Albany,n.y.

Replacing 1/4 of the roster-not a problem! Gone: Losman, Jenkins, Omon, Simpson, Greer (UFA), Fox, McIntyre, Costanzo, Lehman, Whittle, Fowler, Mace, Preston, Scott, Royal, Stupar, Bryan. That 17/53 = 32.08%. So even if we keep 1 or 2 of these guys, replacing more than 1/4 of the roster is guaranteed. Counting every 2 players over 13 as another win beyond 500 & we're at least 10-6. Instead of planning for the Bills picking 3rd, I'm rejecting your rash decision to trade away virtually all of our picks next year & get to #3 and I'll be content watching the Bills stay put & draft 32nd in the 2010 draft.

I haven't received it yet, but I was able to go on the website & pay for my tickets. Paid in full*** ***-Except for playoff & Super Bowl tickets.

Corrected. About the only thing you got right was that Vince Ferragamo wasn't responsible for 14 losses.

...and now we know the rest of the story. In the story I read in a NY paper, Alomar claims he was raped by men in Mexico years ago. If that is true, it may explain why he reacted so violently when the umpire called him gay.

East LA

I picked the Bills to win the Super Bowl.

To Ralph, those young 80 something girls are still hot.

His contract is too big. So, I'd give up an 8th round pick.

9. No preseason game in Toronto. Also, it looks like were playing 5 exhibition games this year with the extra one in Canton. They're just trying to tire out the team so they can't repeat as Super Bowl champs in the 2010 season.

I have this model in my bedroom. I paid $579 + tax for it & had delivery & setup including a cable box for another $30 for this and my tv in the living room. The 32" tv is placed a little past the end of the bed & it's perfect for someone watching tv from bed. Shipping may not be the best way to go unless you've read good reviews*** about the place shipping it. When you get it shipped, there's no setup & you have to make extra sure nothing got broken when you take delivery. Also-did you notice that this model isn't currently in stock & they can't tell you when it will be-that's another strike against ordering this tv off the internet. I have a Bravia 46" with a motion chip in the living room, that's a 1080 and since I'm partially color blind, I don't notice much of a difference. I've noticed that Fox broadcasts at 720 anyway, so if you're watching an NFC broadcast the 360 p's don't help. I wouldn't agree that bigger is better. The 46" in the living room fits in well because anything bigger would block my fireplace. Also my electric bill shot up by about 100 kws in the 1st month I had the new sets. I have to believe that the bigger the tv the more your electric bill will go up. ***Edit, it looks like the place on the link is pretty good, here are the reviews. On the one bad one I saw, someone from the store wrote in to refute the words of the critic. http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_P...Video_Pro_Audio

Lucky=Rusty Jones

Mark Brunell If they're looking for a veteran backup, it's really slim pickings.

Here are my views of digital: I have 3 digital tvs. 2 are hooked up to cable boxes, the 3rd is hooked up to an indoor Phillips 32dB amplified antenna. The problem with the tv hooked up to the antenna is that the tv signals are coming from different directions. Up until I added the amplification, I was not getting all the stations that are out there. In fact, I'm still not sure I'm getting them all because there's a local high def (HD) channel on my cable that I don't get in on the antenna. When I reset the tv to see if they have added this station, I never get it, but sometimes other digital channels drop out, so I might have to play around with the antenna & reset several times just to get the stations I know I should be receiving. Then last night I recorded SNL on a VCR (with digital tuner) and I was getting small gaps in the recording since the NBC station has a weaker signal than some of the other stations. On the cable, I'm at the mercy of my provider. For example, USA Network broadcasts programs in HD, but Time Warner doesn't have USA on the HD band in the Albany area-so I don't get any USA programs in HD. The positives are the high def programs are great and the digial picture is far superior to analog. High def comes in fine with just an antenna as long as the station is working ok on that antenna angle. The negatives are that the digital tvs cut the top of people's heads off on closeups. As more tvs go digital/high def the directors should learn to compensate for this. The freezing & gapping can get annoying using an indoor antena. The resetting mode becoming almost like a lottery as to which stations will register needs to be worked on by the broadcasters in areas where tv signals come from a variety of transmitters. Finally, I couldn't imagine hooking up an old tv to a converter box-you still don't get any HD broadcasts, which is the major benefit of digital tv to us consumers. I have a question for the converter box users-When I put a high def signal into a recorder that is not high def, the picture is shrunk down vertically. Does this happen to the programs in high def when using a non-HDTV connected to a converter box?

I'll be at the stadium where they played the game. If the Bills are in the Super Bowl-I'm there.

Here's why you're wrong. I doubt that 95% of the people on this board have the ability to cheat, skim or lie on their taxes. For me, in most years, there's nothing I can do to cheat. Before I bought a house, it was basically income & the standard deduction. After I bought my house, my itemized deductions were interest, property taxes, and state income tax (and contributions to charity-which I don't make beyond a very small $ amount). A lot of people think there are things you can manufacture to deduct-it's simply not true. Deductions don't come from thin air. If more people realized this, places like H & R Block would be out of business, because unless you're rich enough to have a more complex return, there aren't deductions to be found.

TE-we have no TE who should be playing in the NFL as anything other than a 3rd TE on any roster. Royal could be a #2, but not on a team that wants to win.

Did you watch it at a home for the blind?

I need 1 more TD to hit my #s, Pit 9, Ariz 7. All one has to do is look at what the Jets & NE did to Arizona to see what will happen today. Outside of the Carolina game, Arizona has done nothing to impress when they play anywhere else but on their homefield.

Pittsburgh Arizona

Ill fired their Governor-just came over 6:00 news. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/29/ill...rnor/index.html

Because Reese didn't want Ralph & Ralph's daughters telling him what to do.

I can't believe I'm at the 4th page and nobody mentioned the series named "Bills 1999-2000 Season" That last episode in Tennessee was the worst ending ever.

Harris was portrayed as a moron in the movie.

What the Palin supporters in any Palin v Kennedy argument don't get is that Caroline Kennedy wasn't nominated to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. The level of the position DEMANDS great scrutiny. Caroline Kennedy was not nominated nor chosen for anything at the time she spoke. If she had been nominated for Vice President running with a man the age of McCain, I would surely hope that she would be examined up, down & sideways as Palin was. It was not the media bias, it was the friggin position & the possibility of becoming President that made the scrutiny of Palin necessary. Kennedy was nothing more than a person who expressed interest in a position of less greater magnitude than the position Palin was already nominated & running for at the time of the scrutiny. Other than her own announcement, her name & the media making her into a front runner, with no evidence that she was ever the leading candidate in the eyes of the one man responsible for making the decision, Caroline Kennedy was basically a private citizen with no true path to any office. In the end she turned into no more viable a candidate for the Senate than someone like Gary Coleman was when he ran for Governor of California. There is nothing comparable between someone with a big name expressing interest in an open Senate office and someone who has already accepted the nomination of one of the 2 major parties to be within a heartbeat of being President of the United States of America. Sarah Palin had a 50% chance of being VP at the time of the scrutiny. Anything less than trying to find out everything about her would have been irresponsible.

Here's what I'm seeing. The NYC area politicians & their media feel like they've been slighted. Just like Hillary Clinton had this feeling of entitlement before Obama beat her for the nomination, the NYC pols have the same attitude of entitlement. They couldn't imagine that the Governor would dare pick anyone from outside their area & they are PO'd because now someone with a more global view of New York State, instead of their own myopic view will be representing New York in the senate. This is what I've seen from Gillibrand-she's proven that she can get both votes & contributions to fight anyone who is competition for her job. When she first ran, everyone thought she had no chance in a big Republican majority district. She got lucky because her opponent was caught in a bad marriage which included allegations of spousal abuse. Then she went to work-she went out of her way to make sure she was extremely accessible to her constituants. This made her very popular, along with her record of voting on what she believes is right, not what her party wants her to do. When she didn't see enough accountability in the bailout, she voted against it. The NYC pols are attacking her on her gun stance. They should realize that before he left the seat due to health & age, the late Congressman Solomon who was entrenched in that seat, was a staunch gun rights advocate, even going as far as to defend his vote to keep assault weapons legal so that his wife could feel safe while he was in Washington. No anti-gun politician would ever have been elected in that district & only a stupid one would have even tried to run there. This is a conservative, gun rights electorate in that district & it's time the downstaters realized that guns upstate are a totally different issue than guns on the streets of NYC. I think Gillibrand will do very well in the Senate. She's smart, agressive, really listens to her constituants, and isn't a rubber stamp for the NYC Democrats. The other thing I can't stand is the media's attacking Patterson for waiting so long to select Clinton's replacement. WTF was he suuposed to do? He couldn't name a replacement until Hillary Clinton was confirmed in Washington. If he did & then Hillary had to withdraw (like Richardson), then you have a replacement for someone who isn't leaving-no politician in his right mind would have chosen a replacement for someone before the confirmation process was completed. Here's what I think-The media was so embarrassed by their own incompetence by not being able to correctly predict who Patterson would choose, they've taken it out on Gillibrand & Patterson. I've heard both right & left wing media (includes newspapers, radio & tv) tell us for weeks it would be Kennedy or Cuomo and when it turned out to be Gillibrand, they were exposed, big time. If Patterson had picked the person they were predicting, they would have looked like they knew something. Instead they were shown to be the know-nothings that they are.