beasley. Does DK bump our newly signed Brown? Or does he bump Foster - who I'm not banking on, but I believe earned his opportunity?

Not losing. Better yet, tying. I want to be the first team to go 0-0-16.

But that is the profile this front office has targeted. Allen and Edmunds are both in the same mold as DK.

paging @ndirish1978

I'm at about 90% confidence he doesn't get past pick 15. Based on what we know today, anyway.

Right now my top 10 based on efficiency are: Brady, Mahomes, Brees, Rodgers, Watson, Luck, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Ryan, Rivers In arguing top 5 in the game there is a weight factor for staying power, so pull out Mahomes & Watson.

Still working on that connection between climate change and racial/gender inequity?

I think Metcalf is too, a 1st rounder that is. In my eyes he's in play anywhere between 6 & 24, with relatively likely spots being Jacksonville, Buffalo, Denver, Miami, Green Bay, Washington, Seattle, and Oakland.