Taro T

I don't know, what keeps guys that are acquitted currently from pressing charges for false accusations? I'd imagine the same mechanisms that are currently in place could be used (with possible slight modifications). If the guy DID actually rape the girl, he'd definitely have to be a ballsy mo-fo to try to charge her with a false report. I doubt that the prosecutor would pursue the case vigorously, as he would be privy to the original evidence that led him to attempt to get the original conviction; but I could be wrong about that. Also, I would expect that the man bringing charges against the woman would increase her likelihood of bringing a civil suit against him. There is a lower threshold of evidence in civil cases, and the man (again, we are dealing in this hypothetical with one that did actually commit rape) would likely have a good chance of owing the woman a lot of money. On a different note, I'm not certain that I see it as a bad thing to have a woman that gets herself drunk and then regrets what she did the previous night be hesitant to press rape charges. As for your final question, I know that 20 years ago in NYS, if a woman filed a complaint the police had to press charges even if the woman later recanted her story and/or decided she didn't want to press charges. I'm not sure what more the police could do to "protect" her in that situation.

No, she wouldn't necessarily be prosecuted, but she could (and again, not necessarily would) be sanctioned. The sanction could be something as mild as putting her on a list so that if she brings charges that cannot be proved (once again) in the future that her name can be released to the papers. The sanctions for reporting an unintentionally false rape claim would be strictly on a case by case basis, and designed to be mild enough to not cause additional rapes to go unreported. (Realizing that certain women's rights groups will claim that you can never reach that standard, as not all rapes are reported today.) If however, you have a case where the charges are completely fabricated, then the woman should face serious consequences for her actions. I don't know that the current case will end up fitting this scenario, and will reserve judgement until the investigation is completed, but it sure does look like the charges have a very good chance of turning out to be bogus; if in fact the charges have no merit, then this woman should be prosecuted.

Actually, I think the UNintentionally false ones make it harder to get convictions on the real ones. By unintentional false accusations, I am referring to the accusations that come about a few days after the "event" when the "victim" decides that she isn't overly thrilled with who she went home with and gets convinced that just because she had a couple of drinks she had no control over the situation. Sorry, but unless the woman was drugged or given alcohol under false pretenses (really, these are VIRGIN Mary's), I don't buy the self applied victim label. (Heck, maybe the poor guy wouldn't have slept with her if HE wasn't drunk! ) Because some accusers get talked into believing that they were "raped" when in fact they weren't; I think that makes it harder to get convictions in "real" rapes more so than some bimbo totally fabricating a story. The total fabrication shouldn't alter the mindset that rape is a terrible crime. The converting a "gee, I wish I didn't sleep with that guy" into a "I was raped by that guy" would bring more doubt into an "impartial juror's mind", IMHO. I do agree with you though, that the intentional fabrications should be fought strongly against, preferably via jail time. The women who make unintentional fabrications, I have a bit more sympathy for, although I think that depending upon the circumstances that there should be sanctions against that as well (although much milder).

Which, when you get down to it, is pretty pathetic and sad. IF this lady did file a false rape charge, she should have the book thrown at her. (Though I honestly don't know if she'll be charged or not assuming her story doesn't hold.) I can think of few criminals that should be held in lower esteem than rapists. Because of the severity of the crime, the mere accusation tends to be pretty severe as well. Someone who would file a charge like that falsely has roughly the same character as a rapist, as the mere accusation can mess up someone's life pretty well.

I only checked one price range, and those particular tickets were sold out. Why are you surprised that tickets still remain on the 1st day they are available when people don't even know what days the games will be played? (Much less the opponent nor the game times.)

If it turns out the lady was not assaulted by any of the lacrosse players, and from arm's length, it does appear that no assault occurred at their house; does anyone expect her to be charged with filing a false police report?

I would simply stop watching pro football (at least for a couple of years), the same way I stopped watching basketball when the Braves left. I still haven't cared about the NBA and it's getting close to 20 years since the new owner moved them to San Diego. The only reason I could see that I might eventually pay attention to the NFL again, is I'd probably get lured back into "pick-'em" pools. Following the NFL would not be the same and I expect that I would hate whatever team "replaced" the Bills. I expect that I would watch some of the college bowl games, but probably wouldn't care much about the regular season of that either.

I would expect it to work the other way. Each time they win, Ralph GETS clothing. Otherwise, 0-16 would definitely be possible. As for picks, here's my totally random shot. Sep 10 @New England - L Sep 17 @Miami - L Sep 24 N.Y. Jets - W Oct 1 Minnesota - L Oct 8 @Chicago - L Oct 15 @Detroit - W Oct 22 New England - L Nov 5 Green Bay - W Nov 12 @Indianapolis - L Nov 19 @Houston - W Nov 26 Jacksonville - W Dec 3 San Diego - L Dec 10 @N.Y. Jets - L Dec 17 Miami - W Dec 24 Tennessee - W Dec 31 @Baltimore - L 7-9.

Prior to Rich opening, didn't he threaten to take the team to Seattle? Also, they were pretty low grade threats, but threats none the less, that if the State and County didn't pony up in '98(?), the team might leave.

I still think Miller should have stopped the 1st shot. Considering, even if he had caught the shot, he ended up in the net, he misplayed that one. Sometimes the team needs their goalie to step up and bail them out; Miller didn't do it. I thought Gagne was further back, towards the top of the circles, but again, I didn't have the benefit of replay. Considering I was at the Amerks game on Wednesday, I guess you are the only one that noticed Marty played like crud that day. Agreed with your final point.

I went to the game tonight, so I didn't have the benefit of (much) replay, but I definitely thought he should have stopped the 1st one. That goal took a lot of life out of the team. I was giving him a partial pass on the Gagne goal, simply because it was Gagne, but he was far enough out that I would expect Ryan to make that save more often than not. Couldn't tell that he was screened on the 3rd one from where I was sitting, but it did look like he got a piece of it. I will give him a pass on that one, as it now appears he was screened. Was (and still am) giving him a pass on the 4th one, but wonder if his coming out as much as he did to challenge the shooter was due to a request by Lindy / Corsi for him to be more aggressive or if it was a lack of focus, as I have seen several interviews with him where he has stated that he is intentionally staying back further in his crease so as to prevent those backside plays from happening. Where he was, he had absolutely no chance whatsoever. At any rate, I expect Marty to start tomorrow, and the job is getting close to the point of being his to lose. Ryan simply has not stepped up to take the job back from Marty. While you are right in that a lot of the goals he is giving up he has no chance on, he is tending to give up a soft goal early in the game more often than not. In the playoffs, when everyone brings their A level intensity, those soft early goals will allow them to challenge Darci to a longest drive contest far sooner than I would like.

I must. I'm glad to see that you agree with me that Darci is a girl.

That's ok. I'm sure my senior Senator will be decrying this right away. Oh, wait, Bank of America ISN'T a UAE entity? Oh, Nevermind.

I agree 100%, and I don't watch SC often, if at all, anymore. But when I did watch, I could definitely say that their producers don't agree with us.

So what, there were no basketball games Wednesday?

I'm not certain what year F*cker bought tickets to the "Conference Finals" (ooh, that's impressive), but she must have done it at least once. She was not a Loaf in '99 when the Sabres kicked TO's bippy. She was a Laff when they lost to NJ. She played in 4 playoff games with Montreal in a year that they went out in the 1st, NEVER played in the playoffs with TB, and then rode Sundin's coattails in TO starting in 2000. So the only way Darci made it to "a COUPLE of Conference Finals" is if she bought tickets for one of them. Maybe the other Conf. Final she was in occurred in the year that she got her mystery 18 playoff games that got her to her quoted 80.

Just purely out of curiosity, I wonder what the docs that wouldn't amputate would say to a guy who wants his unit removed so he can "become the woman" he always knew he was born to be?

You make a very good point. Two others that should be considered but appear to be dismissed (could only access the abstract, not the paper, so this is based on the abstract) are: 1. is there a reason for the "liberal bias", and 2. is there any alteration in the views of the students due to the quantified bias? They don't appear to be looking for the reason for the "liberal bias". Is there a self selection for liberal leaning individuals to gravitate toward professorships? Anecdotally, I would say that there is, but have no way off hand to prove it. They state that the liberal bias becomes "self-reinforcing", but is that due to the characteristics the applicant pools bring to the job openings or is it due to the Deans and faculty responsible for hiring to actively look for candidates with a liberal bias? That would be a more interesting question IMO, and I would expect the applicant pool would be at least as responsible for the bias as is the expectations of those doing the hiring. As CTM and Gavin touched upon, if the "liberal bias" of the university professors did influence their students to become indoctrinated to liberal causes, wouldn't you expect to see college age "kids" and 20 somethings becoming increasingly liberal as a greater percentage of professors supposedly become more liberal. Again, it's anecdotal, but there seemed to be a larger percentage of 20-something liberals in the 70's than today. Maybe, if the authors of the study want me to be overly concerned about the current "bias", they can show me tangible effects resulting from their quantified bias. They also might want to show me how a liberal teaches light transmittance or how to solve differential equations differently than a conservative does.

Isn't Dateline the one that rigged a truck to explode for their story on trucks with faulty gas tanks a few years back? I can't really say that I put a whole lot of credence in any of their "reporting".

Ken, happy belated birthday.

The way it has worked in the past is, any games not on the local ABC nor ESPN were on CI. That is the way it is supposed to work this year (substituting NBC and OLN for the others). OLN and NBC get exclusive rights to the playoffs starting at the semifinals, so CI will not show any of rounds 3 nor 4. CI will show everything in the 1st 2 rounds that you cannot see on NBC / OLN. So, if NBC has Sabres - Flyers, Rangers - Devils, and Detroit - Anaheim, and your local NBC affiliate shows the Detroit game; CI will have everything, but the Detroit game will be blacked out on your CI feed. If OLN shows the Detroit game, CI will have all games except that one. If you have CI and your provider picks up OLN, you will be able to see all the games (assuming you can pick up your local NBC affiliate). If you have CI and don't get OLN, then you will get all games EXCEPT those shown on OLN. IIRC, NBC is planning on showing 1 game per week until the Finals. OLN will show Games 1&2 of the Finals, with NBC getting the rest.

Stanley Cup playoffs begin officially on April 21. Unless there is something very unusual regarding rink availability, all teams will start their series either on the 21st or 22nd. 1st 2 games for the Sabres will likely be 21st and 23rd. Next pair most likely sometime between 25th and 28th. If Sabres clinch 4th they will play the 1st 2 at home; if they end up 5th, they will start on the road. So basically, if they are 4th, you'll be able to see them; if not, you'll need to alter your travel plans. Also, no word on when tickets will go on sale to the general public, but season ticket holder tickets have been mailed out.

PLAYOFFS!!!!! 2 more wins to being locked into playing the Atlantic 2nd place team (most likely other 4/5 finisher).

No I am not. I thought you were going somewhere else with your statement, thus the confusion and requests for clarification. As an aside, it is premature to state that a crime has been committed regarding FISA.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Deb. The schmuck I was referring to was myself. I thought your comment was funny, and was referring to the fact that I thought it so even though I most likely qualify for membership in the club (but hadn't previously posted in the thread). Watching the Sabres on the tube (especially when they were playing arguably their worst game of the season) on a Saturday night, was meant as an example of why I probably earned inclusion. Before wife and kids, watching the Sabres on the tube probably would not have been the main activity on a Saturday night.