RuntheDamnBall

Well, it's just funny to me that y'all seem to waste so much time caring and posting about something you profess to not care about. Seems like a worse use of valuable minutes than fantasy baseball, even. I'm sure the strategizing for witty things to say to an internet message board audience to display one's lack of interest in the topic must be invigorating fun in and of itself. But carry on.

If they need line help, why would they sign Mike Williams?

YES! Finally someone gets it. Our running liabilities were on the inside. And a bulk of our run plays were called to the inside. When your supposed O-Line leader is injured, getting busted past or committing egregious penalties, or when your center is stepping on the QB's feet on the third step of a drop, or when your tub of lard LG is getting replaced by a deposed RT, you're not going to be doing anything well, especially running to the inside. I'm hoping for either a resurgence from Villarial due to a re-connection with Jauron, or the grooming of a tough young guard to anchor that right side with Peters.

Lionheart?

Funny link, pretty unintelligible after awhile. That "RB Ambit Smith" had a heckuva career for them, though.

If you don't give a rat's "A$$" then don't click on it. The Baseball Forum isn't quite well-travelled (and baseball topics used to stay here under OT) and I just wanted to give people who might not glance at it every day the opportunity, particularly those who might not even know the BB forum exists. Why is it that everyone has to jump at every opportunity to be a wiseguy around here? Sheesh.

Howdy, all. Those of us over at the baseball forum have taken the intiative to start a fantasy baseball league for the 2006 season. So far, I have not yet heard from six of those who said they would like to be in on the action. You know who you are, so please PM me for the League ID and password. If you're not one of the aforementioned stragglers, but would still like in, also PM me for details. We're taking up to 16-teams in an all-MLB, head-to-head league. Right now we have six. Cheers!

How about letting immigration solve that issue? It is pretty appalling that some of the board's conservatives are sticking up for this one. Let the bureau of the government that is supposed to deal with illegals deal with them. Give them more teeth, whatever. But using this law as a means instead of finding a solution grounded in reality and pre-existing laws is no better than the endless amounts or regulations on guns are to most conservatives.

This much is true: a lot of aid we're giving to poor countries (especially in Africa) hurts more than it helps. I'm thinking particularly of our giving away our fourth-hand clothes, which kills any prospect of a textile industry springing up. The whole, "teach a man to fish" argument. If they can have clothes given to them, why make (and buy) them? I just want to give caution to the notion that business can solve all the world's problems. Small, local businesses competing and using ingenuity are fantastic. That's the power of the entrepreneur. But once the big guys find out there is money to be made, it's awful tough to compete and things often go back to square one. That's all. Also, not sure if I mentioned this before, but entrepreneurship and smart business can also go hand in hand with ecology. There are a lot of invasive species in Africa due to the colonialists bringing in their favorite trees, plants and birds with little regard for their impact on the ecosystems. I saw a piece on PBS a few years ago about companies starting in Africa up that were logging invasive species (which were completely sabotaging the water table and in turn the entire ecosystem), and replanting native species in their place. Seemed like an amazing idea. Created a lot of jobs, too.

The Pats also have Deion Branch. They may not have a #1, but four certifiable #2s, including some possession receivers who can catch, is almost as good.

I just don't buy it. Business profits off of age-old problems as much as it solves them. And big government is in large part the way it is because it can be bought by business. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

PTR -- we're talking about two different things, and we agree. I think that handing over control of these ports to a corp based out of a volatile region, no matter what they bid, is foolish. But hiring Americans of Arab descent to work in security roles should not give anyone pause (and that, I believe, was what the poster I was responding to was positing). They should simply go through the same rigorous background check we expect of all who are entrusted with our security.

Not to take this into full OT or PPP mode, if it isn't there already, but... Don't people do these things already? If marijuana was legal and regulated (and taxed), there might be LESS problems of people involved with shady dealings, drug murders, less likelihood of laced weed that could be far worse than the regular stuff. We're losing the drug war. If we could waste less resources and government money fighting pot (and instead MAKE money off of it), the really hard stuff could be more aggressively prosecuted, if it remained illegal. Marijuana is also not quite a habit in the way that cigarettes are, in most users are not constantly smoking the stuff (equivalent to packs a day of cigarettes). Admittedly, it is generally unfiltered, which can be more likely to lead to cancer for the habitual smoker. I know FAR less people who are seriously, seriously addicted to pot in the way many are to alcohol -- even as a proportion of users (because obviously far less people use the illegal drug here). It's also not an aggressive drug for most in the way that alcohol can be. I can't see exposure being a problem, really, for the same reasons. It's a less frequently used drug. No-smoking zones could include pot and be extended to other areas, like school zones, etc. And responsible parents shouldn't be using pot regularly any more than they should be drinking all the time (as many already do, and it's a far worse problem). Chastise Ricky Williams (rightly) for screwing up AGAIN when the rules are clearly stated and he's been given numerous second chances. But I'm not sure that you see the full picture as to how fighting this drug is actually draining our resources -- and pretty petty when one gets right down to it.

To me, blanket refusal of those of Arab descent is a disservice. The most qualified people may or may not be of a particular ethnicity. However, doing an extensive background check, as one should with ANY hiring process of this order, is not without reason. And if the person gives special reason to merit further checks, do it. I'm saying that the operation should not be owned from without, where the higher-end dealings may not have as much American oversight as is needed.

Yeah, that's ALL we have to worry about. Bring back Moulds and we're Super Bowl bound, I tell ya. Super Bowl "C," that is. C means hundred.

I think it's holding accountable the people who have control of all three branches and claim to be protecting us with every move. Just me. Honestly, having read the story, do you think allowing these companies to control storage at our seaports is a good idea?

Also, lately, substances are the only things that can get me THROUGH Bills games.

I don't think it approaches stellar in the least. that's why "not" prefaced it. I said, and meant, adequate. ESPECIALLY in comparison to our turnstile situation in the middle.

Answer: he's a tackle. And there are two good reasons not to stick with him and move him back. 1) He has to be re-signed to stay here. If we can have a lot better for a million more, we should do it. He's getting old and he just didn't have it last year. He was constantly getting pushed back into Losman's face. Second, he doesn't IMO represent an upgrade to the younger and, to this point adequate (if not stellar) tackles we have in Gandy and Peters. If he wants to stay for tackle/center depth for vet minimum, fine. Other than that, let him go.

And I say yes. Let's not forget that Fairchild will remember some of the old personnel from his last stint with the team. Here's hoping he has indeed seen enough of Teague (and the revolving door at LG). If we can sign a new center or truly project that Preston is going to fit the bill, and then sign / draft a NASTY, nasty LG, I think this line looks adequate already. In this draft I'd almost say go DT, LG, RG (and draft Villarial's eventual replacement). Villarial showed signs of physical and mental wear but will probably get an extra year or two out of playing for a coach he really loves. The tackles need work and Gandy is not the guy who is going to hold down that left side forever for us, but they were the least of our worries last year, to the surprise of most.

Lemmy Kilmister.

Bryant Gumbel is a colossal tool.

Yes, even better. Try MadVillainy (his collab with Madlib) and Mmmm... Food. He also does a pretty sick cut on the new Wu Tang "Think Differently" record and is supposedly working on a teamup with Ghostface.

You forgot the Ruler. Rakim. And today's best is MF Doom, no contest.

I think the "propaganda" statement generally implies a political affiliation or cause, and there's a lot of banter about the "liberal media" out there. Didn't necessarily mean to attribute that to you, though. Sorry. I gotta admit, the "Macho Man" joke was funny though...