OGTEleven

1. Joe Six Pack 2. Joe Six Pack cannot follow directions 3. Inability to follow directions always leads to trouble, often with the law 4. Many miami dolphins are in trouble with the law 5. I hate the miami dolphins

I did this a couple of years back. It's like the Kevin Bacon thing. Here's how it works: You write phrase 1, phrase 5 is always "I hate the miami dolphins". I connect the phrases in steps 2-4. Here is an example from the last one: 1. The Beverly Hillbillies (this was supplied by another poster and can be whatever you want) 2. The Beverly Hillbillies had a character named Jethro 3. The band Jethro Tull had a song called "Aqualung" 4. Aqua is the main color of the miami dolphins uniforms 5. I hate the miami dolphins Warning: If you capitalize the word miami or dolphins in your post I will ignore it.

I read in the local paper today that the Pats have filed a grievance against the Jets. They contend that the Jets "let Branch know what they'd offer in a trade when Branch was only authorized to discuss a contract." I'm not really sure I understand this. How did that discussion harm the Pats? I can see if Branch shared it with the Seahawks, but there is no claim that he did. It may have exposed to Branch just how far backwards the Pats were bending in an effort to screw him, but that's all I can see. Why would the Pats file this grievance? Maybe they're testing the waters to see how much of a reach around the new league office will give them off the field. On the field must not be enough.

There can probably never be proof that Smith was abused. There can be evidence. If the Pats turn around and pick up Childress I would think that would cast some doubt as to their intentions. I think what most people on the other side of your argument have said is that Smith was possibly wronged. I haven't seen anyone argue that the Bills were wronged. KTFABD properly pointed out that it will be much harder for Smith to link up with a team now than it would have been last week. Will it be impossible? No. But it will be harder. As far as the Bills go it is ok. The management/coaches will demonstrate to the players in the league how they approach their relationship with the player. This may turn out to be good or bad. I think it is clear that BB treats players like chess pieces. It may be ok with some and not ok with the others. It may end up catching up with him or not. Dr. K and KTFABG point out, correctly I think, that if BB did abuse the Smith by using the rules, that it was Bush league. I doubt BB will wake up in a cold sweat from guilt, or that anything can be done about it, but a dirt bag is still a dirt bag. For Smith, he had no choice anyway due to the waiver wire. If the Pats had ill intent, it is unlikely he could prove it. I hope he lands on his feet. A little story from my personal experience... I once left a company and went to a competitor. After I joined, I had brief interviews with each member of management at my new company. Some just wanted to tell me how things were handled, some asked me general questions about the strenghs and weknesses of my previous company. All wanted to know my opinion on how we could improve our standing with a given customer set. One guy started asking specific questions about how we could undermine my previous company in specific projects. I was immediately uncomfortable and told him so. I quickly found out that this guy had a bad reputation in the new company and a habit of cutting corners. It gave me confidence in the new company and in my own ability to read people.

You mean like the unbiased reporting Dan Rather did with the Bush/Army story? Did any Republican Senator call for strong arming Rather with the FCC? Doesn't Dan Rather owe it to the American public to be forthright an unbiased? The answer is no. No private entity owes it to the American public to be forthright and unbiased. In the perfect world, viewers would vote with their feet if a network or other outlet was biased. News Flash: They largely have. The people that need to be forthright an unbiased, when it comes to the constitution, are elected officials. Their opinions on whether something should be allowed to air should not sway in the direction of the "bias". If this movie dramatizes Condi Rice being culpable (which it reportedly does), shouldn't Schumer be forthright and unbiased in his outrage about that too? IMO, US Senators owe more to free speech than they owe to how their party is portrayed in a movie that will air while most people watch football, but hey whatever.

Schumer (I'm sure you're shocked) and some other free speech champion. I don't have a link. Heard it on the radio. Even if there was no threat, to me it seems inappropriate for a Senator to publicly state that something should be pulled/altered. I think it is fine to have political hacks spin all day long about the meaning/intent; but to have a Senator threaten action or even offer an opinion on what should/shouldn't be aired is not kosher with me.

There is a survivor in the football pool from the front page. My pick in it was Cleveland

I was in high school. A friend of mine, and the only other true Bills fan I knew, was at the game. He told me he could see the stadium shake that day. I hope this team can shake the Ralph someday too. I have a good feeling that the core is there.

In the Reagan thingy which sitting US Senators openly threatened FFC action against a television network if the show wasn't pulled or modified?

So you need higher numbers. Are the "numbers" (or lies) high enough in the ABC docudrama to merit sitting US Senators to call for ABC to pull under threat of the FCC crawling up their butts? Is that the proper place for the democrats to focus their attention?

Can someone explain the difference to me? When Michael Moore put out his movie that clearly contained half truths, intentionally misleading segments and allegations along with dubious conclusions, Republicans complained and Democrats were either silent or supportive. Now ABC is planning on a movie that supposedly shows either (or both) misleading notions/false premises and the Republicans are silent while Democrats complain and have active members of the Senate making overt threats to ABC and strongly suggesting they pull the plug on the movie.

Which press is "always saying the Pats aren't going to be good"?

Definitely true, but you'd have to think Indy in week 17 is much better than Indy in week whatever. I'd think it wsa a wild conspiracy theory too if I hadn't seen stojan like that going on for years with the fish. Your boys have only been getting the good calls for 6 years or so, the fish have been at the top of the nice list since shula ruled the competition committee. Meanwhile, the Bills open with road/road divisions games and catch miami off an extra rest (again).

He has had good stuff since the day he came up. His (lack of) brain is his problem.

My late father in law was a member. I've played there many times, and lost TONS of golf balls. I can't think of a course I've liked more. My favorite holes were #1, 2, 9, 11, 14 and 16. Did you know the club pro Lonnie Nielsen? He is now tearing it up on the Senior tour.

How long have you worked at Crag Burn? Fantastic course.

Thread hijack: Did you ever end up going to the Petty concert? What did you think?

I blame the NBA for the closure in gap. They do not enforce the rules of basketball. It is like the WWE of "major" sports. I hate to criticze the almighty Jordan but I think a lot of it started (or at least escalated) with him. He never fouled anyone, traveled or carried the ball. Ever. When he did get called he cried profusely during and after the game. In the last olympics it was obvious the team was not ready to compete in the sport of basketball. Ironically, the one player I started to appreciate in those Olympics was Iverson. He hustled and cared about winning.

They said to Bledsoe it would be a competition in camp and that the playbook would change and favor more mobility. DB wanted no part of it and got his trade. Then JP was given the job.

This makes perfect sense but on PPP your opinions are all inside out. Or is it outside in? The one thing we can be sure of here is perpetual change.

If we simply traded him Whitney Houston for Al Zawahiri we'd get rid of all three. She'd binge and beat him senseless within days.

The news report didn't hint at being biased by having the same quote from the Israeli officer run over and over and over? This wouldn't have made you question the neutrality of the news agancy?

Just ball it up like you're making a snowball. It's messy but it works. Can I have some of the money?

What is your excuse for this? I can't get no......

People can really be idiots. Snakes on a theater seat Here's a good quote from the article: Where would he like to be when a rattlesnake bites him?