The Avenger

Excellent advice. I think I'll turn it off as the Bills go for 4th and 1 at the 9 yard line.

Not to spoil the end or anything, but let's just say that you might not like how it turns out...

In case you missed it or just wanted to see it again, the game will be on tonight at 8. Edited down to 90 minutes.

Is it slander to lay blame for 9/11 at the feet of several people based on "fact" when there is demonstrable proof that such "fact" is indeed fiction? I'd say that's slander. BTW - I do agree that it was slanderous to invent conversations between the Reagans, especially since you could have verified your work from living primary sources.

It's not the place of politicians to police what a network like ABC airs or doesn't air. Rather did a bad story and paid the price for it - you'll notice that he's no longer in the anchor seat and had a faily acrimonious departure from the network (they told him he's still have an office but wouldn't commit to giving him any responsibilities). You may say that no private entity has the responsibility to be unbiased. The media, particularly the nationwide broadcast networks, have tremendous power to how we see the world - this is why there is some governmental oversight. Taking a strictly free market approach to the public airwaves would allow the networks to show whatever they want, whenevr they want - my guess is there would be a whole heck of a lot more sex, violence, profanity, etc. if that's what brought viewers in and jacked up ad revenues (my guess is that it would). If the media is going to be biased they do owe us disclosure about their bias - I believe that is a fundamental cost they have for using the public airwaves. In any event, even in a completely unregulated system, it behooves the networks to present some balance in how they bring us the world. I'm not going to watch ABC News if I feel that they are heavily biased one way or the other, or not telling me the whole story, or worse yet - simply making up fact and not telling me. The presumption that the networks want us to have is that they are, for the most part, unbiased (if you're a conservative this is where yoy start screaming about "liberal bias" in the media - I'm not even going to get into that). I don't really care whether a network shows somethings that's biased or not - it's their right to air what they want. I do have a tremendous issue with a network airing something that is biased and not owning up to that bias and trying to present things that didn't happen (and demonstrably didn't happen) as fact. This is not a free speech issue - this is a disclosure issue. If a network entrusted by the FCC to use public airwaves is going to say that something is "based on the 9/11 Commission report" and choose to show fiction and/or bias instead, they need to have full disclosure about it. Simply changing your statement to "based in part on the 9/11 Commission Report" isn't enough, in my mind.

I'll tell you the difference. The difference is you know what you are getting with Michael Moore. If you walk into one of his movies and expect it to paint a flattering picture of Bush and the right you're just plain stupid. Regardless, Moore can make any movie he wants if he goes and gets the funding and also the distribution (something Disney did not want to distribute so he had to go with a smaller distributor in the 11th hour). Now look at what ABC is doing. I believe one would reasonably expect that a major broadcast network, doing a miniseries "based on tehhe 9/11 Commission Report" would try and show some balance and would indeed research the facts (or at least make sure that they agreed with the 9/11 Commission Report). You would expect that a major television network would screen the film to both the left and the right, not just the right. You would expect that if there was any question about what happened they would make an attempt to contact those individuals portrayed in the movie (it's not like they're dead historical figures). You would expect that as a licensed FCC broadcaster who uses public airwaves they would need to strive to be unbiased (something Michael Moore doesn't have to do). That's the difference - you know what you're getting with Moore, you don't with ABC and ABC owes more to the American public to be forthright and unbiased.

Good point. I've finally lived here long enough to rather enjoy Moxie when I'm in the right kinda mood (the wife still hates it). Genny Cream, for as much as people hate it, tastes like home to me. If I see it in the stores here I'll usually get a bit to enjoy while watching a Bills game - seems only natural.

You can order pizza from Bocce (usually one of their half baked) and have it sent to you via FedEx overnight - I've done it before and it's great (although very expensive). Good stuff if you absolutely have to have it.

wow - Moxie® is an acquired taste, to say the least. You've got to grow up in New England or have lived here at least a decade before you can drink that stuff.

St. Ides Malt Liquor - that's where it's at. I remember Diane Sawyer once doing a story on how certan products were marketed in inner cities and she's sitting with some old uptight white exec from the company that makes St. Ides. She shows him a commercial with Easy-E (RIP) busting out of the back of a van doing a gangsta rap that says, "St. Ides malt Liquor, gets your woman in the mood quicker, Gets your Jimmy thicker". She then proceeds to ask the exec what message the commercial is trying to send and asks him, "What does get your Jimmy thicker mean"? Dude turns white as a ghost, stars sweating, starts tripping over his words and tries to say that he doesn't know what that means but the folks in marketing told him it was street slang and would help sell the product. Damn that was funny.

Good question - very interesting. I'm curious to find out for those people who don't always wear them - are you of an age that when you started driving seat belts may not have been included in most cars? I always wear my seatbelt (even when I ride in the back), but I've grown up with seatbelts. I'm wondering if I would be like this if I were older and started driving when cars didn't always have seatbelts - would I have grown accustomed to NOT wearing one and subsequently disliked them today? Also curious to hear from people who always wear seatbelts - do you always wear one if you are a passenger in the rear seat as well, or is it limited to being in the front seat?

Wow - I'm getting old - the shows I want to post generally aren't available: -Iron Maiden - Powerslave 1984 - Twisted Sister opened. A giant mumified Eddie as a backdrop. Accoustics of Maple Leaf Gardens was terrible! -Dio - Sacred Heart Tour 1987 - Stage was agiant dragon - Vinny A's drum kit was actually on the dragon's back. -Metallica - Monsters of Rock 1988 - Just before they got really big - they were only the 2nd band on a 5 band bill - they actually played before Dokken if that tells you anything. Got right up front for that show. -Pantera - Cowboys from Hell tour 1990 - Was actually the opener for Suicidal Tendencies. Phil moshed with the crowd after his set when ST came on - threw me a real good shoulder as ST came out an started with "You Can't Bring Me Down". -Metallica - Tokyo 1998 - Last night of world tour - very unique seeing the show with a Japanese audience. Crowd didn't sing along (they didn't speak english) except for the Marianne Faithful "Da Da Da" parts of "The Memory Remains" - then they were thunderous.

Wow - I can't imagine hitting a car and then watching Rich come out of the car towards me - I think I'd probably just take my chances running into traffic on the highway.

Doesn't mean he'll play, although even if he was 100% ther were no guarantees the rookie would see much action behind Dillon anyway. I think the Pats are going to see lots of Maroney this year, but my guess is that the plan is to ramp him up a bit at a time and let him earn starts or take over when (not even going to say if) Dillon gets banged up. I can't imagine the plan for week 1 was to give him 20+ carries anyway. That said, I think he's going to be a heck of a player - he's looked very good so far and has the tools.

I think what he was saying was that the same 5 guys have been starting on the OL for the entire time at camp - not the same guys as last year. Remember how many different combinations of offensive line starters we had last year? It was like they spun the "Lucky Wheel O Blocking" each week and came up with a different group.

Actually, it does make sense if you're out at a bar, the sound isn't on and they are showing multiple games - you can look up and see how many yards McGahee has - there are lots of people who want to know. I know the there are constant scrolls with stats, but if you don't care, don't pay attention to them. When I watch the news I don't pay any attention to what is scrolling along the bottom ("the crawl") - I'm busy listening to/watching the story they are presenting - the same can be done with football. Fans have to realize that in general, fantasy football is a very good thing for the NFL, and by extension, the sport. I used to only be interested in the - now I'm interested in almost every game. I watch more football. I'm more inclined to go to a game or buy NFL merchandise (especially if I win my league and have some extra loot).

Ah yes - 1999 was the year I picked Warner off waivers myself and paired him with a rookie I took a chance on - a guy by the name Edgerrin James - I ran away with it that year.

I disagree. I still think guys that do a better job gathering info and keeping on eye on things before the draft and durring the season do better than the guys who don't. Joe Schmoe who picks up a magazine prior to the draft and makes his picks from that is going to get whacked - those magazines are put together in May, long before anyone knows anything about the season. Seriously - that same Joe Schmoe is probably pretty psyched that he was able to get Curtis Martin and Domanick Davis so late in the draft and they are going to anchor his team to victory (or anchor him to the bottom of the ocean). These same Joe Schmoes don't bother to find out who's hurt and who a replacement player is, so I see them really get destroyed - they are far from experts and it shows. That said, even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in awhile (I remember laughing at a guy who knew nothing about football taking Stephen Davis, the backup to Skip Hicks in Washington, and ending up getting a guy who went 1400+/17 - dude still knew nothing at all about football but got lucky).

...or Jeff George....

Holy cow! I know the guy who submitted that question! I'm surprised he would ask such a thing as I'm pretty sure the guy's never even kissed a girl - super bright, super geeky software developer - not exactly a ladies man. Nice guy, brilliant guy, but right out of Revenge of the Nerds.

Excellent point. It's going to difficult to know this year how JP is doing, but if you take away his running game and force him to throw more and develop sooner you're really huting his development.

I disagree. You have no idea how my life was changed when I learned that John Mark Karr ate king prawn while sitting in business class after being deported from Thailand. You want hard hitting news - there's some hard hitting news. Take that, Cronkite!

How much time is enough to make the call on JP one way or another? 8 games?

We are so close to going to the Super Bowl and winning it all - if only we had a Pro Bowl punter....oh, wait....

Anybody checking in here - PLEASE GO TO THE SITE AND GO TO THE CHAT ROOM