BillsFanM.D.

I don't think you're a richard.....but massive generalizations about how one might protect themselves (take/protect profit occasionally) is much different than, "Hey buddy....sell your mom's car and buy as much of 'blah blah' as you can....you can't lose." I get your point....no worries.

I'll second Fez's comment that this is good advice. How many people are kicking themselves in the backside over Apple (just for example) right now? Nothing wrong with a good solid return on your investment. Lock in profits and leave some to gamble if that's your game. One more thing....and it goes with this advice to some degree. NEVER get 'emotional' with a stock. Don't fall in love, abandon your own due diligence, and stick with something because you've made it personal (i.e. I'm smarter than what the market is saying/doing or you've disagreed with a friend/fellow investor and it becomes about 'winning'). In other words, don't be afraid take a loss. You lick your wounds and move on. Pride be damned. It's much better than sitting there insisting 'everyone' else is wrong and watching your investment completely bottom out. Lock up that cash when you've made a nice run!

Of course we, they, we do..... just not in a grocery store.

What is wrong with people?

Good for them. Nice to see the homeowners win.

sad.

You'd have to be holding a gun on me to get me up there.

Disney is great. Every ride spills directly into a gift shop. Genius. Nice Doc! Although 'legal' and following the rules I'm gonna fall into the camp of this being 'not cool.' Letter of the law....fine. Spirit of it....not so much.

It doesn't reduce her risk for that cancer. Women who are BRCA positive have greatly increased risk for both breast and ovarian cancers. Some women opt to have their ovaries removed as a result. Others opt for increased surveillance though ovarian cancer can 'appear' in short windows of time and can be extremely aggressive. The converse is true, however, in that a women who removes her ovaries does reduce her risk of breast cancer. No ovaries means reduction in estrogen...which is a 'fuel' for breast cancer. Very well said. There are varied forms of breast reconstruction. Some of those are described as 'nipple sparing' where they are able to keep that portion of tissue for a more natural reconstruction. In reading about this (here and elsewhere) and listening to the news, it seems that a lot of folks think that she 'just decided' to get her breasts removed because her mom had cancer. It's much more involved than that. The BRCA gene is a targeted screening tool used for patients with major red flags for breast and/or ovarian cancer in their family. Typically, the physician/geneticist doing the testing would have already identified the gene in a known cancer patient in the family. The 'screening' is then offered to other first degree relatives (and beyond depending on a multitude of factors). If the known cancer patient does not have the genetic defects then no further testing is typically offered. It was likely not an inherited defect. Regardless....IF the patient meets those criteria, the test is typically covered and cost is removed as a burden/hindrance. Insurance companies will NOT typically pay for the test if someone just wants to be 'tested' without the appropriate level of risk in the family. Though this screening test (BRCA) gives high risk patients a valuable piece of information, it does not guarantee anything. It is all about risk assessment and allowing the patient to then make an educated decision about their screening/prevention options. Keeping in mind, however, that FAR AND AWAY, most cases of breast cancer are 'spontaneous.' Meaning, there is no family history and no known genetic predisposition. The cancer arose as a result of a 'spontaneous' gene mutation and not from a gene defect the patient was born with. Angelina, in her case, was born with a defect in the BRCA gene(s) and has a very scary family history. As a result of that, and based on the statistics of women with similar circumstances, she was very likely to develop breast cancer and has a strong possibility of ovarian as well. In my opinion, she made the correct choice. That's just my opinion, however. In that respect, the only one that matters is hers. Lastly, given the relative aggressiveness of most ovarian cancers and her known genetic findings, I'd strongly consider removing the ovaries as well. Another personal decision for sure, but her risks are substantial. Lastly, 1% of all breast cancers occur in guys. For the guys here.....Pay attention....and if you have strong family history of 'female' cancers in your family then this is a consideration for you as well. BRCA genetics have implications for a few other cancers as well. Hope this is of some help.

http://www.wafb.com/story/22249466/woman-allegedly-stabs-boyfriend-after-he-farts-in-her-face "A 37-year-old Florida woman allegedly stabbed her boyfriend with an 8-inch-long kitchen knife after he farted in her face during an argument."

If all accurate....good for her. Swift justice.

Just a bit of courtesy for Buddy. Whaley is, as alluded to above, a lock. He deserves his 'own day' in the sun when he is formally promoted to GM.

I've seen a lot of your "cool pic" posts and they usually are 'cool'. This particular find, however, is absolutely incredible! Thanks.

That's fair...and, in retrospect, my comment is likely more positive of the first movie than negative about the second. Hannibal certainly was no Caddyshack 2. Ultimately though, at least for me, Silence of the Lambs is an absolute must see movie... and I've enjoyed re-watching it over the course of time. With Hannibal, I thought it was worth the ticket, but I wouldn't be upset if I only saw it once. Not a bad flick...just not the masterpiece the first was. Just my 2 pennies.

Hannibal was a huge drop off from Silence of the Lambs. Of course...the bar was set ridiculously high with the first film.

OC...you mentioned the "Marks" brothers but failed to note one of the original 'jack of all trades/major pain in the azz guys'.......Jim Jensen. How many huge first down catches did that guy seem to make back in the day? I loathed him as a football player because he had no typical football skills (at least those that would be expected on that level of play) yet he carved out a nice career and was a big contributor for the Phins. The very definition of overachiever. Would have loved him on the Bills.

Very cool video and a nice parting shot for him. Thanks for posting.

He did look like he got ran over!

Diversity....It's all cool unless you don't agree root for 'our' team. Is it me or are more and more stories seemingly fit for "The Onion" rather than reality? Only one comment for that Principal...

"It was an opportunity for.....justice to be served." Indeed it was. Swift and just. That was awesome.

I'm late to this game and it's been said for five pages but.....Moulds by a very big margin.

Good for him. Great story.

agreed. On all counts.

Thank you Mr. Greenwood!

Nice find! This is starting to smell of the Onion.