OCinBuffalo

Thanks Mike Schopp. Got any other: "I don't want to get into the details of the game...because I don't know the details of the game", or "I have a show to run, and nobody wants to hear about the Xs and Os discussion...um...because I can't do it, so let's pretend I have a choice instead = I won't do it, and, in fact, let's project my views that "nobody wants to hear it",(read: my inadequacies), on all Bills fans." analysis for us? This board...is not about this sort of "scoreboard analysis". Or, perhaps it's as simple as: I don't want to see a guy get re-injure himself in a game that means so little? You know...common sense/logic vs. emoting? EDIT: Not saying you are doing this...you are actually analyzing things, rather than thinking...linear. This is a perfectly good assessment of Graham. However, this past game? The balls were way off, or, were thrown into a 50/50 situation, and yeah, Graham didn't win. He didn't lose(i.e. interception) but he didn't win. This is crap. You don't know this at all, and there's exactly 0 evidence that supports this "final conclusion". We aren't even close to having enough to even start the RJ argument, never mind delivering a final verdict on it. This is a perfect example for defining what "outrunning your coverage" means. No surprise considering the source. EJ is doing exactly what at rookie QB should be doing = going through every read, and being too slow at it...right now. Thad, especially last Sunday, began by trying to go through his reads, failed at it, or, realized he couldn't make the throw that some of the reads required, so, he skipped them for the rest of the game. This is what I saw when I was there, and, this is what I saw watching the game for the 4th time on Rewind. If I have to get out the "fancy pics" and show posters....dare me. When whoever gets done talking? The above will still be true. So, they can keep talking, I have plenty of patience...but I also have a handy gif creator and my Rewind account is paid in full.

I was also at the game, and there's no way this assessment is accurate. TJ Graham got absolutely screwed in that game. I was focusing on him....due to the inevitable WR/trade Stevie/get somebody discussions. TJ Graham was open. Period. On practically every play, he ran his rout perfectly. Doubly so on speed up/turn in or out type routes. His speed forces the CB to commit to it, and then he can cut the rout off to either side...which means he's auto-open. Meanwhile, especially early in the game, and consistently throughout, Thad couldn't even come close to hitting graham, when and if he could see his rout develop. And, that's what concerns me the most: Thad simply "progressed" away from Graham's rout over and over. He just skipped it. "Going through your reads" means you actually have to go through them. Thad didn't. He skipped through the ones he can't throw, and if what was left was there, he would hit it. IF not? He'd run or get sacked. In fact, this whole "THAD IS MORE DECISIVE!" argument....is BS. Thad skips his reads, so he gets to the end of them faster than EJ. This is not what we need.

I want Walmart to be a TPA for catastrophic insurance, and offer to administer(manage the money) for risk pools that number in the 100ks. So, yeah, I want Walmart involved, and they sure as hell are relevant. On the day-to-day stuff(doctor's visits, emergency room, scripts, etc.), I want pre-tax HSAs, run pretty much the same way 401ks are. I want cards issued that only work on machines that proviers are issued(see? I don't even make you pay for that). With....perhaps more regulation on what you can put your HSA money into. But, due to the smaller size of the average HSA account, this may not be necessary. So, we leave it unregulated for now, and see if we need to add some later. You know what I've said above, and you know why it would work. Or, you don't understand health insurance very much. Enough of these solutions from 1964. We have 0 need to run this as one big system. We can easily decentralize it(like we always do in my job) and have the states manage or regulate, their choice, the HSAs, while the Feds deal with the catastrophic. Big, one-size-fits-all, is precisely what the Feds do well, and that's exactly what we want for catastrophic. We also want to leverage Wal-mart's inherent economies of scale ability. Meanwhile, as far as the truly needy/disabled the State/Feds can pay into the HSAs directly, but, since it's state money, the state can determine which doctors are allowed to be consulted, hospitals, etc. Everybody else is free to do as they please. This is as it should be: you don't want to pay your own way, you lose the freedom of choice. The people who are paying, should be the ones who are saying. Employers can still attract employees by making payments to the HSA, AND, the HSA $ can be transferred to family members...no different than beneficiaries in any other form of insurance. If you don't use your $, you don't lose it, and you don't get taxed on it when you die. This has the added benefit of killing the death tax permanently, because people will just load up their HSAs before they kick it....and that means...their family has a nice bit of security for their lives...and not money that can be blown on idiocy. You want to deal with wealth inequality? Here's how you do it: putting cash into an HSA instantly creates wealth, and every single dollar counts. Btw, every year of government service = the government double matches your HSA contribution. No exceptions. This plan works, drives down cost, and holds every provider accountable by whom the are supposed to be held accountable: patients. "The Big Insurance" companies are left to fight it out in the catastrophic market, and they can offer all sorts of plans, while being held to account by the Treasury Department(not the IRS). Finally, a small amount (variable %) of everyone's HSA is taken each quarter and put into a county, not state, WTF fund, which is used to cover overages when somebody gets their HSA drained by being unlucky. It's also used as a "get back on your feet" default(move 10k in there to start them out, but, if they leave the county, they lose that 10k = keeps the "poor" from coming to NY and welfare shopping) for people trying to rejoin the labor force(or human race, in terms of addicts). That quarterly % is decided by the county. Thus, all bases are covered, and there's a built-in incentive for competition, and for those who are clue-deficient, to get one. It's not difficult to construct similar/better/different parts of this that deal with the details or special circumstances, and ALL of those should be left to the county, not state, not Feds. We can build systems for 100% of the people, without any "losers", provided that we realize that doing that means: decentralize, decentralize, decentralize....and throw the things that make sense being centralized(catastrophic) over the fence. We can build all kinds of stuff....provided we remember one thing: it's not 1964, and, all of those programs represent "the worst way to do it".

Bah! I was gonna do this! I was sure that somebody was on task with the "24 hour Christmas Eve reprieve" part of this story. Thus, I was thinking about my Christmas Eve carol. I will try to help out.... The young adults were nestled all snug in their beds, Thinking "I'll just pay the fine, that'll F with their heads". When out of DC there arose such a clatter, I jumped on PPP to see some new chatter. Away to this nut gallery, I flew like a flash, clicked open this thread, to see the new bash. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow? Wait...why the F don't I remember this part...it has breasts in it! Ok, I'll start again. The moon is almost full and it's hanging quite low, Tomorrow brings new ways for Obamacare to blow. When what to our laughing eyes should appear? But, DC_Tom(buck naked with a flashlight), yelling "Wait, what is happening here?!" Tom's level of annoyance is now very thick, "Which one of these agencies is?....ah, to hell with it, they can all suck a d_ck!" Nanker has posted another change that is lame, Funny how this "law of the land" is never the same. "Now B-Man, now LABillz, now Keepthefaith and Koko?" "Crush birdog, crush TPS, crush B-large and Gator!" "Nail all Obamcare nonsense to the top of this "wall", Now dash away, dash away, dash away all!" This is fun, but I gotta get to bed....so I gotta dash away too.

Merry Christmas, and/or whatever holiday you choose to support. As far as wealth inequality goes? Since when is wealth supposed to be equal...in a free society? Wealth is not a right. So speaking in terms of "equality" about wealth is ridiculous. However, I get that your panties get bunched....so...I'll help you out. It's mind numbingly simple: 1. When you put this many people on government benefits, when you implement policies that kill growth(Obamacare, Environtology rather than honest conservation, Dodd Frank), rather than support it, when you have this many people who have quit looking for work, never mind the people we count as unemployed? Wealth inequality "is upon you, whether you would have it or not". Just do the math that determines it, obviously this many people on the dole, compared to 10 years ago, is going to mess with the numbers. It has to. The high earners are still who they are. Their numbers haven't changed, while the lower/middle's have. Absolutely nothing is shocking that 5 years of policies that "create jobs via government" lead to "wealth inequality". 2. The only way to fix this problem is: private sector jobs. Private sector jobs does 3 things that government jobs/benefits cannot. They pay into the system, rather than taking from it. One would think that people who want to spend so much(on the wrong things that don't work)...would be all about making sure as many people were paying into it as possible. Even if you taxed the 1% at 100%, you still don't even come close to getting the revenue necessary to offset the spending. Thus, it's illogical for anyone on the left to support any policy that kills even one private sector job, while still trying to maintain that they are "for the middle class". Anything that kills private sector jobs today must go. We can try and get back to the issues around it some other time. The private sector must be where 80% of the middle class works, for the liberal spending policies to be viable. (EDIT: That is, if you believe that these spending policies are ALSO going to help = things out.) Anything else and you run into a hot mess...such as we have now. More private sector jobs, by definition, leads to more managers of those jobs. More manager jobs leads to more income/upward mobility, and leave the lower jobs vacant as people move up, so that other people can take them. Period. Private sector jobs take people off the dole. Point one is about increasing revenue. This is about reducing cost. And, yeah...about letting people feel like they are worth a damn. The less we spend on everybody, the more we can spend on the people who really need help. And, the more likely we are to identify the lazy a-hole who's laughing while he's using the "safety net" as a hammock. 3. STOP PRINTING MONEY, MORONS! This is killing the wealth of the lower and middle classes. We can have a long, boring, discussion about how/why, but, at the end of it, this will be the conclusion. Stop printing money. Money = cash. The wealthy hold many and various assets, and usually just enough cash to keep the lights on. Assets are inherently valuable. Cash is subject to all sorts of nonsense. Most people's main asset is their house, whose value is determined by? Equity...and equity comes from? You guessed it? Cash. The more you destroy the value of cash, the more you destroy the wealth of the lower/middle class, and the more difficult you make it for them to convert their cash on hand into inherently valuable assets. Example: you kill the value of cash, you kill the value of the mortgage payment that each poor person makes. Thus their wealth is directly compromised. These are just the simple ones. If you really care about "wealth inequality", you will immediately demand that all of this gets done, and that no politician on either side, stand in the way of any of it. Otherwise, you are either a simpleton, or a phony, in which case: who cares if you think wealth inequality is bad? You're not going to be part of the solution to it anyway.

1. Let's just get this out of the way: the refs WILL screw us. No reason to act surprised on Sunday. Instant replay, as it exists today, is based 100% on the refs screwing us in New England. That game is, quite literally, the single most key event in the history of instant replay in the NFL. Deny it, and you're simply ignorant, or lying. The refs were screwing us on calls when Steve Grogan was the QB...it's just that we would blow them out so badly that nobody remembers. 2. Boston has had a lot to be proud about the last few years, and denying that only makes you look silly. However, most of them know that their window is closing, rapidly. The Celtics are back to mediocre. All it takes is one good, or more likely bad, shot on Brady, and he's done, with Belechik running out the door behind him. The Patriot defense is an empty shell, and where it isn't old, it's slow. Where it isn't dumb, it's talent-capped. The Bruins perhaps have the longest upside, but even that is limited. The Red Sox might be good for a while.... I don't begrudge them their chances now, but they should try and remember: the 1990 1-15 Pats, or the Bruins of last decade, or the Celtics for 2 decades, isn't that far in the past, and is almost certainly coming back. We'll see where all the "fans" and talk radio "wizards" are when their teams revert to normal. 3. The notion that Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time is patently retarded. Joe Montana is the greatest QB of all time. And, there's a list below him(Elway, Marino, Unitas, Otto Graham(who I didn't see, but I'm told by people who know: belongs here), that Brady doesn't belong ahead of by any standard. Hell given Peyton Manning, you could argue that Brady isn't even the greatest of his time...never mind all time.

Yes, amazing...sorta. We didn't end up overpaying for 2 left tackles(one to be injured a lot, and the other to actually play LT while the first guy was out). So, I'm still fine with letting an attitude problem walk. Especially an attitude problem who had no time/interest for the people who took a chance on him, trained him to play the position, and helped him to develop into that All Pro level. The reason I want Byrd, is the same reason I didn't want Peters = Baggage.

This is football board, with a politics component. Most would argue one without the other, especially here, is an inferior product. Tim Russert. Enough said. Let me take this opportunity to help you with 2 things: 1. If you want to use perfectly legitimate analogies, that involve politics, you can't do it here, on this part of the board. You might be able to use analogies that involve squirrels, and getting dogs, or people of similar IQ/attention span/information level, to attend to them, instead of something else, but you can't discuss politics here. The mods will give you points if you do. 2. If you want to try and make your point on PPP, I invite you to start a thread there. You will find reasonable, enlightened, fast-paced and stimulating discussion...and perhaps you will suceed in making your case. In all cases, I won't engage in political discussion here, so tough schit if you don't like my sig. Perhaps you should go to PPP, and try to convince me to change it?

HAHAHAHA! Awesome. Finally...the Miami/Buffalo thing shows signs of moving back to where it's supposed to be. This Pats thing is a passing abberation in my lifetime. It will fizzle away like a bad fart soon enough, given their drafts. I'm not sure that I want to get back to Miami/Buffalo Bryan Cox Vs. Carwell Gardner levels...but...I'll take this for sure.

On one hand, there's being offended by stuff like this.... On the other? Mark Sanchez. Tony Romo. We can talk all we want about inferiority complexes, or, we can recognize, and discuss, the obvious bias that inundates the media when it comes to big market teams. I've watched the Bills/Miami game 3 times now(been making perogies all afternoon). It's hilarious watching the announcers play save ass for the rest of the game, after all of the schit they talked in the first quarter.

I was there, it was our annual "one side of my family" game. Usually the Dolphins game. I agree with the "it was as loud as most games" comments. I saw plenty of good-natured ribbing of Dolphin fans, and 0 a-hole behavior. Which...is pretty much what I always see. What I almost always see: opposing fans get exactly what they deserve. The kids who start schit, get schit. The kids who are cool, and smile and nod when they get ribbed a little, get nothing more. Karma is a B word...especially when you look for trouble from a large group of people, which means it's a mathematical certainty that some in that group can fight a whole lot better than you. And, the nice part was: we didn't have to put up with any of the weak-ass "don't stand up...ever" nonsense. Why is the following so hard to understand: 1. Stand and be loud on D, and on our returns. 2. Sit quietly on O, and our kicks. ???? Elementary school kids know when it's time to stand up/sit down, yet this seems too difficult a concept for some adults to grasp? No. They're just annoyed that for 3 hours a week, they don't get things 100% their way. So, rather than letting other fans enjoy the game their way too...they call security or stand the whole game? D-bags! The "rules" above are a good compromise, as it helps the team, and doesn't hurt the team. (How much do you hate it when our QB has to wave his arms down, to tell us, the supposed "most knowledgeable fans in the league" to STFU? ) Just figure it out already. However, this was the best game for following those simple and obviously correct rules I've seen in a long time. The black/orange cloud made of WTF?, moving in at 100 mph?...caused us to drop our tent down/take down some tarps. Man that was weird. Never seen anything like it. I expected a tornado to come, or something. One second I'm grilling, next second I'm keeping a tent pole from bending in half. Friggin crazy. That was one of the best games I've ever been to, and it's a shame some missed it. On the other hand, if you are one of the "standing problem" people I've mentioned above, stay home, always. I'm sure there's some PGA you could be watching. Perhaps it's time to look into that assisted living community after all. Or, on the other side, perhaps there's some wrestling or MMA, you could be watching? Perhaps it's time to go actually train as a fighter, instead of just posing as one on Sunday. Training as a fighter gives you a whole new self-respect, which is exactly what the a-hole fan lacks.

3 problems with this D that I can see: 1. The Bills D has given up 27 TDs in the air. That's tied for 21st in the league, and only 4, or less, better than the rest of the 8 teams behind them...except for the Vikings, last, with 36. In contrast, the 11 teams in the top 10 on this have given up 21 TDs, or less, which is 6 fewer. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/stats/2013/team_defense/0_byRECPT_TD.html Think about it for a second: what if we spread 3 of those passing TDs out among the games we've lost closely? (How about the Bengals, Chiefs, and first Pats game?) Yeah, despite everything, we are in the playoffs, aren't we? (In contrast, the Bills have only allowed 8 rushing TDs, which puts them in the top 7.) Thus, the next time I hear "never draft DB high"? Yeah, you can bet I'm gonna haul this stat out...so, thanks OP! 2. Another problem? The Bills are 15th in the league in PPG at 23.6. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/stats/2013/team_defense/0_byPTS_PER_GAME.htmlNot bad, but not good enough. Especially with our sacks/INTs. Teams like the Ravens and Dolphins are ahead, and that's why one of them will be in the playoffs. The Pats are tied with the Ravens...which is why we didn't win the Division this year. They held teams closer to the magic 20 point line than we did. It's a game of inches, and 3 or less point wins. We need to be giving up less than 20 a game to be considered a "great" defense. And, yes, offensive contribution, by scoring, forcing the opponent into throwing situations, and keeping the D rested all play into this...but only so much. Not getting off the field, on 3rd and forever, which is how Miami got half their yards this past game, is also a problem. Too many games we've had too many chances to get off the field on 3rd and long, and didn't. 3. The Bills are 23rd in rushing yards per game, which might just have something to do with why the passing #s aren't as high. Teams don't have to make that many passes, they only have to throw TDs in/near the Red Zone, because they've already run the ball so well to get there. We have to get better against the run. We have gotten better over the course of the season. Perhaps this is due to the team "coming together?" More than a few players have talked about getting better at the run via trusting each other/the system. Who knows? In all cases, we've been much better at everything on D, since we've had our starting DBs in place. So I'll say it again: we are a different team when we have our best DBs(that we shouldn't have drafted ) in place, and the defense this past games proves it = they got away from the run, because FIRST we stopped the pass, they got behind, and then they were forced to pass...and we knew it. It was a downward spiral, which...is precisely what we want to do to teams, and it ALL started with excellent DB play. Having just re-watched the game, we can all talk about how good Robey(another DB) was, but, other than his sacks, most of the rest came after 3 seconds of rush....which means our DBs were covering Miami's high-priced FA WRs well enough to allow the D line to do it's job. If our DBs do the same next week? Then it will be Brady's turn to get thrown around. Amazing what happens when you invest high draft picks in the defensive backfield, in a passing league. This is made clear by what happens when they don't play. 12 of the TDs in the air were allowed when Gilmore/Byrd weren't in the game(I am counting the Bengals game because Gilmore had the club on his had, and couldn't cover much with it). So, while we are decent on D, we still have holes, especially in depth at DB, and we have a big one if Byrd leaves. IMHO, we need to sign Byrd, because he is a guy that makes the players around him better. Remember this at draft time. We don't want to turn a strength into a weakness, which is exactly what happened this year, when parts of our stength got hurt, and we didn't have the guys to replace them.

How about some trouble? Also honorable mention? Andy Levitre Yes, we should have made sure we had something much better to replace him with, but, paying Levitre like he's a tackle is just wrong, and Tennessee fans will go out of their way to tell you that. They will also go out of their way to tell you it's tough having Fitz as your QB, because he tends to throw game-losing, kill your playoff chances INTS. Let's see what FA has, and if we don't solve the problem there, I'm all for taking the best G in the draft at #12(or taking the best T that we can play at guard, and therefore gain versatility, and pressure for Glenn and Pears)...because that's where we will be after we beat the Pats!

And they wonder why we want the "reputation feature" turned on.... Here's why this thread is silly: Marrone hired Pettine. I know Whaley/Brandon already had Pettine #1 on their list of "Things they hoped Marrone would consider, immediately", Marrone still had to sit down with Pettine and close the deal. Pettine could have gone lots of places, but he didn't. He could have at least interviewed at other places, but he didn't. His agent asked him to sleep on going to the Bills, Pettine said "I told him I napped on it", and then called back and took the offer. Pettine also said he had to change his VM to say "If you are calling me to tell me how good of a guy Doug Marrone is to work with, I got it". This is the "fixing the FA issue/nobody wants to come to the Bills" in technicolor. Pettine was a FA. But, he was recruited and secured by Marrone, a rookie head coach on a losing program with no QB. That's one hell of a recruiting job. Ask any recruiter. That's convincing Larry Bird to play for Indiana State. Marrone gets that credit. That's because: he's the boss, and, it's the boss's job to convince the best employees that they should work for him, and not somebody else.

In the defense of those who live in cities, especially those who live in cities where New Jersey lies on the other side of the river...and I'm talking New Hope, PA here even more especially(wawrow would **** his pants, and end up living there, if he was cool enough to know about it...talk about elitist heaven...and it looks like a suburb).... ....if the suburb clowns would only stop crossing that bridge(or driving down 33 at 100 miles an hour), and acting like complete a-holes due to insecurity, and driving like clueless Fs, once they get to where we live, our homes... city people might not tend to look down on suburb people so much. But, until then, excuse me if I roll my eyes at yet another clown wearing all new, all black clothes, telling me how he's thinking about moving downtown, and acting 2-3 levels tougher than he can back up...because he thinks that's what I need to hear. Hint for suburb kids: unlike wawrow, I don't consider myself the arbiter of cool, I'd like to hear whatever you have to say, provided it's interesting/funny, and I really must tell you(how's that for city parlance?): most of the people here are just as insecure...they're just insecure about different things.

Hmm? So...the "fixed by Dec 1" website...crashed? Boy, I am shocked I tell ya! Once again, I WIN! But...but...but...what about hooking Google's search engine to it? I thought everything was going to be solved by a buttload of Apple, Google, and Facebook resources thrown at it? Few substances in the world are as pure as: California Hubris. Once again, when you send e-commerce, or consumer application people....to do an enterprise consultant's job? Yep. Boys vs. Men. That's because: the former operates in a world where they control the design and execution, since they literally own it. The latter operates in a world where they control next to nothing, since they literally own nothing, and where the client takes every opportunity to re-establish that, especially when they are feeling insecure(all the time). Yet the latter still survives and even thrives, because in addition to doing the IT work, they can do the considerable and constant business process/politics/organizational theory work, and are extremely good at constructing convincing arguments(without the benefit of having a little room whose rules they control, and a guy who wears a black robe as referee), as well. Tell me again: which group is "elite"? Tell me which group considers massive integration efforts with multiple systems: a side project, and which group's existence is defined by it? Tell me: which group is going to be successful in an environment where the client keeps F'ing about with the requirements, if they deliver any at all? Which group considers that to be "normal"? This is like gravity. It existed long before it was "discovered".

This per-supposes that people can't think for themselves, or can't judge for themselves. This like having 2 friends argue, come to you for a decision, but, one of them says you're too dumb to make that decision, and too easily influenced by the other guy You have, never bought into such nonsense, just like the American people have never bought the BS that it is the Republicans that are keeping Obamacare from working. No. The American people have passed their judgement on Obamacare, soundly, since the day it was passed. WTF are you talking about? We did elect someone: Scott Brown, an R, in a massively blue state, Massachusetts, for the specific reason of being the Obamacare blocking vote. That was Democrats doing that. I say again, Scott Brown required 55% min of Mass Democrats to vote for him, and they did. Then what happened? They scumbags bastardized the Senate rules and used an obscure vehicle to slide this thing by during Christmas. Yeah, why do that...if this law is so great, is such a "great achievement", can stand on it's own, or whatever other empty wish you'd like to attach? You want to make predictions? Predict for me what it will take for Mass. to elect another Republican to anything, and tell me when that is going to happen again. You don't think anything. That's become obvious. You wish. You wish what you were saying was true. There's as much evidence for it becoming true, as there was that Obamacare was a sound program based on sound business principles and sound economics three years ago. In other words: none. You wish Obama won a mandate, when the statistical evidence and virtually every exit poll said: no. He won a crap, negative campaign, largely by disqualifying his opponent. Nobody voted for Obama's agenda, or Obama himself, because he didn't run on those things. If they had, then don't you think he'd be able to win on Gun Control? He got destroyed, and he cashed in most of his chips on that. That alone destroys your ignorant, or wishful, take your pick, "Mandate" argument. There never was a mandate...it only exists as one of your wishes-->delusions. What is it going to take for you to realize that the polls on Obamacare have been flat, and negative, for years? What's it going to take for you to accept that straightforward and consistent measure? You wont, and why? Because yet again: you think you can wish it away. You wish that someday, somebody would agree with you...yet nobody produces the results, nor did they design a plan, that allows a reasonable, informed person to agree with you.

Obama: in more dire need of a real-world marketing internship than any half-white man in history.

Now here's something....funny? interesting? This is a piece about Max Baucus, and his fretting about the ACA http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 It's all well and good, typical NYT trying to humanize the guy responsible for this mess. But, he's the guy who said "train wreck", first. And, if nothing else, at least the man appears to be somewhat honest in his introspection. But, that's not the interesting part. All the way at the end of the article is the interesting part: Now, am I supposed to believe that a Stanford educated lawyer, with the "his own drummer" thing going on, makes "mistakes" like this? I know this tactic. I've used it, I know people that use it, I've trained people to use it. Hell, I've seen it on TV, and so have you. "I'm sorry Mr. Suspect, jeez, I'm always forgetting things, I forgot to ask one more question....". What's this doing here? "What happens when I push...this...button?" For me, this invokes: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong", you know, the Sesame street song? There's different versions, 3 things the same, kids rather than things, etc. Here, we use the: "But one of these kids is doing his own thing". "Now it's time to play our game. It's time to play our game!" (Loved Sesame Street, and I still sing the 123..45, 6789..10...11,12 song, whenever appropriate, but that was The Electric Company) So, what the hell? Is he trying to be sincere, and he just forgot? BS! So what then? Is this a backhand shot at Obama? Is this a message for the wiser among us? Or the wisasser of us? Or, is this a subtle acknowledgement, in the vain of, "I'm gonna say the nicest thing I can, while remaining truthful" that Obama was helpful to getting it passed, but....unhelpful in terms of getting it implemented? Criticism by omission? The other question? Why did the reporter include this, this way? He could have completely left out the 2 phone calls, and just quoted what Baucus. The 2 phone calls weren't necessary for the story to be written. So, it the reporter showing us an example of how much Obama is still loved? Or, is he on to the game, and going along with it? Who knows? Interesting, isn't it?

http://www.realclear...xt_messiah.html Hehehehe. In essence Walters says this: "I wished Obama was going to be good. I didn't think about it, and now I see that I shoud have thought, and not wished". Then, rather than promising to think, and not wish going forward? Nope, in the future: Yep, right back to wishing again. "One thinks"? No. "One wishes". "One hopes". The hilarious part is that she used the word "thinks", rather than the others, because? Her cognitive dissonance is showing. http://en.wikipedia....tive_dissonance TakeYouToTasker's CS Lewis quote comes to mind.... She knows, deep down, that the thinking needs to start, and the wishing needs to end, but, she behaves: oppositely. That's textbook "cognitive dissonance". Hell, even Tony Robbins knows about this one. And what do you know? One of the responses of those dealing with dissonance? "seeking support from others who share the beliefs". Or, you go on Piers Morgan's show, and, say the quote above.

The hilarious part, for me, is that you think you're being clever with this, and I'm enjoying watching you do that. It's like watching a 5-year-old with a new toy. I flat out referred to this "cleverness" in one of my responses in the "everbody else comment on the competition" thread. I was being clever there...and it seems you still haven't gotten it. In fact, clever enough, to make the above: a funny statment, for me. But, you keep playing with your toy. After all, it's Christmas.

http://www.american....d-gay-parenting And, of course, I'm a "bigot" for posting it. It's hilarious that a "morally superior" clown, who calls me a bigot, forgets that, by definition, what he says is completely irrelevant for me, and for most other people. The PC cat is out of the bag, clowns. The Race Card is maxed out, etc. I don't think it's possible for me to care less what a PC person says, because whatever it is, also by definition, is based on their personal "feelings", and not on reason, or morality. Morality is not defined by them, morality just: is. Their values '= morality. They are simply their feelings. I'm never going to care about their feelings. I will always care about their thoughts, right up until the point where they can be proven false. Look, I'm sure there are methodology flaws in the study. DC_Tom has made us all aware of the "quality assurance" problems in science, in general, for years. But, this OUTRAGE! repsonse tells you all you need to know about the PC "science" community, and those that carry their water on a daily basis(hence the title of this thread). Politics has no place in science. And, the University of Texas...blah, blah, blah. How the hell could a professor from Harvard or Berkley, even get a study like this off the ground? Never happen. It would be "killed in committee". Yeah, yeah, and the author of the essay is from a "Christian" school. He's the vice chancellor of graduate education and a law professor, so spare us the BS. I agree with his conclusion(I've been saying it for years), that you MUST have diversity of thought. In coporate America we've seen huge improvements in terms of understanding problems, never mind solving them, due to increased diversity. So, goose/gander...etc. That's because: "humans in groups" doesn't change, just because the venue changes. However, the point I think he's failed to see? The "system" is set up to be pre-disposed towards liberal thought. It's "systemic liberalism" The government has set itself up as the "lead funder and advocate" of science. This isn't true. The tax money they spend, isn't theirs, so, it's not "their money". However, they pretend it is, and therefore, if you are a scientist, you are a "government guy". That is, unless you work for an oil company, right? You know, there are only 2 kinds of scientists = scientists, and people that work for oil companies, right progressives? The point is: even with diversity, there's still the back-pocket issue of "where does my $ come from". Scientists have bills just like everybody else, and they will "vote their wallet", just like everybody else. Spare me the "higher calling" crap. Live like a real monk, and then come back and talk to me. Perhaps we should take science away from the government, and allow companies and individuals the ability fund it instead? I mean all these "crowd funding" sites seem to work, right?

Wait, so your lack of education/experience with the material, is now DC_Tom's responsibility? WTF? Why don't you first go out the Internet, and read about efficiency? I will make it simple for you: http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/Notations_and_Workflow_Patterns.pdf Notice that the author is from IBM, not Clueless State. And, there are things in that paper that are dubious, but, you aren't anywhere near ready to comprehend them, so let's just pretend that everything there is right, OK? Workflow, real workflow, is how we measure work. Measurement of work, allows us to compare work. Comparsion of work allows us to see differences in lots of things, ONE of those things? Efficiency, of process, and of individual contributors, as well as managers. You don't seem to realize that you are talking to people who are so far ahead of you, when it comes to this material, that "explaining" it to you seems like a complete waste of time, from our perspective. Who wants to sign up to un-teach you the nonsense, and then re-teach you the proper, and up to standard material? I'm not here to be your personal professor on "efficiency" and what it actually means, and neither is anybody else. Your ignorance is your responsibility.(How liberal of you to pretend it's someone else's fault) I have given you a place to start above, so that you can start understanding what exactly we do, in the real world, to help organizations realize better efficiency, cut cost, etc. If you don't realize why what you are saying is so patently ridiculous that it isn't worthy of debate, then it's on you, not us, to find out why.

What's funny is: I have been traveling, yet ALL of your silliness has been handled effectively by others here. I mean, they fully developed the "Compare the Chart of Accounts of Medicare to Private Insurance" point I made above...perfectly. Did you bother to read anything they wrote? The "4% vs. 20%" myth...has been debunked here, by finance guys, school equipment guys, and a physicist who's smart enough to my job(somewhat he thinks client-side js "scales", and I direct his attention to Healthcare.gov as an object lesson in why he's wrong, or why he doesn't understand the difference between server-side js and client-side). Hilarious that your entire argument is defeated: by intermediate accounting class. At my school it was called Intermediate Accounting 345, and I bet most of the people here either took it, or, they are personally involved in the Chart of Accounts at the business....they run. If ANY of these "intellectuals" who generate this "research" had taken that class, and weren't chasing raw data that fits with their pre-determined conclusion? They wouldn't have bothered "driving the wrong" here in the first place. ***************************************** And, look at my last post: that is peer-reviewed work by intellectuals with advanced degrees....and it's completely: wrong. That's because: there are no valuable "degrees" for the kind of work I do. WE, not college professors, are where the "research" comes from. That's because we are where the "innovation" comes from. College professors take what we do, and study it, but they sure as hell don't "invent" anything on the level of what we do, or the # of things we do. And, I will direct you to YAWL vs. the BPMN standard. Guess what? BMPN comes from corporate America, and it WILL be how health care, and, everybody, operates going forward. The YAWL "intellectuals" here are behind the times. They are not leading anything. So, take your "advanced degrees" point and blow it out your ass: the real world doesn't work that way. Not in my business. We don't have time to get degrees, there's too much REAL work to do, and too much $ to be made, to bother with that. College professor in IT/MIS = "I can't do it in the real world/I want to retire/I want to raise a family, have a picket fence, and only work 30 hours a week". College professor has long been my "what I will do when I turn 55, am independently wealthy, and want to hang out on my boat most of the time" plan.

Good that EJ isn't playing. As I said above. There's being tough, and there's being an idiot.