PatPatPatSack

Sorry I'm so lazy that I wont even run the numbers, but assuming my eyeball average is 14, that is much lower than I would have guessed. To the point where it looks like you need to have a number under 15 but after that, your passing stats are not a great predictor of Super Bowl success. Without sounding stupid, (like I would if I said the most relevant predictor is W/L percentage during the playoffs), I'd say the best predictor is the plus/minus factor. Your average game day difference between points scored and points given up. But the way to build a team is the time honored way. Find your weaknesses and eliminate them. Always be trying to make your team better. Or at least not suck in particular areas. I think the Bills' pass rush is a weakness, middle run defense, and right side run blocking. Other than when I need QB, I think I would be drafting linemen at the 1-2 position nearly every year. Heck, linemen represent nearly half the team! I hope someone does this same excercise for defense.

Yeah I do. I am sick of fans expecting better behavior out of the players than they themselves exhibit. Especially their behavior at the games! All because players get "a lot of money". Guys like ocho get a lot of money because they play football at a world class level. If we want a team that performs at world class level, then we simply have to have players that play like it. We'll get our humanitarians elsewhere. And these charges, they are knucklehead things that you read about in a football book and laugh at the crazy antics. Sandwiched in between stories about Super Bowl visits. To the best of my knowledge, Jim Kelly has never paid the iceman. But I don't call for Jim's execution either. Many football players are indeed great quality human beings. Some ain't. Just like the rest of the world that I have come to know. If you were an owner of a company would you fire your lead programmer, or top salesguy for this behavior? Naw, you would be working with HR to figure out a way to keep him functioning. That is if you were one of the few companies that even cared. Chad does have some downsides. This ain't one of them.

She had almost 2 million downloads on MYplace . that is crazy publicity. I think being an independent business woman, she is in a good position to capitalize on her talents. Umm. Of course none of those puns were intentional.

Worse? I don't know, Arizona signed one of our guys and is calling it a positive upgrade...

This is oh so true. And it's not a subject for ridicule. He is a talented young man who is strong in some areas, and very weak in others. Which is why he won't be a stranger to WNY. He'll be back frequently. Seems he impregnated and infected a number of our gals, it is whispered. We should remember him as someone who left it all on the field. Hah, hah, that's funnier than I meant it!

You really don't understand do you? It's not an act.

Actually your position is changing. At first you discounted all GW research as junk science. Now you have updated that to suggesting that the problem is too intractable for science. And you have upgraded junk science to "science" (with quotes). That is wishy washy. Therefore it must be you with the gnat balls. I don't recollect your calling me out, as if you somehow got my goat. I believe I continue to restate my original proposition, though from here out I will leave out the name calling. Hope you don't find that too wimpy. But I am in the position to make demands. You need to back up your spew. You can't. You still won't give me a yea or a nay on the most simple question of all. I not only demand it, your unwillingness to show what you think is because it is a pretty weak position. And one you don't even believe yourself. Go ahead, say it. Say there is NO Global warming trend. Say that everyone who thinks so is wrong. C'mon mr. balls o'steel. Al Gore isn't here to beat up on. and then I'll shut up. I'm even getting tired of listening to me...

I must not be a very good writer. Gore has become a prophet. A man with a vision. A person with a set of ideals, reasons, and what you should do's. That is similar to religion. My hats off to him for taking the time and the flak. He states his case better than I could. You asked if that wasn't religion. I agreed it sure sounded like it. He may buttress his arguments with science, but he himself is not a scientist. Just like a salesman is not an engineer. Different jobs. But I don't want to argue with you guys about Al Gore's motivations or his facts. That discussion obscures the real discussion. You weighed in on my question. You said that there is not much dispute over the warming trend. That is one vote cast toward that. You then are a yea. AD I think is a nay. I am a yea. "The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies." I am with you 100%. And that is a huge dialog for science to still continue to test and figure out. And for policy makers to figure out during and after. And I don't want to touch it because the tone is way too shrill. But we still have some folks who actually dispute this warming trend. Right here on our show. AD disputes it on the basis that it is all junk science. We are down to brass tacks here. Are you a yea? Or a nay?

Jeesh. I ask the gallery. Is there any one else out there that didn't understand what I just wrote? Why would I ignore the fact that Gore is not a scientist? He isn't is he? Did I say he was? Didn't I just agree with the poster that Al was being a prophet and ergo - more evangelist than scientist? Man you are impossible. You may be a diick, but you usually have good arguments. Not this time. You are just disintegrating into a puddle of mush. I don't suppose we are getting anywhere...

Huh? How can I be wrong on both counts. Those aren't my counts. I only have one proposition here. And you constantly keep bringing up the human factor. It's not necessary. I'm trying to keep this simple for you. But I think we are closing in on your answer which is - No, there is no Global Warming. All studies are flawed or biased. Your definition of science includes a double blind study. And how you conduct one of those I'd like to see. Cool. That's where you stand. I think. You should directly confirm it or not. Balls of a gnat. Are you saying I'm not up to challenging you directly? Or are you saying I'm not accepting a pistol duel? Or are you saying because I don't rant that somehow I am less of a man. I think I am more of a man because I have the better argument. And because you have lost this argument in spite of your asking stupid and unrefineded questions. I have spoken directly to the issue. You haven't. Oh and BTW. I've proven you are a dick. You haven't proven I have balls of a gnat.

Anytime you set yourself up as Prophet or ideological leader, you become more akin to an evangelist than to a scientist. Now I might respect Al for it and view his reasons as being sincere, and you might feel otherwise and view him as having more sinister, or ulterior motives. That's certainly more in the opinion camp than the science camp. You saw the movie, you came away with an opinion way way or the other. I would not call your opinion stupid. Our original discussion, that I have now beat to death, was over the issue of GW in general. Human caused or not. And whether or not the body of evidence was junk science.

At no time have I championed anthropogenic global warming. I made two claims. For those that need brevity: a. the globe is gettin warmer. and it ain't "junk science" that indicates it. b. Alaska Darin is a dick. so far, thru thousands of words, no one has refuted either proposition. I have been name called (hey I asked for that ) and other strawmen have been burned at the stake, but still nothing on a or b. I've gotten hints of term papers and all kinds of attacks on my writing. I even have given linkies for them that need them. You guys are so used to quarrelling, you don't even know how to present an argument. So what is it? T or F ?

I think the hypothesis is that there is a warming trend. And that it may have a great effect on the environment and it's current stastis. I would suggest that skepticism is not the check on bad science. Good science is the check. Skepticism should be what motivates good science. Skepticism without good science is just an unbalanced belief system. Heck I subscribe to The Skeptic Magazine (from right here in Amherst! good stuff!). But to be a skeptic comes with it a responsibility for a higher degree of proof. Otherwise you are just a crank. Or you/it becomes the province of religion and matters become accepted "on faith". Can good science produce incorrect conclusions? Sure. I consider bad science not incorrect conclusions, but poorly done science. But it takes a very high degree of insight and knowlege to be able to pan someones efforts as "bad science" It requires a greater degree of proof. It is a problem because everyone wants to discover something and noone wants to spend a career checking out someones else's work and saying - yep, it's good. So I agree mostly with your post. And only differ in making the hypothesis and our argument today a bit simpler. There is still tremendous power in a conclusion that the is such of a thing as Global Warming. And it's presence is going to be not insignificant. I wonder, who feels that this hypothesis is true, not true, or unproven? And who would agree that this report, conclusions notwithstanding, is a product of junk science? http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Actually, I think I know you better than maybe I care to. I've read well over 1000 of your posts and the responses to them. That is a body of work that is pretty indicative of either what you believe, or some persona you are spending way too much time to cultivate. And it is having witnessed that, that I feel pretty safe in calling out your attitude as a, well since the kids are in bed and you prefer it, a dick. That really is based upon your body of work mind you, not your claims today. As to the difference between caring and this macho beer he-man attitude, I think I am pretty safe there too. You don't much care for anybody. Not that I've seen. So let the chips fall where they may, but you have been pretty eloquent in stating that. Hey if I am wrong, show me why. But don't pretend that after 10,000 posts (god, I just looked and it was 25k), you give a pretty good picture of yourself and your character. Alaska Darin = Great Humanitarian doesn't seem to be the phrase of choice around here. Maybe I missed the post. Back to the real reason I picked this fight. "Junk Science" as mantra. After Ramius gives some evidence that he has actually studied the issue and applied some scientific reasoning to the issue and seems well on the way to contributing, you do a throw up of a few unrelated items and disparage the entire body of scientific thought, publications, discourse, freakin issues of Scientific American. You know if you are going to throw GW under the bus (global not greggo), you got to do better than that. That is precisely my point. And here it is yet agin for those who can't glean it from my writing. It is the height of stupidity, to ignore learned men, discussing learned things, by saying ahh.... they don't know what they are talking about. They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable. I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm. Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't.

Thanks for the reply. I shifted gears a bit and guess I left you in the dust. My bad. In reference to walking and talking, I meant our collective responsibility to fellow man. I was noting the rather calloused attitudes of two posters who both felt that they cared nothing about another opinion and the mental picture of watching humanity perish in the flames. Maybe I am putting words in the mouths, but I would not mind be called out about that. And being reassured that indeed, our responsibility to fellow man DID mean a great deal. Hope I'm wrong. What I referred to was not only being concerned, but acting concerned. As to Kyoto accords or CO2 emissions, I do not propose those as solutions - or not. I'd rather get agreement on a problem and a willingness to solve it. This thread is NOT about policy. But it's about stupidness. Like saying GW is a liberal guilt issue. Nope. GW is a thing. And it's either happening or it's not. It's a yes or no proposition. It's true or it's false. It's not hysteria, it's not white man's burden. It's not Al Gore's public service announcement. And what exactly does Liberal Guilt Issue mean? Just tell me: Is the planet warming, cooling, or staying the same. And by how much? And what is the rate of change? Could this be any simpler? You guys have yet to put one good argument on the table. Not one. Shows the depth of your thinking.