Crap Throwing Monkey

Should be? No. But can the organization leasing the venue choose to evict people they deem disruptive to their event? Absolutely...

That would be a considerable step up from fake QB sneak WR pitch-out option passes on 4th and inches, however.

Uh...no. Again, the ticket represents a contractual obligation on your part to behave yourself according to the presenter of the private spectacle that has provided you the ticket. The Bills are well within their rights to censor whomever they want, no matter how stupid and petty it is.

That wouldn't necessarily spoil it...my main beef is, if you're going to cut out that sub-plot, don't go halfway. Axe it or do it right. As it stood, it served no purpose. Ditto the extended bug attack...actually, I thought the whole scene at the log bridge was recreated poorly, from "turn back" to the deus ex machina rescue. It could have been done much simpler, more straightforward, and been more powerful. As it was, I thought it detracted from the otherwise overall excellence of the movie. But then, I could say the same thing about each of the LOTR movies. That's just Peter Jackson for you... At least his references in tribute to the original were nicely subtle...I loved the Fay Wray reference at the beginning. One thing I would like to know though...the King Kong posters in the New York scenes: does anyone know if those were reproductions of the original 1933 movie posters?

Didn't have a cone on my head, myself...but I did drink mass quantities...

Of course, who determines what the definition of "offensive" or "inappropriate" is...?

Next time, I think we should protest Bills' management by not buying gas from a major oil company's stations...

Because?

Let's try it this way then... When you purchase a ticket, you are in effect executing a contract that gives you the right to watch a sporting event. That is the only right guaranteed you by that ticket. Read one of the things some time. Nowhere will you see "freedom of speech" guaranteed in the purchase. Your buying a ticket to a Bills game does not contractually obligate them to allow you to do whatever you want, and the First Amendment does not protect your freedom of speeci within a private contract. Don't believe me? Try breaking a NDA...

Oh yeah...this gem. I'd forgotten about that.

In other words, it's not the rule itself that's inane, so much as the system it exists in where it's contradictory to a whole bunch of other stuff. Yeah, I'd agree with that. That's also about par for the course...while the security thought (rightly) this was a good idea, and the marketing guys thought (rightly again) the mail-order stamps were a good idea, they don't talk to each other, so combined their ideas look stupid. That happens in more than just the post orifice.

What took you so long? Reasonably, Jackson could have cut that by a good half an hour just by ditching the irrelevant sub-plots he threw in and trimming some of the gratuitious scenes (a few looked like he was thinking "Hey, this looked good in Lord of the Rings!...") And they changed the ending too much, letting the monkey live...oh, no, wait, that was Adrien Brody. Never mind.

Of course, had Dallas followed your advice, they wouldn't have Bledsoe either...and now where would they be?

I'll argue that. I'll argue it with two words: Baltimore Ravens.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they could figure out who gave them a specific package; in fact, given the nature of the stricture, I can make a pretty good guess at how it's done (no stamps - so they're requiring a postal employee to put one of their printed stickers with the dollar amount on it...which probably contains the time and location of sale somewhere on it.) But that's not the point. The point is deterrence: it increases the risk, or at the very least the perception of risk, to the bomber of getting caught, and makes it harder for him to accomplish his mission. There's a lot of stuff like that nowadays, rules that don't add materially to security themselves, except in channelling the actions of potential terrorists/criminals into high-risk/low-reward operational patterns.

Security cameras. The theory is, anyone sending bombs through the mail will avoid getting filmed, so if you require them to go to the desk (where the cameras are) instead of a drop-point, it makes it harder for them to mail bombs. The weak point in that reasoning, of course, is the assumption that a camera is sufficient deterrence. If you accept the assumption, it makes sense. If you don't - or if circumstances change...say, if people start mailing bombs not caring if they're caught by the cameras - it doesn't.

20 seconds? Anyone who spent more than 5 on that needs to learn to read...

Let's not forget, though, that he typically does very well with Losman throwing to him. It's entirely possible that Evans' problem tonight wasn't entirely with himself...

But IF YOU DON'T...first down inside the twenty and you're !@#$ed. If you challenge and lose, first down inside the twenty and you're down a time-out you won't need anyway because you're !@#$ed. If you challenge and somehow win...YOU get the first down at about the 20, keep Denver from scoring, and you actually have a chance of NOT being !@#$ed. So which of these scenarios gives you the best chance to win? Probably the one that gives you ANY sort of chance of not being !@#$ed...i.e. challenging the call, even if that challenge relies on the 1 in 10000 chance that the officials blow the obvious call in review. NOT challenging the spot would have been stupid, since challenging was really the only thing that gave even the slightest prayer of winning the game. Of course, the reason it came down to that challenge is because of every other stupid call Mularkey made up to that point. Sure, he's an idjimit. Just not for that challenge.

The NEW Jason Peters? What happened to the old Jason Peters? Oh, that's right. He's the new Mike Williams.

Don't forget...TD worked at ESPN before Ralph Wilson hired him. It's not hard to imagine he really is friends with some of these guys.

He's got a ways to go before he hits Mike Williams' level. Who himself is nowhere near Ryan Leaf's level. Or, if we're only sticking with Bills' draft picks, Tony Hunter's level.

But if Shaud's throwing them, who's he going to throw TO? Parrish? Get real...

But look at it this way: if you challenge and win, you get the ball on downs. If you don't challenge, first down inside the 20, and you're truly screwed. So challenge the spot, and hope the ref !@#$s up the review. What do you have to lose at this point?

...and it USED to be called the Cinncinatti Bengals Boundary...but they changed it this year...