OCinBuffalo

Most libertarians don't care to explain themselves, because you're probably a tool that isn't worth their time. I will operate on the assumption that this isn't the case, for now. This horrible attitude comes from the fact that most started out in little groups spread out all over the country. They are not used to explaining things to people outside their little group. For a long time, it was like a secret little club, and it was enough work just keeping the wackos/weirdos out. The average libertarian figures, or can prove, that the average liberal is an unmitigated moron. So, why bother explaining things to them, when all they will get in return is a set of platitudes, emoting, non-facts, psychobabble, social babble, and groundless arguments...which, not coincidentally, is exactly what nearly all Big Government FAIL is based on. Conversely, the average libertarian figures, or can prove, that the average conservative is a linear minded buffoon, who would rather talk about problems, than solve them, because often solving the problem isn't in their interest, or, they simply don't know how to solve the problem. So again, they look at both groups as largely populated by the lowest common denominator, especially in their leadership, so why bother talking to either of them? Now, this is of course is not the best way to get the word out. But, you can't blame them. They have the facts on their side, and nothing but tiresome nonsense...and nonsense brokers...to argue against. It's a sort of exhaustion: "Why bother? This person is a giant tool, who hasn't thought for themselves since 2nd grade art class, so why should I be bothered to explain things to them?". Despite all this: Libertarian ideas are on clearly on the rise, and have been for 10 years now. How about I explain a single position? A simple one: The Department of Education adds 0 value to eduction of children in this country. We(our school districts) send $1 to DC, we get back .25. And, if we want anything else, we have to beg for it. So, we get a grant, and those grants in the aggregate = .15. So, you get back .40 on your $, with no sort of return on that "investment". The DoE, since it has existed, has presided over a consistent DECLINE in education outcomes, while seeing is budget INCREASE exponentially. These are the facts. So the question is: why should we continue to operate this "business", when all it does is FAIL and eat $? It's illogical to continue this idiocy. It's not helping kids, teachers, or parents, and that's what we care about, right? We aren't getting what we expected. And, there's a damn good chance that we are getting ripped off. The logical choice: immediate phase out of the DOE, the sooner the better. (And...this is right about the time that libertarians get told they hate children. Why? Because the idiots can't argue on the facts. So, they have to argue on the emotion/personally attack.) Again, the logic, the facts, the reality says: kill it. But then there's the ...and "yiou hate the children". How's that? I have. How about we start with the fact that government is a horrible, but occasionally necessary, investment? Yet, it is the first and ONLY answer for leftist fools. It really is. In reality, government is a last resort. That's what the Constitution says, that's what it means. Instead, we have tools, who cannot compete in the real world to earn the lifestyle they want. Thus, they create a phony government world(and this includes some corporations and their weak ass executives as well), where they can get paid and respected as they think they deserve. In order to do this, they have to create something for them to do. Make work. So, they create a bunch of regulations and administrations. Now, they have to hire people to help them run it, and they manage it. Boom. They are a manager. Now they have a budget, which means they have power to buy things. Now they are important, and peope have to pay attention to them, because they have $ to spend. And, if they can come up with reasons to hire more people, they can get more $, and then hire managers below them. See where this is going? They have to restrict our freedoms. It is how they exist. They cannot exist otherwise. Anybody who challenges this "job for job's sake"? Well, are you familiar with the IRS Scandals?

Listening to EJ interview...sounds like the first pick was "woods went outside, and i expected him to go inside, and that just means I have to do a better job of reading my receivers". And, "wood dropped one but that happens, and we went right back to him". Perhaps the best thing about that interview, EJ did his best to take most of the blame and not let it go on his WR.

Only if that is the mean.

Yes. That is precisely how.

Dude, you show up half-cocked in the middle of this thread, not realizing that we've already established who the "realists" are here, and I'm babbling? You're out of context, sir. I refuse to ask eball anything, until you agree to mathematically prove something. Something that looks nice, and is not too expensive. Then, you will prove something else mathematically, and place it next to the other one, only slightly higher so you get the 2-level effect, with a little path running down the middle.

The same place that ending your phrASE...with a high inflectION, and emphasis on the END, came from. (But you only do at the end of phrases separated by commas) Dartmouth. First time I ever heard either thing? Dartmouth people. IF I had to bet? I'd lay $1k on there, over anywhere else. It's the land where the conformist tool originates. It is his/her natural habitat. So, () why wouldn't the place where they all refer to each other in terms of the year they graduate, rather than, their names, be the very best place for making eveybody start sentences with "so"?

Dude...what "realists" are you referring to, in this thread, that would have the abstract thinking skills necessary to figure that out? Perhaps some of the less boisterous? Maybe. But, given what I've seen thus far? I'm pretty sure you have the wrong reading group here. You might want to try the group that doesn't have the picture of the bear and the piglet on their books. That's the other thread, 2 doors down.

This post, in general, is the opposite of right. Therefore it is funny, to an extent. Speaking of extent... The extent of your analysis is meaningless, if your method is taking 3 different teams each year, comparing them to the AFCE, and assuming that this is going to generate a meaningful statistic, when it comes to "toughness of division". Comparison of divisions does that, not comparison of teams, some teams, some times. Yeah, I'll get right on handling tasks...that are? If I believed you did something that was "mathematically proven"(incidentally, I don't, not even a little bit) I believe you would have stumbled upon the reality that it is the AFC West who is the worst at wildcard playoff appeareances, since 2000, by doing nothing more than: counting. Yes, that great and ancient mathematic technique that can be done...on one's fingers and toes. So, how can the AFC East be the worst...when amazingly, even with losing to the Pats as much as you say they have, they've still found a way to qualify for the playoffs more times than the AFC West has, since 2000? Logic is a pain, isn't it? It destroys both mathematically proven, and, magically proven things, as if they were no different. But, logic isn't done with you yet: How can the AFC South the same # of wildcard playoff apperances as the AFC East, since 2000, if the AFC East is as horrible as you claim? Hey dammit! I thought this was all mathematically proven! What is happening here? (The AFC North has 10. Now we're talking right? )Wrong. NFC West 4 NFC South 5 NFC North 11 NFC East 10 So, a random list of which the AFC East is at neither the top, nor the bottom of, and this....is mathematically proving what? "Subtract 2 wins per season"? What do we add in their place? Losses? Passes? In wonder, if we put the Texans in the AFC North, and the subtracted 2 wins...what would happen. How about we put the Ravens in the AFC South and do the same. This is just hilarious now. This is no longer about making a case for the AFCE...this is now about making a case for affordable mental health services, whereas before it was about adult literacy. Perhaps both....as long as it can be mathematically proven, of course.

yes...that post is 98% about the statistical failings of that study, but your takeaway is, "I'm making a case for the division"? WTF I only make cases for proper use of stats and logic, as you are about to learn, literally: I suppose you haven't considered, in your mathematically proven analysis, that the Pats beating up on the Bills/Jets/Dolphins: 1. is not mutally exclusive from all 4 teams beating up on other divisions 2. says literally nothing about the 3 not Pats teams beating up on each other 3. has nothing to do with every other team in the league NOT having to play the Pats 2 times, instead of one. 1-3 says you need logic first, then math. Yes, math, wihout the logic coming along for the ride, is quite useless. Logic tells us why/how to apply the math. Non-divison records and/or point differential is the ONLY objective measurement of "toughness of division". Everything else, especially F'ing about comparing: not the same 3 teams every year, on purpose? (EDIT: And as I said above, there has to be a weighting system for in division, something that can scale up/down ...perhaps based on wins/% relative to the non-division record.) That's called "massaging the data" where I come from. I don't understand what you think you are proving when you do that. The whole point of this exercise is to hold everything but one thing: non-division record, constant, thus creating a proper comparison. The clown in the article almost did that right, but then he FUBARed it by giving extra points to playoff teams...for being in the playoffs, when, the higher, non-division win %, of a division like the NFC North, with 2-3 perennial playoff teams in the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, would have already reflected that. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell you think comparing 3 different teams to the AFC East every year isn't flat out screwy.

Now, its melodrama? I just don't like people who are proven wrong...and then run away from that. And, I just don't like people who say I'm dodging, when I'm doing the opposite...and then run away from that. Now, you say I'm condescending. Is that true, or am I showing you exactly the respect you've earned thus far? You tried to play the "I'm superior" angle("that's what I thought")...3 posts ago...and I, correctly, squished you for it. Now, you've got a paragraph above which is basically incoherent babble, and even if it wasn't? It has nothing at all to do with MY posts in this thread. If you've got issues with what OTHER posters have said, why not take it up with them? Why not share the wealth? I am sure they could use a good laugh on a Monday the same as me. Or, you can keep talking to me about things I didn't say, and tell me I didn't say things I did. My position is clear, you just haven't bothered to read/comprehend it. And, again, I had nothing whatsoever bad to say about "wait and see", and have said so, 4 times now. I responded to what is clearly nonsense, and if you still can't tell the difference: I can't help you.

Oh cool. A live one. Are you really telling me that your reading comprehension is this bad? "Backing off a little"? Wrong. That's called laying out a premise, by laying out a fact, and then, laying out another one, both of which support the premise. How in the Sam hell you read "backing off a little" into that...is well I don't know...delusion? Let's have some fun with you/this: "there are 7 days in a week, (but, now, I'm going to back off a little, and say,) but, there are only 2 days in a weekend". Yes, I backed right off there. Now, in Dorkingtonland, we can infer that there aren't 7 days in a week, or, at least I'm not as committed to there being 7 as I once was, right? Yes, I've "backed off" that. Heeheee...I have to put my damn phone on mute...because I'm LOLing for real here. Can't wait to read the rest of this hilarity you've been so kind to give me.... By all means, let's have a look! What else could possibly go wrong, eh, Dorkington? I can't possibly answer that, because it is an entirely subjective measurement. Is there are relevancy scale someplace? Is it like a Madden score? I don't know, perhaps we should consult ESPN (Insert Big City) and ask them if there's a reason why they aren't covering the Bills...and talking about relevancy...at the same time. I mean seriously, your definition of relevancy could be miles away from the next guy's right? So how the hell I am I supposed to determine, never mind compare, "runs of relevancy"? Some people may see 1 SB as all that matters. If they win 1, and never make the playoffs in the other 12 years, so what? The range from these people, to the people that want to make the playoffs every year, and don't care about SB wins, and including everybody in between, with whatever definition they have? See? I have no way of answering this: logically. IF the Bills were to win the SB this year, what does that do for the arguments of the negative people over the last 13? Nothing, Something, Everything? I can't answer that, because it's: subjective. Reading really isn't your friend, is it? I did not miss the analysis part. In fact I specifically included and referred to it: http://forums.twobil...60#entry2860492 Yes, another link for you, lazy. Me: And, if that was what I was responding to, you'd be right. It's not, so you're not. I've already given you a link to exactly what I was responding to, and you are free to re-read it, if you still don't understand.

I feel the exact opposite. The fact is that BillsVet's post quite literally = I don't like the fact that this argument isn't going the way I'd like it to go, so, not only am I going to say that people are name calling(when nobody is), I'm also going to say that people are intolerant. But worse, I'm going to blame society for this, because lord knows, me losing this argument has to be somebody else's fault....and not mine. Or, in other words: that post is an unmitigated load of crap....and BillsVet is crying message board wolf. Dodge? "You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means." How does: your answer lies clear as day in this thread, if you'd only bother to click on page 2 and scroll down = dodge? I am telling you exactly where to find it. Here's your link, lazy: http://forums.twobil...20#entry2860368 Let me explain: dodge means...I don't tell you where to find the answer, and I talk about something else. It doesn't mean I do tell you: 3 times. Hopefully that helps. Carry on.

You thought? What exacty did you think? That I can't point to an example? Why do I have to do your work for you? If you think I haven't responded to those exact words. Prove it. I even told you where to look.

Pfft. Let me tell you how this one ends--> When you can't win the argument, argue against having the argument. Or, when you can't win on the content? Start talking about the process. This used to be standard fare over at PPP...no longer.

So...you agree that given a combination of: 1. the NFL's forceful tendency to regress toward the mean, 2. the logic we should have learned in 8th grade 3. the stats we should have learned in high school, perhaps college People who expect the Bills to make the playoffs this year, are in fact being the most realistic? Logically and statistically, they are, in fact, being the most realistic. This is due to the REAL statistical trends of the NFL on the whole(not the ones we magically made up in our heads). Historically, using the real(and not magical) definition of the word, the Bills not making the playoffs for this long is an aberration, that we should be expect will be corrected: immediately. Thus, the Bills making the playoffs, this year, is the most rational statistical expectation. If you want to call that "being positive", or, if you want to call that "tuna on rye"? I do not care, becaue it's irrelevant, statistically.

Lazy man's way out: Steal somebody else's work! http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-05-13/nfc-east-leagues-toughest-division-last-five-seasons-by-far The AFC East is third overall. However, I have my criticisms: It's only 5 seasons, not including last year. It's dopey to skew the results with playoff and SB outcomes, whose effects cannot possibly be distributed evenly over the entire range, and therefore introduce all sorts of bias. Consider: does the AFC north have more playoff appearances because they are good, or, because the AFC West is deficient? Same question, just change the names, for the NFC. Does the AFC West being awful, make the AFC North tougher? Of course it doesn't. Does the Giants winning the SB 2 times mean that that Eagles are better? Of couse not. The Giants playoff performance has nothing to do with the Eagles. This is introducing a confirmation bias, that says: teams that made the playoffs or won the SB are "good". Thank you, Butthead = "We like stuff that's cool, but, we hate stuff that sucks". It tells us nothing about why "stuff" is "cool" or "sucks" and any assertions made merely confirm the "good/suck". They tell us nothing about why, and muddy the real relationships in the data = non-division record and point differential of division vs division. Point differential? Now, that tells us about why. AFC East is 2nd. The regular season is the only thing that matters here. See, this is why I was saying: I have to think about this a little. But, even with these skewed results, and using the ballpark averages, it's pretty easy to see where this is going regardless: The Bills have been in one of the toughest divisions, for a long time. I refuse. Go back and read the thread, and, specifically look at what I replied to. It will take you 30 seconds.

No. Not in the slightest. It is however, silly to adopt a "I said the Bills wouldn't make the playoffs, and I was right, so that makes me more realistic and knowledgeable about football than anybody who said they would make the playoffs" attitude. All that actually makes you is: too dim to know that you are merely benefiting from good odds. The best is treating a statistical inevitability, as a trend, because it happens every year, and is therefore: historical. Yes, and the sun rising today, in the morning, and not at night? Called it! All hail the Knowledge! For their next trick, they will demonstrate their insightful correlation between the presence of water, and wetness. Hey it happens every time, so, it's historic! Actually, I don't know how anybody, but perhaps a very few who've been to lots of camps, could be anywhere but at "wait and see" at this point.

I wonder if we could get SDS etc. to make the above part of the header for this site? In case you don't know: Those are Tannehill, Miami rookie QB, #s from last year. And, yeah, the media seems to have bought into Tannehill as, at least, a "going to be good" QB. The question I have is: if EJ gets similar #s, will this standard hold, or, will the media, both local and national, move the goalposts on EJ? Something tells me the latter. You think Todd "wasted pick" McShay doesn't have a van with new goalposts inside, all gassed up and ready to go? You think the posters here who kept clinging to the now-fanciful "we could have traded down again" theory, don't have the other goalposts in their van? They are still butthurt, and EJ messing up makes them look right = could have gotten him in the 2nd or later. (Even though they never actually will be, because the risk of teams moving up into the 1st/early 2nd to get EJ has been confirmed as real, and, the plan was designed with that risk in mind.) You know who you are. McShay knows who he is. Or, we could call just call BS on Miami right now, and say that the only thing Tannehill #s indicate is: mediocre QB.

It's a failed route because it's US interests are not the star in that show. Israel's are. That's why it used to be hilarious to hear our liberals throw around the word "neo-con", with no idea what it actually means. They don't do it as much anymore. I think the few smart ones told the masses of dumb ones they were making fools of themselves, by disparaging people who are 80% ideologically identical to most Democrats. So, yeah, they were literally making fools of: themselves. And, hilariously, by attacking the "neo-cons", they made room and gave rise to both the old school conservatives, and the Libertarians. They created the opening for the Tea Party, and then Obama's consistent dumbness practically ensured it. It remains to be seen whether the Jews, both here and in Israel, will end up being sucessful in bringing more democracy to their region, and in doing so, making themselves safer. For a time, our interests and their coincided. But, I think that time has passed. Our politiicans have realized the diminshed marginal return of Jewish campaign contributions vs. yet another war in the middle east. Cotton's campaign will be interesting as a litmus test of all of this.

It's hilarious that this reporter thinks there is a race to define Obamacare, after the last 5 years and 100s of opinion polls telling us it's defintion...exactly. Yes, "they'll love it once they see what's in it". That has been the wish, that turned into a belief, that turned into a delusion. They've been saying it for so long, I imagine they actually believe it. So, it's accurate to say its a delusion. Hell, look at this board. We actually have posters in full on "Hitler in the Bunker" mode wrt Obamacare. It's entirely feasible that the very same wishful behavior is going on all over the country with liberals. I feel sorry for them, just like I feel sorry for that poor lady sitting there all by herself. It's too bad really. All that goodwill turned into so much misguidance. Once again, it was there, the people were there. They blew it, because they just couldn't get rid of the LBJ/60s mentality, and do something right for a change.

See, for me anyway, it's like the polar opposite of Pavlov. I mind my own business, do work stuff, drink, chase women, go to the gym, etc...and every so often I turn on the news/go to RCP. That's when this clown keeps shoving his incompetence in my face, and then going on TV to "pivot" yet again. I mean, it's not like I want Obama to keep F'ing up, and, it's not like I am looking for it. For some reason, I keep being surprised, and it's all new for me, at least for a little bit. Even when I know I probably should be thinking "it's all bad...again...this is the same old crap, every time". It's the opposite of a Pavlovian response. I keep expecting something different when I hear the bell ring.

Personal experience may justify it. But, the math and the logic do not. Emoting is not thinking. And, opinion based solely on emoting? Nobody is entitled to that. Not if they want the rest of us to take them seriously.

Edit: Actually in reading your post again? I'm thinking: you really don't understand what I'm saying at all, do you? Hence the insecurity. I have no tolerance for 3.5+3.5 = 8. Yes. Guilty as charged. I'm not going to back away from being a rational, thinking, person. As I said above, I'm not going to subsrcibe to magical thinking, just because it makes you feel better. The facts are what they are, and no histrionics and judgements about this board on your part change that. Every year every team has a 2 in 3 chance of not making the playoffs. Thus, historically, but really, INEVITABLY, every fan of every team, who says their team will not make the playoffs, is more likely to be right, by a factor of 50%, than they are to be wrong. That is true BEFORE anybody considers, or has a chance to say anything about any player, coach, team. That is true for every team, and every fan. Thus, it is patently retarded to ignore that reality, and magically think your way into saying "negative fans tend to be right, because they are more realistic, or know more about football". No. Negative fans have Vegas house odds on their side from minute 1. Now, after we take that into account, we can talk about analysis. We cannot however completely ingore it, and pretend that there's a historical "trend" here that is completely unaffected by it. Again, that is magical thinking, and I will not tolerate it. Get a grip on that. The quality of this board is directly proportional to the amount of intolerance we have for usubstantiated nonsense, and those who refuse to accept correction, when they've been accurately corrected.

Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to come up with a method for that. In a sense, you would think that a single team consistently winning the division would suggest a lesser division, in terms of toughness. The question is whether parity suggests more difficulty, or whether it has nothing to do with it. The NFC West, for most of the last 10 years, was the worst division in football. We know that both anecdotally and statistically. How many 7-9 division winners have we had? Has anyone ever won any division with a losing record? They've had a lot of turnover re division winner. Does that indicated toughness, nothing, or suckiness? Inversely, does the Patriots record in the AFC East over the last 10 years mean something, or nothing, about the toughness of the division? If every team in the AFC East has to play the Patriots 2x, instead of one, does that make the division inherently more "tough"? This is about weighting. And I'll have to see.... That's why I'm thinking I have to weight the non-division wins vs. non-division wins of all other divisions as a %, over time.

Read my posts in this thread and show me where any part of it is ad hominem, or predicated on anything other than logic and basic statistical method. I have no tolerance for logical fallacy = "negative fans tend to be right". Why should anyone tolerate poor logic/math skills? If you want to talk about the ills of society, we should start with that. The case has been presented to you. If you think you can find fault, by all means, go ahead an try. Good luck! IF there are any problems with society at all, they begin with a lack of critical thinking skills, a willingness to conform to magical thinking, because a celebrity, be they movie star or politician, suggests that not doing so is "evil", and ends with those purporting that the truth, is somehow offensive, and that facts and properly prepared statistics, can somehow be hateful.