Terry Tate

Here you go. Badass helmet

But they live in a black neighborhood, so it's called "Ask" bodyspray. And if you don't get that joke, then you're not racist. (Zach G.)

One guy's take on it.

Restraints: Lap bar, Seat belt AKA "Lap belt". Rider: Missing one leg entirely, missing 1/2 of other leg, so effectively has 1/2 a lap. From there up, full adult height/weight. Problem?

Oops, sorry - you were just eliminated from the jury pool for a First Degree Murder trial. But say you made it on. You still haven't convinced me. We're waaaay over 11 hours now. You've reviewed a number of different evidence entries. Why didn't the jury? You've stated it doesn't take all 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty - I think you're wrong - it takes a unanimous decision either way in a capital crime, otherwise it's a hung jury and a mistrial. Sure you don't want to ask the judge for clarification on that? This jury did not ask a single question, did not review any evidence or testimony, requested not a single clarification on instructions, and wrapped it up in 11 hours. I've spent more time reviewing information and getting "testimony" when deciding on purchases over $100. I would have voted guilty. On the chance 11 agreed with me, I would have slept soundly with that decision. If I were the only one, I would have hung this jury, and there would have been a mistrial. Perhaps that would have been the only decision that would have satisfied everyone.

*deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHA! (I'm sorry, I'll compose myself now) Seriously, you make some valid points in questioning aspects of the evidence presented, at least as you know it. Now imagine yourself in a room with myself, or one or two of the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you. No one wants to review any of the 46 days of evidence or testimony in a First Degree Murder case? No questions about the judge's instructions? Eleven hours, and all are in agreement? You guys have been going at this longer than that on this thread, and you still don't have an agreement. Sound reasonable?

Shh, you're going to interrupt the people who are patting the backs of the jury as logical and reasonable examples of doing the right thing. After 46 days of listening to evidence and testimony in a First Degree Murder trial, they didn't ask a single question of the judge, didn't want to review any evidence or testimony, and spent a whole 11 hours "deliberating". They then found her not guilty and are now complaining about how hard it was. "Reasonable", my butt.

I always wear a helmet when I ride, and a seatbelt when I drive. And goes back way before either was mandated by law. In fact, some cars didn't have seatbelts - or if they did, I had to dig them out of the seat because no one else used them. But, I am against the laws. I have no problem with people dying because they made that choice. I would be sad and a little pissed at them if it was a family member, but life's tough.

I live in Central FL, so it's local news. I disagree with Marcellosaurus, I heard enough to vote guilty. I would have gladly hung the jury with that vote by myself, and made them do it over again if necessary. So I'd be a bad juror. Again (OJ).

Years from now, long after we're gone, future music snobs will look through our history to find out what kind of music we listened to, looking to get some sense of us. What kind of people were we? What was our day-to-day like? What was the greatest music during our lifetime? And when they look, they're going to find the number one hit single of 1969: Sugar, Sugar by The Archies.

I agree. If you're a Spielberg movie fan, you're going to like it.

LOL, "You are hanging on by a very thin thread and I dig that about you!" Followed up with a note thanking them for the interview. Did not get the job - responded positively with another note thanking them for considering me and asked them to keep me in mind in the future. A few months later, they called to interview me again. Been working for them since 2005.

The Deep Web is just all the sites that are not listed with a search engine. Like the internet used to be before search engines - if you didn't know where you were going, you couldn't find it. Are some sites purposely not registered with a search engine? Probably so. Is there any information I want that I can't find through a traditional search engine? Nope. Not going on any treasure hunts. The internet before search engines sucked.

Thank you NGU, it is very much appreciated. Not only is it very cool for you to do this, but I continue to be impressed by your tact when posters are trying to argue their point of view. I look forward to hearing more from you whenever it is convenient and does not interfere in any way with your making a living.

lol how true. I prefer those who sing it rather than perform it. The guy who's a regular at Sabres games is pretty good.

There used to be three major league teams in Buffalo. So, yeah.

That's what I wasn't aware of, that the selection tie-breakers weren't the same as the standings tie-breakers. I assumed the same tie-breakers used for determining the league standings, and winners of playoff positions (division winner, home-field advantage, etc) would be in effect in reverse. I was surprised to find out they are not. Therefore, while the league standings have the Bills in front of the Bengals due to their head-to-head win, the selection order has the Bills picking in front of them due to the SOS. I'll take it.

Thanks, I see that on the NFL's site now. Strange that they don't just go in reverse order of league standings. Never paid attention to that before.

This may be a stupid question, but what difference does SOS make when the teams met head to head, and the Bills won? I would think that would put Cinci at #3 and Buffalo at #4.

Son of a biscuit - DON'T MAKE ME TURN THIS CAR AROUND!

I noticed that Buddy took a lot of team captains last year. Not sure if that's one of the things he looks for, or if the talent level of many NFL draft picks is such that they would naturally be leaders at lower levels. Either way, seemed like a good idea to me.

Not to pick on your post, just using it to respond to the thread in general. I'm not sure if you think this is a good idea or not, because you've listed some of the reasons I think it's a bad idea. Ditka's trade of his entire draft and the next year's top pick? He went three years there with losing seasons and got fired. You think there's some holes on defense? LOL, take a snapshot of the starting D and the starting O on the field. Then photoshop out the players who are not what would be considered solid, good, dependable starters with empty grass space, and you will get a visual of what the Bills are fielding every week. I'm not talking pro-bowlers, obviously - just good players. There's a lot of green out there, isn't there? In my picture, Fitz is still on the field. Great? Nope, but IMHO not an empty space. You don't fill those empty spaces, you don't win. If you have all those empty spaces, and a good (not great) QB, you're not in a position to trade away your capability to fill them. For some reason this discussion reminds me of shiny new expensive cars parked in front of crappy rentals or trailers.

I think I'd rather go bicycling with George Bush. Maybe snack on some pretzels afterwards.

And he will be canceling the hunting trip with Mr Cheney.

Leather helmet, no facemask. More broken noses and lost teeth, but less concussions and neck injuries.