Crap Throwing Monkey

I agree. Though CCD has a point, you look at this staff and front office and you see a bunch of guys that come from an organization (Pittsburgh) that has pursued long-term competitiveness rather than short-term goals. Given that history, and assuming (as I do) that the Pittsburgh mindset has carried over, I see no reason to believe Losman won't be given a very long leash and be allowed to make as many mistakes as he can manage. And normally I'd agree with that plan...except I don't like Losman and expect to see him make a lot of mistakes.

JP Losman. (No, not really. Just kidding. )

Only if you presume Losman's going to get injured. I expect he'll be given a very long leash, and that no matter how badly Losman sucks it up Holcomb will still ride the bench. For Holcomb to start in place of an uninjured Losman would require Losman to have a season SO bad it would surprise even the people like me who expect him to be a career bust.

I think he's obviously not cut out for the NFL. When I see the game, I'll let you know why...

Buffalo's value (and Detroit's, and Seattle's) to trans-national terrorism is as a transit point, not a target. A large-scale attack in any of those cities would be so detrimental to their ability to operate in the US as to make any action counter-productive from their point of view. If you're concerned about terrorism, Buffalo-Niagara Falls is probably one of the safest areas to be in.

Less so, obviously. Even if her choice was ultimately co-opted by the vast left-wing propaganda machine, Sheehan did make a choice. Schiavo never even had that much of an opportunity; here choice wasn't co-opted by the vast right-wing propaganda machine, it was made for her. Bottom line: they're both disgusting situations. They're also both situations that, when it comes to the politically minded exploiting people for their own purposes, are par for the course.

Dan's right, your radio's wrong. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/07jul_bluemoon.htm

And up until then, Coward was having as good a game as I have ever seen from any linebacker ever (LT included). I remember, just before he was injured, him forcing Tampa to go 3 and out blowing up three straight plays (with at least one, and maybe two sacks in that series). Damned shame injuries cut short his career (particularly since the one in Tampa was intentional).

I watch it for Helen Hunt's magically dirt-repellent white t-shirt. She crawls in the mud, it gets dirty, next scene...clean! Happens about three times.

Many years ago. A lightning strike took out the weather radar at the airport tower, leaving the weather geeks blind. So, having nothing really to do without radar, they're just kind of watching out the window...and holy sh--, there's a tornado! Restaurant manager did a great job getting everyone to safety, too. Reacted quickly and had everyone in the basement before the NWS even managed to issue the warning.

Well, yeah...but we've got those MS-13 lunatics to deal with in this area, so we're aware of it.

Or even "small-scale" fusion, since 1) there's nothing that points to cost in any economic sense in the announcement, and 2) there's nothing that suggests it'll be a self-sustaining reaction capable of generating power. But labelling it "cold fusion" was a big marketing faux paux, since cold fusion a la Pons and Fleischman is pretty much accepted as a crock. KH, I can't answer your questions in detail right now...I'll try later.

"Overhead imagery". I want to say "U-2", but I don't really recall exactly.

That gray area still existed even after 9/11. I remember suggestions of military recon assets being used to catch the DC snipers, and the potential violation of posse comitatus being brought up then.

What do you know, you bin Laden apologist?

I think the board's term for that is "A start".

I claim neither to be on the left nor tolerant of Rich's nonsense. He asked a bull sh-- question: "who's being protected?" Implicit in which is that someone IS being protected, which has not been demonstrated. Ergo, he's not asking a simple legitimate question, he's asking a leading one designed to promote his insane partisanship. And that deserves serious consideration? Sure, whatever...

Yep. Then I'll post a review of the research, with my opinion. Then everyone will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because a press release from Purdue trumps my understanding of peer-reviewed literature based on my decade's experience in the field... You're right. I AM on the wrong board.

You've got to be kidding. TIVO not a luxury? Hell, television is a luxury...

I won't...but name one politician that isn't. Hell, Kerry's entire campaign was based on the idea that no one was paying enough attention to notice his duplicity.

Well...your reading comprehension skills are pathetic. I said I had to READ it. And I've tried. I'm not paying $30 for a reprint of a paper in a third-tier journal confirming somebody else's paper. But the abstract alone raises serious questions. I'm trying to get the original research published in Phys Rev E right now...

Fine, I'll play. Bill Clinton's being protected, so as not to jeopardize Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign. It's all a great big liberal conspiracy against you, Rich. There, you have your attention. Happy now?

Because it's not worth a response? From anyone else making the point that politicians are hypocrites, it might be...but from a raving partisan like Dr. K who's only possible purpose could be to prove that anything not Democrat and liberal is evil...why even bother?

Standard anti-DU spiel. Ignorant, but not necessarily looney.

A healthy Pennington or a Pennington with his currently bad shoulder?