BuffaloBob

I missed the souffle, dammit! But I am a fan of Emerile's and of the Food Network generally. I search ahead and DVR the programs describing dishes I am interested in. Later, I dump them down to VHS. I also print out the recipes from the FN web site for future reference. Does this make me gay? If you all say so. But I will say this, I have been able to churn some impressive dinners at home for my lady friends and their reviews have been rave. Oh yeah, and they REALLY liked the food, too. Oh, and my favorite show is Everyday Italian with Giada DeLaurentis. She is just too damn cute! Oh wait, I forgot, I am gay. LOL!

Cool CL! Yeah Bill, and I was 4!

I saw him at then called Rich Stadium back in like 1976. I was not interested in going, but a friend had an extra ticket and beeged me to go. I finally said ahight. It was one of the best shows I've ever seen. It was a rainy summer day, and he kept dumping water on himself to be as wet as we were. I too was simply amazed at the contniuous line of hits one after another, and that was nearly 30 years ago! I only own his oldest work, Madman Across the Water, etc., but the sheer number of hits he has recorded is just impressive as hell. As for their getting married, good for them! Why shouldn't they be able to be who they are without the moral minority trying to impose their view of morality. As for the expense of divorce, I'm sure Elton can afford a lawyer to draw a pre-nup that will minimize that expense.

No, I do not believe he owes us a year for sitting out. He simply will not be paid. Personal services contracts are not specifically enforced, at least not in the real world. BUT, he can't play for anyoone else this year AND he won't get paid. Travis will be in camp if not traded. This is the guy that needed the extension so bad, remember? He ain't gonna sit out and not get paid. What would be the point? If his agent has half a brain, he will sit Travis down and tell him that he is not in a position to force anything, and that he is ONLY going to harm himself in the process, both short-term and long-term. The best and ONLY viable choice he has is to STFU and get his ass into camp.

This is so completely and utterly wrong it is amusing. It is in Travis Henry's best interests to sit out! Are you nuts? teams wouldn't even give up a third round draft choice for him. Why on earth would anyone sign him for anything close to decent money after sitting out an entire year pouting? It is completely in his best interests to come to Buffalo, stfu and do his job and take advantage of any opportunity to play to demonstrate to other teams why they shouldn't just ignore him again next year. The chances are great that a team will lose a starting back and be in dire straits for a starting back in preaseason and will be willing to give up a decent pick for next year. How could it possibly be in his best interests to be sitting at home instead of being in the best football shape possible? Finally, even if he doesn't get much chance to play for Buffalo and even if the odds are defied and no one loses a back in camp or preseason, he collects the biggest salary of his freakin' career just for being here on the roster. Puhlease! As for missing the opportunity to dump him. That is utter nonesense! For all of the reasons above, Travis will be in camp, he'll shut up and he'll like it. If God forbid Willis goes down, he will be out there auditioning for the rest of the league while chewing up yards for this team. If the odds hold true and at least one starting back goes down with a big injury, we will get what he is worth to us. Screw a 4th round pick and screw a player the coaches are adamantly opposed to acquiring! TH is more valuable to us than that right here in Buffalo.

This is nothing but negative speculation on your part! Why would he become as bad as you are predicting? But, oh, we should spend a draft pick on guy who lazied his way out of a first round selection and the exhibits the brilliance of smoking pot before going to the combine and is now officially in the NFL's susbstance abuse program before he even dons the uni! BRILLIANT!

BTW, in case you didn't notice (and I am assuming by your sarcasm that you didn't), Ron Edwards played very well last season. He had 4 sacks playing sparingly in a rotation that was dominated by Pat and Sam. Ron Edwards will be a very solid replacement for Pat this season, which is one of the reasons the BIlls felt they could let Pat go.

He had the POTENTIAL to be a first round pick at the beginning of the 2004 season, and pissed it away for the reasons I listed above. Why draft a guy who doesn't play to his potential? And who you have to worry about testing positive again and getting suspended? What kind of idiot goes to the combine, knowing he is going to get tested, with weed in his system anyway?? Are you freakin' kidding me?? Think before posting!

First of all, Teague played really well last year. More generally, I do not understand this attitude that seems prevalent on this board that our O-line is awful. Why does everybody overlook the fact that when this team started winning last season, the number of sacks allowed during that run were among the lowest in then league? The reality is, our O-line jelled and became very consistent. Oh yeah, and our running game was pretty good too during that stretch. Second, it wan't just because Hawthorne smoked weed, although I'm sure that didn't help. He is notorious as being lazy, taking off too many plays and being too inconsistent in his effort. Put another way, his motor is highly suspect.

While agree that it is highly unlikely that the game was fixed, I have to damit that my first thought when I talked to my dad after the game was, "Geesh that game was played like it was fixed." What I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread is when the deep guy for Philly on the final New Engalnd punt took like two small steps backwards and literally just fell onto the ground untouched as if he had just tripped over some imaginary leg. The ball went over his head as we was getting back up and hit with no one there to cover for Philly, and rolls straight to waiting Patriot inside the five yard line. It looked like a deliberate flop to me! Also, one counter argument to the theory that players make millions and thus have no incentive to throw games: How about that you've got a gambling problem and you've run up so much debt that they are threatening to hurt your family? How about that you have a fmaily member who has run up so much debt that they are threatening to hurt your family? I think it is unlikely that this game was thrown, but it is not impossible!

Ahhh, now we get into the issue of foreseeability, which also is an element of negligence. One could argue that a person being frightened to the point of physical distress in response to someone banging on their door at 10:30 PM, not responding when asked who they are, and then running away is quite foreseeable. But in the case of your hypothetical, I think there is a bit of a distinction there. Calling late at night is rude, if you aren't family or friend, but people should not expect the phone ringing at that hour would be so unusual that it should startle someone to death. Now that doesn't mean that someone couldn't be so engrossed in some scary movie that when the phone rings, because they also have a bad ticker, that bam, heart attack. But I'm not sure that is within the scope of what would be the reasonably foreseeable consequences of calling on the phone.

Good point. BUT, technically it really doesn't matter because you don't necessarily know who is inside or their emotional state. That's kind of what makes it stupid to do. Of course, if they knew she was high strung and they were doing it as a prank, that could make it worse. Anyway, I do think she went overboard, but we don't know all of the facts. Maybe the girls and their parents blew her off and it wasn't until after she sued that they agreed to pay the medical bills. She definitely would have been better off financially to have accepted their offer had they offered that prior to initiating the suit for obvious reasons.

I believe that she won because it was not reasonable what they were doing. Those exercising ordinary care should know that people might be freaked out by ringing doorbells late at night and then running away. She suffered actual damages and the judge awarded her those damages. He did not award punitives because he believed that the girls did not intend to cause her that kind of stress. Losing for negligence does not require bad intent, just acts that fall below the standard of ordinary care. If you pull out and broadside someone, you would be found guilty of negligence if the reason it happened was that you failed to yield to uncoming traffic and perhaps failed to maintain proper lookout. You didn't mean to hit the other care, but you were careless and that led to the damages. If you meant to pull out and hit the care, or if you were blitzed, that would be a different story. You could be laible for punititve damages for intending harm or for being grossly negligent.

I think they should have learned not to go around banging on people's doors at 10:30 PM and not answering when asked who they are and then running away. While that may not send you or me into a tizzy, who knows what may have happened to this woman that made her paranoid. I recently had someone banging on my door at like 11:30PM. They wouldn't answer who they were. It freaked me out, but I insisted that they tell me who they were. As it turned out, they were at the wrong address, looking for a car they wanted to repo. It had my heart pumping pretty good, and I ain't no old lady living alone!

While I agree that Wanita went off the deep end, there is something fishy here! I find it hard to believe that two girls in their late teens were somehow oblivious to the fact that doing what they did at 10:30 PM, including banging on the door and running away rather than answering a person's inquiry as to who was there, was just a little out of the ordinary if not strange. It is possible that they were just a couple of air-headed do-gooders with no common sense, but this is just a little wierd to me. People should not be banging on other peoples' doors at that hour to "surprise" them with something, even if it was something ultimately nice. As for not making the apology in person, this seems strange, too. Why wouldn't the parents of well-meaning teenagers not just go over to her place on some Saturday afternoon and explain everything, apolgize and offer to pay for the medical bills? I realize the woman was overreacting but Geesh! It sounds like they must have made the offer through their lawyer instead.

I feel bad for the Astros. By all accounts, they never had a chance. In an interview I heard tonight with the Stros GM, they have not been permitted to speak with Beltran since December 22! Moreover, they were not permitted to meet with him in Peurto Rico at all. Yet, the freakin' Mets have met with him at least once there and have been speaking with him regularly. The Stros GM said they were sort of barraged by a bunch of last minute complexities that almost seems intentional on Boras' part. I think the reason is obvious. Boras wants his client to sign the biggest deal, period and in the biggest market. It doesn't matter that based on the difference in taxation between New York and Texas that the deals that were last quoted were virtually identical. I think Boras kept Beltran in PR where the Stros couldn't sell him on the organization and the city as additional reasons to stay with the Stros. For Boras, it is and will always be all about the money. I hate the MF! I am a Red Sox fan first, but living here in Houiston I am also an Astros fan and I hate to see them played with like this. I wish they had blown Beltran off from the beginning. They would have been better served improving their rotation, their bullpen and improvoing their roster with players now long off the market.

Kota, I appreciate the props but I believe you beat me to the point! So props to you sir!

Are you serious? After the way this team played on defense, special teams and offense in addition to Drew against the Stiller scrubs, you are telling me this team is a QB away?? Are you telling me that had we had a stud QB other than Drew, we would have WON that game? PUHLEASE! The defense couldn't stop 3rd and 4th stringers when it counted the most, letting them grind 8 plus minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter when everyone in the house KNEW they were going to pound the ball. Special teams played their worst game of the season, receivers dropped passes and made key mistakes (i.e. the pass interference penalty). We have insufficient depth at O-line and it showed when Villarial had to leave the game. Running backs missed blitz pick-ups and Shaud Williams fugged up that misdirection play (that shouldn't have been called in the first place). The play-calling was horrendously over-conservative as the DBs were sitting on those short routes all day. But oh, if we only had a STUD QB we would be heading for the Superbowl now. RRRRRRRRRIIIGHT!

Exactly! If he had said, "Well, I need to be evaluated just like everybody else and if it's JP's team now so be it," we would have been hearing how spineless he is as a non-leader. It is almost comical to the extent to which bashers will go to keep doing it.

You know, I can't help but laugh at this post, simply due to its reference to our "Superbowl defense." This Superbowl defense of ours was PATHETIC in that loss to the Steelers! They couldn't stop an offense running second, third and even fourth stringers in that game! Letting the Stiller's scrubs hold the ball for over 8 minutes in the fourth quarter of that game was absolutely unacceptable. A defense cannot be considered Superbowl caliber when it can't shut down an offense playing scrubs at home with a trip to the playoffs on the line. No question, special teams, Bledsoe and the rest of the offense all contributed to this loss, but to suggest that we are wasting a Superbowl caliber defense and even special teams on Bledsoe is just plain silly. Sure it would have been great for Drew to carry the team to victory notwithstanding that the rest of the team played as badly as it did, but the QBs in this league that would have been capable of doing that are few and far between.

Here is a very good and objective article written by a physician who has actually a great deal of experience in patient compensation and insurance and he is a former President of the AAFP. AAFP Article As he rightly points out, there are many factors contributing to increasing malpractice premiums. One huge factor is the economics of the insurance industry. They exacerbated their situation when times were good by undercharging for premiums, and when the economy took a dive, they were caught with their pants down. And when they got caught with their pants down, they bailed out of the busniess altogether, only further aggravating the problem because they left fewer insurers out there writing med-mal policies. Also, as he rightly points out, one of the biggest factors in the recent increase in awards and settlements (it should be pointed out here that the stats gmac cited are for med mal claims only, not all types of cases) is the rapidly increasing cost of medical care itself. (He even cited stats to indicate that defendants prevailed in 60% of cases brought and that the actual number of cases filed have gone down). The skyrocketing cost of healthcare is going to naturally increase awards because the compensation for those awards is largely the cost of continued medical care into the future for a successful plaintiff patient who has been harmed. Another issue he raises which is so true: There's a whole lot of actual malpractice going on out there, much of which goes unreported (Take my friend whose experience I recounted in a post earlier in this thread) with the arrogant dumbass doctor that misdiagnosed his father and would have surely killed him had they not gotten a second opinion, and they haven't sued nor reported his error to anyone. If there are people out there fugging up through greed or carelessness, of course here are going to be lots of claims for it when it hurts somebody! Then he even cites as an example the state of Nevada, where they placed caps on tort recovery for pain and suffering except in the case of outrageous acts of gross negligence and yet it had virtually no impact on premiums, as reported by physicians in the state. Oops, this does not seem to comport with RTDB's "stats" he got from Rush where all sattes passing tort reform have seen a decrease in premiums. Anyway, the point is you can cite stats and use them to support the political bent of your opinions, but the problem is far more complex than: its scumbag no-good trial lawyers and stupid jurors causing this crisis. The reality is, there are a whole of hospitals cutting corners to save a buck and causing people ahrm, and there are a whole lot of doctors out there who ain't all that and probably shouldn't be practicing but because it is an unwritten rule to just cover it and shove the guy out the door, he/she is free to go elsewhere and wreak his /her havoc. And as for jurors being easily incited into being irresponsible with awards (no doubt also the fault of scumbag trial lawyers if it were actually true), I can only speak from my own personal experience. I have sat on two jury trials for car accidents over the past three years. In both of them, the fault was clearly the plaintiff's all the way and was clearly the result of the plaintiff not behaving reasonably or exercising ordinary care (in fact, in both cases the defendant was issued citations for violating the traffic laws). In both cases, the plaintiff's suffered serious injuries, including compound fractures requiring multiple surgeries (a little girl), permanent deafness, serious facial scars that would never go away, etc as well as significant economic loss from huge medical bills, loss of income for being out of work, etc. And yet in both cases the plaintiff's went home in lesser economic positions than they were in before they were hurt because 1) numerous people on the jury were reticent to award money, even in an amount to simply make them economically whole through compensatory damages for lost wages, damage to property and out-of-pocket medical expenses caused by the defendant's carelessness and stupidity, let alone awarding them money for the pain, suffering and disruption in their lives that these accidents wrought on them; and 2) because the defendants typically were either under-insured or not insured at all and were virtually certain not come up with even some of the money themselves. I find it hard to comprehend how people cannot justify pain and suffering compensation to victims of the stupidity, greed or carelessness of other's when it is clear thay have actually suffered for it. I mean, is there anyone who thinks that a little girl who has suffered a compound fracture of the leg and has had to endure multiple surgeries and a bodycast for 6 months hasn't suffered, or for a guy whose eardrum has been busted and tympanic bones destroyed and has lost permanently the hearing in that ear? in't entitled to compensation above being made whole economically. How much would you accept as payment to have that done to you voluntarily? But to not even ensure that their past and future medical bills, lost wages, property damage etc. have not been compensated? Don't tell me juries are basically full of idiots throwing around money will-nilly. They do it when the behavior they observe is outrageous on the part of the defendant. Do some people abuse the system? Always. But there are many safeguards in the process to make it enourmously difficult to get a case to the jury without some merit to the case. And whose fault is it that the system is abused? Oh yes, it's not the fault of the idiot bringing the suit, it's the lawyer's fault for taking the case. But the reality is that the factors that contribute to high premiums are manifold and abuse of the system is but only one for which there are many safeguards, including the jury system.

First of all, just because something is said casually on TV or in the news does not mean that it is accurate, particulary when such facts are coming from a source that is trying to sway opinion. Lot's of ways to present data to make it serve the purposes of the presenter, as is evidenced every day on this board when people cite only those stats that can support a conclusion they wish to draw and which they want others to draw as well. That is why these stats you cite now are meaningless unless you provide a cite so that it can be verified that they are actually accurate as well as objective and not intentionally or even unintentiionally skewed, leading others to draw incorrect conclusions. Moreover, you then draw the conclusion that the primary reason for this upward trend is paranioa among doctors that they might be sued. Based on what? Not only does this conclusion completely ignore other explanations for the increase in the procedure, but other possibly critical stats are missing, such as the effect on infant and mother mortality in view of the increased use of this procedure. Indeed, if the infant mortality and that of the birth mother have coincidentally gone down, perhaps the use of this procedure has actually benefitted, even if some doctors do it out of paranoia in cases which do not indicate its necessity. Once again, whose nugget is this. Please provide me a cite. Until you do, I have no way of establishing the veracity of this data or at least to ascertain the objectivity of its source. Moreover, once again I can demonstrate other conlcusions that could be drawn from this data (even assuming it is accurate and objective) that does NOT CLEARLY lead to the conclusion you draw. For example, settlement payouts could have increased because insurance companies were settling more meritorious cases rather than letting them get to a jury in the first place. In that case, of course the median settlement figure would go up because meritorious cases will warrant compensation (unlss of course you subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as a meritorious case and that hospitals should be able fall short of reasonable care in the interest of profits as long as its not you or your family that are harmed by it). Indeed, this may have actually saved them money overall from previous years because they settled them rather than let a jury be outraged by their conduct. You see, just because the medium number went up doesn't mean that thier overall payout wasn't the same or less! Same with the median jury awards. If less cases get to a jury, and only the most eggregious ones are permitted to go to trial (either because the plaintiff won't settle cheap or the defnse wants to roll the dice because it may be a chance to get off scot free) then why would the median award going up be that surprising? Moreover, how much of that increase is due to some really big cases having an aberrant affect on the stats, such as the cigarette awards that were huge, and deservedly so? Nope, the problem is that you are willing to accept any stats presented to you that on their face support the conclusion you want to draw and then draw the desired conclusions. And as for talking to an OBGYN about his insurance premiums is unavailing! That is like telling me to ak the opinion of an attorney as to why his malpratice premiums are high. How the frig does he know accept for what his insurance agent tells him or the insurance industry tells him??

You aren't very intelligent are you? I cited the facts. If you don't see why McDonald's should have been held accountable based on the FACTS, then it is not likely you will understand much else that I write. But bravo to you for just simply labeling what I wrote as stevestojan rather than actually disputing the facts or intelligently debating the conclusions drawn from them. That would have taken some intelligent thought which I see now is not forthcoming. Oh, and the personal attacks and insults are VERY effective. When unable to say anything intelligent, always simply dismiss what was said without support and throw in a few insults! Bravo to you! And by the way, many people other than me have drawn the same conlsuion from the actual facts of the case I have, and no, they are not all lawyers! But you wouldn't know that because you would rather ignore the facts and spew your ignorant hatred for some group, in this case lawyers. How very unintelligent of you. Bravo to you again for at best, misunderstanding or at worst, mischaracterizing what I wrote, and then throwing out another personal insult on that basis. Very impressive! So let's see, if we look back at what I ACTUALLY wrote, we will see that I asked GMAC to back up his conclusion that the increase in the number of C-Sections is due to trial lawyers and potential lawsuits as he stated. I merely provided another possible explanation of why this trend is up to demonstrate the flimsyness of his conclusion (actually his unsupported opinion) without the benefit of actual factual support. In no way do I state as fact that the real reason for the upward trend is the desire to increase revenue by billing for an unnecessary procedure. It is simply but one example demonstrating the obvious reason why he should provide a source of fact to support his position. Otherwise it will remain an unsupported opinion and as such remain entitled to little or no value. OK, yes I would like some stats, but funny, I don't see any! All I see is you blowing smoke about something of which I am sure you have absolutely ZERO personal experience! Unless of course you've been to medical school recently. All I see is you repeating something you probably heard on Rush Limbaugh. Oh well wait, then in that case it must be true! No cites needed to back that up! I would love to see some facts regarding this defensive medicine, particularly the part about it not benefitting patients or improving medical care. Until you cite specific procedures and/or practices which are taught in medical school and then demonstrate how they are not helpful or beneficial to patients, you are simply blowing smoke, nothing more. Oh wait, you heard it somewhere so it MUST be true! OK, another stat? I still haven't seen the first stat, but please by all means, provide us a cite to this data from an objective source that proves this assertion. Until you do, you are doing the very thing of which you accuse me: That is, spewing garbage! You are too funny dude! You are precisely the kind of guy big business and the insurance industry loves. A guy who'll believe anything he hears, and then passes it along as fact to the other sheep who will believe it without any proof or even a mere citation to the FACTS! And yet you would be the first guy in line to sue a doctor or hospital if you, or one of your loved ones was harmed by a doctor not exercising ordinary care or a hospital cutting corners to increase its profits! Oh, and BTW, how is such a lawsuit the fault of an attorney? You see, the lawyer dos not initiate such a lawsuit, it's the person who HIRES the lawyer who does. Here's an anology you just mind understand, even with your limited capacity: Guns don't kill people, they have to actually be employed by people to do so. The gun does not have to be used for bad purposes. In fact, guns can't even advise people not to use them for bad, as (believe it or not) lawyers quite often do. Now I KNOW you wouldn't blame guns for the illegal deaths and injuries and other crimes they may be used to perpetrate. I know you wouldn't advocate getting rid of guns! That would be highly un-rightwing conservative of you!

Well, were it not for the fact I've also represented large corporations for 14 years, perhaps only a few coures in law school wouldn't seem enough. But even those few law school courses makes me more qualified than you. Why should I have to look it up? If you're going to quote stats, its on you to back them up with a cite. Otherwise at best your just jerking us off. Do tell, where does the 50% number come from? Something you just heard somebody say and o it must be true? Lot's of reasons why C-sections have increased (if they in fact actually have increased significantly), not the least of which is to increase revenues. Just because something goes up doesn't mean it is attributable to a particular cause. Sounds like the insurance industry and corporate America are safe with the likes of you buying everything they're selling.

It is not opinion, it is a conclusion. You can actually draw those when you study enough cases, enough examples and the actual facts that surround them. Please tell me what it is you have studied that has led you to your conclusion. Also, for every case that has been filed, there is a client who has hired that lawyer and brought that lawsuit. Real easy to blame the gun rather than the guy who pulls the trigger. Oh, and please provide the statistical source for your assertion that 50% of all gynos have been sued.