RuntheDamnBall

I'm not arguing, so much as suggesting that the impulse should be then not just to canonize the Smiths but to look to who influenced them -- that indie rock (and any genre really) flows from many different streams. For every Smiths I can name a band like the Replacements or Minutemen or Big Black that had equal influence.

They were good and all but the Go-Betweens and the Chameleons and New Order were laying the groundwork for what they did years before. To hell with idol worship. Music is much better enjoyed as a thread of history, watching the chain reactions occur along it.

I think that's fair, given that the back is in a similar position to McGahee with less of a record of production as a starter than McGahee has (with greater upside, IMO). I don't think SD will buy it, though. I'd stop at our 2nd and Balt's 3rd, and no way in hell do I part with our first.

That's not a bad stance for a high school kid to take. And not a bad one to renounce once you realize you can have fun with it in moderation, and eventually move up to some fine beverages.

Kid, I'm going to say this for your own good, not ours. Forget about the computer. Forget about video games. Have a good !@#$ing time. The Bills will still be here, the Sabres will still be here, nothing will have changed for either, smileys will still have no currency, we'll still be arguing about Turner and Peterson and Willis and Lynch, McGahee jerseys will still be burning. But you will likely not be in Argentina again anytime soon. Don't waste that experience, and get out there and suck it all in, whether it's exploring the terrain, introducing yourself to a vibrant new culture, shagging hot multi-ethnic chicks, and eating amazing food. Do it. Do not check this board but once. You owe it to yourself.

I think I'd be happy with Willis, but if we can get that same guy but with 1-2 correctable flaws in his game or .05 slower 40 time but in the second round, AND get Peterson, I say it's a win-win.

If our line is really as improved as we think it is, the value of keeping the opposing defense on the field with Peterson running the show is going to be a lot higher than the value lost with a slight downgrade at LB.

"so purer"? Hmmmm?

To be fair, this was written by a high school kid, and done fairly well for a teenager, if you ask me.

Yeah. [/LSI]

For anyone in NYC it's showing at Tribeca Film Festival this month.

May his alien particles live on in all of us.

1995 called and they would like their taste in music back.

Offcially, yes, it does suck. I am trying to recover my investment of time here but it ain't looking good. They are going to do the gimmick "is Jack dead?" thing for a few weeks, maybe even string us along till next year, and Silver Spoons will save the day whilst coming closer to solving his tortured (pun intended) spiritual quest. I'm with 'em till May and that's about all I can say. What a waste after a good season premiere. BTW, the evil VP/unelected Prez thing is getting TIRED. The only thing that will save this season is if Peter McNichol reveals the real truth, which is that he is going to stage a coup d'etat for Vigo, leaving America to return to glory under the leadership of Carpathian warlords.

This is an excellent statement. I don't agree with what everything the Boy Scouts do, and the sort of 'boys will be boys' element that dominated my troop are what pushed me out of scouting, because we had leaders who looked the other way while the bigger kids were beating up on the smaller ones. That said, there are so many awesome things about it that I don't think you can discount what the organization is about as a whole. And the gay rights contingent that has an issue with BSA should realize that if any change is to come on that front it will come from within and pressuring BSA is just going to galvanize their position against that community. As far as OC's reply to me, I'll accept that my positions can come across as coming from an elitist or environmentalist position because from where I stand it seems so often we're not being heard. I see people take three plastic bags for a carton of milk at the supermarket, I become conscious of my own waste, of every little thing that we do that cumulatively could just result in disaster. I see kids mesmerized by XBoxes when there are so many mesmerizing aspects of the natural order of things. I see little criticism of the culture we live in and when there is, there's a backlash against it. The point about being American is not to just accept that we are the best, it's to strive to be the best and then to be even better than that. When I perceive that we're failing in that mission, I paint it in broad strokes, and I apologize. At the same time, I realize that the loudest voices are not always the strongest on a subject, and that the actions of someone like Bush at his Crawford mansion speak more loudly than the way Mr. Gore lives his life. I just wish his policy would coincide with it. I try to recognize the shrillness of the enviros' position and I think we need to be much more about the positives -- green architecture, technological solutions, exciting possibilities, solutions that really do account for the flexible and multi-pronged nature of this issue, as someone (maybe you, Nanker) more eloquently put it. These are the things that will get people really interested in solving this problem. But these should not be met with brickwalls because the powers that be have decided they are not economically viable for the very moment. This is a long way off from bees but I think if we can put aside the accusations, from my side and from yours, and the namecalling, we can probably go a long way because we do see eye to eye on a lot of aspects of it -- it's more the question of how it should be done.

I actually kind of like the Smiths, it's just Smiths fans I can do without.

There's a difference between consenting adults and kids, pal. Look it up.

And the prolification of small parasitic worms couldn't be as a result of changes of the environment? BTW I'm not the one citing Daryl Hannah for scientific data.

Whom? Post it. And then, tell me why it couldn't be about chemicals that yield resistant strains of a virus or pesticides that the mites are now immune to, or something else that is supposedly good for business?

You're building the weakest of straw men here and still I'd like to punch a hole through it. This has little to do with George Bush (who at least, in Crawford, lives an ecologically-minded life) and if anything it has to do with a general attitude that the little things in an ecosystem are actually big things and that every little link in the chain matters. But this kind of disrespect for and disconnection from nature is pervasive, to the point that I don't think you could ask many 16 year-olds what role bees fulfill in the lifecycle of plant vegetation and expect a correct answer. If you think that's a good or funny thing be my guest. I think it's a sad statement on our culture.

did you read the article or are you having a case of LSI syndrome? It took place in Tampa.

And my point was that the problem is not the pick sometimes -- it's the team. So my issue is with your criteria. Hearst could have been a beast behind a line like Denver's. It doesn't mean that it was wrong for him to be picked in the first round; it means it was wrong for a team like Arizona to expend 1st round picks at running back when their other, more primary offensive needs like the line and system for that back were not met. You'll never convince me that Bo Jackson was not a difference maker. I guess we just have a difference of opinion there. And you didn't prove to me that Bettis was a bust for StL (he wasn't) or that Ricky Williams was one for the Saints. For them it was a choice of offensive direction that determined that they move on via trade to other teams. I'm saying, by virtue of the fact that 50% of these are quality backs the math says that a RB is as likely as any pick to be boom or bust. And the fact that bad teams sometimes pick them and they blossom later says to me it's the team, not the pick, that's the problem -- because it's a chic move that will please impatient fans to throw in a guy perceived as being able to do a lot for a weak offense. We saw with McGahee there's a limit to how effective that solution can be. We also have solidified our line since his departure and RB -- if you can find one that's a prime talent like AP -- is a high need on our list. You tell me what makes more sense: drafting the next Tomlinson or the next Tommie Harris for our DT rotation? It's a tougher call than it looks but if you feel like you have the line to give that back a chance, it never looks stupid to pick a guy like LT.

Bettis was doing fine for the Rams, he just was wanted by the Steelers. Dunn also was well-regarded in TB. Ricky Williams was running well for the Saints but they didn't like his personality. Hearst and Bo Jackson looked like monsters before succumbing to injury. No way to know that before the draft. And as far as Thomas Jones goes, history proves him to be a decent back, and the Cardinals to be a terrible team. Whose fault is this? Basically, you add six guys who can produce to your list, and that makes 12 of the 23 good backs in this league -- about 50%. Which makes perfect sense.

The subway.