OCinBuffalo

Read it again, and then ask yourself: was it my intention to merely say "no"?

http://audio.wgr550....t-kc-joyner.htm KC Joyner, the football scientist, says you are wrong in terms of Levitre. In fact, he says the Bills were the #1 "good blocking" line in the league last, year, and, as such, they will not miss Levtire as much as you suggest. "Moving from 1 to 3 is no big deal". However, with the inclusion of the grain of salt above, it appears Joyner has responded to the criticism, and, he has not only refined his methods, but also put in the work and the thinking(the most important ingredients), and derived new methods, and metrics, to produce intelligence that some of his critics said was "impossible" to create. Incidentally, they were idiots as well. Specifically, and responding to one of my chief complaints(I am sure not mine, personally , and his response to my others remains to be seen), he has accounted for offensive line play, on every single play for the entire season. Not using the dopey, subjective, and often irrelevant individual lineman averages he used before. He's done this by creating an objective standard: "good" vs. "bad" blocking. This is defined in terms of whether the line achieved the desired outcome via the play's design, not necessarily whether each lineman's technical play was perfect. This is a sound standard, because it is both easy to measure, and, consistent because it doesn't have too many moving parts that will introduce false dependencies, error, or too much variance to be predictive and/or reliable. I would think you Bill, of all people, would recognize the line as a unit first, individuals, second. I see this as a reasonable metric, because while it is possible, and useful, to measure an individual lineman's technical execution, when we are comparing lineman to lineman, it is useless when we are trying to compare one RB to another. The context changes, because the O line, as a unit, is what affects the RB, WR, QB etc. It is a dependent variable, but this time: properly defined. The RB's play is affected based on whether the play is being executed by the line, by design, as a whole. Put simply: it largely doesn't matter what the RT does on off tackle run to the left, but, it does matter if the line produces "bad blocking" on every play to the left. Trying to link the individual lineman to the RB was a problem in Joyner's earlier work. Now, it is not. As such, the Bills are the #1 "good blocking" team in the league. It's interesting, given the fact that we haven't drafted LT in round 1 every year. This suggests that O line play, or drafting RBs and DBs, has little causation WRT to our record.

http://gawker.com/hero-teen-punished-by-school-for-stopping-knife-wieldin-511001195 Did anybody bother to check the "annotations" on this? Hilarious. Also, this is another example of "treating everybody the same". If they can only succeed in pushing us all down to the LCD, then nothing distinguishes us from one another, and this means some of us can no longer become "distinguished", never mind "heroic". Then treating us all the same, becomes truly "fair". Besides, what if hero kid becomes emboldened? Consider the danger in that! What if he ends up as an Army medic(you try running around on a battlefield, helping people, but doing it unarmed, as this kid was), or a cop, or dare I say: a general officer? Or worse, a conservative politician(because, let's face it, there's about 0 chance of him becoming a liberal one)? Think of how unfair that is to the other, weak, spineless, mediocre/lowest common denominator kids. How are they supposed to compete with him once he distinguishes himself? It's this kind of unfairness that unfairly redistributes wealth(in many forms) to kids like this, at the expense of the LCD kids.

That is hilarious. I was gonna make something like this myself, but, this one is better than my idea. This needs to be spammed. Oh, and this thread, predicated on youtube + thread title F up, is yet another example of ...lybob being ...lybob. I want ...lybob to be forced to write out his explanations of the issues he believes he is raising, and the concepts/dependencies/premises that comprise them, every time he posts a youtube video as a "thread". That would be great entertainment.

Indulge a little poker experience here? Watch McDermott's left hand. What's it doing there? We usually put our hands near our face as a way to comfort ourselves. See it shake? See how it reflexively causes facial ticks? Watch his eyes. See how they can't focus? Reading is immaterial, as he is not actually reading. His eyes are merely darting around looking for something to focus on. Notice the difference: he does focus when he says "Now, what happened to you is unfair". That is when he is telling the truth. Notice how the rest is: opposite? This is what bad, "I can't wait to dump my stack in your lap, and then go complain about bad beats in the bar", bluffing looks like. Edit: Also, notice how he sticks his hands out in front of him...defensively, ready to push you away, or, in this case, he waves his arms in a lame ass attempt to "wash this away"? This seals the deal. You push all your chips in/bet the max when you see this guy Now, he has to decide: "should I just lose the 25% of my stack I've pissed away trying to be coy, or should I say F it and lose the whole thing" Edit, Edit: Also, he knows he F'ed up, and as soon as he realizes it, he tries to derail Ryan by speaking out of order, or get the chair to give him a chance to fix it. Sorry dude. Time to take your beating. Hope you weren't planning on using your phones this week.

It's all falling down around them, and McDermott's idiocy just proves that. Since they cannot respond logically, they are responding emotionally. Consider: didn't McDermott KNOW he was going on right before Ryan? All the questions are scripted, and everybody has what everybody is going to ask, and the order, before the meeting starts. Didn't McDermott KNOW that spewing idiocy like that, right before Ryan, is like sticking your whole arm into the tree grinder? This is no rookie Congressman. He just made himself look like a giant a-hole, and hung a curve for Ryan to knock out of the park...which WILL be on the news tonight. Ratings, period. The simple answer: the Ds aren't thinking. They are are rattled. They are making unforced errors. McDermott could have made his point(not really a point, but still...) lots of ways, but his attempt at faking bemusement, again, choosing emotion and not logic, merely ended in the rest of us being: amused. The Rs should smell the blood in the water. F, I can smell it through my machine. But they must take care to continue, as Ryan did, on the logical path, and knock them out with jabs, as Ryan did, not wild punches.

hehehehe, yet another bowl of schit for liberals, and especially liberal columnists to eat.....you can't pay for this, you can't plan this, but this is the single best political commercial you will see: "We are not Occupy Oakland." Heeeee! Plus she drops the fact that she got letters DIRECTLY from Lois Lerner. :lol: ....which Sekulow obviously had...and thus he strikes again. Somebody on the D side better wake up and realize they are being played like a fiddle, and start demanding that Obama et al come clean, and take their hits, including resignations of the top WH people who are obviously involved(Is it not obvious yet? How do so many applications get immediately requested by DC to be processed there, instead of Cincy? This is not how bureaucracy operates in the wild. It normally works the opposite: push all the work down, take the credit for it getting done, and leave the blame down there if it doesn't. Demanding that it comes up, and risking actually having to do the work, or taking the blame if it doesn't get done? I've never, ever, seen it work that way. Not ever.), or the consequences for the Democratic party will be significant. It's going to be hilarious watching what tools like Dana Milbank have to say now, especially after this http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-accuse-and-ask-questions-later/2013/06/03/d107e9e0-cc9c-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html latest weak ass attempt. Gotta love it when the cover gets blown off the very next day. Proof now, Dana? The woman's signature is on the damn letter. You gonna tell us she doesn't read what she signs either? I can't wait to see what this idiot writes next. He's now 0-4 on "covering actions".

I have a better one. It's based on yours, but it's temporal. Imagine a world where we snap our fingers one time, and the wealth was perfectly distributed. Now, re-imagine that world in a year, but observe the delta in net worth of it's inhabitants, and map their cultural background, IQ, single parent home, and whatever else you think is relevant. Do it again, in 2 years. Now 5. Iterating over time, as we approach a generation(20 years) would that world look any different than it is today? No. Would we see the same causal behavior producing the same results we have today? Yes, of course, human behavior patterns, and individual irrational choices trump social engineering, and always have. Therefore, is the grand plan to redistribute the wealth pointless? Yes. This is my main issue with birdog and his ilk: it's not that I don't admire his compassion(but only when he's not LAMPing it), it's that his compassion is mostly pointless. These aren't disaster victims, these people are the disaster. No matter how hard you try, liberals, will the "virtuous victims" you claim to represent end up in disinheriting themselves of the wealth you've so compassionately distributed, in a generation? Well, have you ever seen somebody who is neither didactically or culturally prepared to handle wealth....win the lottery? How does that turn out? Or, when birdog and his idiot pals, demand that we build another housing project, only to find that in 5 years, none of the copper wiring remains? How does that turn out? See? Pointless Compassion. Edit: Carrots are pointless, if you completely remove the stick, or, think the stick == an opportunity to create 100k government jobs(ahem, HHS), and that becomes the priority, while rendering the stick a pointless, bizarre exercise in abstracting reality into useless not-standards instruments like the MDS, "meaningful use", etc. The "stick" becomes a punishment for everyone, including the people who require neither carrot or stick to conduct their lives in a orderly fashion. Moving on from the pointless, now we have both ignorance and idiocy. Rather than dealing with history....your argument is for us to make up, and then focus on the non-history you would rather: "buy"? Either you don't like the history, or, you wish it wasn't, or better, you are saying that "something" would have happened...that you could have "bought", but that you aren't "buying" what actually did happen? And even better, you replace the actual cause...with a made up one, which you do not define, but that you immediately conclude would provide better results? "Show your F'ing work, clown" is the least there is to say. How about we start with what did happen? Wealth was CREATED, not redistributed, which created the conditions for the Renaissance to happen. These conditions could have created lots of things, the Renaissance was what they did create. This is reality. Any argument or counter argument, that denies, or...in birdog fashion, attempts to exclude or obfuscate or abstract these facts(I call this bridogging) is a waste of our time.

Well, historically, what is a few Venetian and Florentine bankers making money compared with starving European populations....or, did they create the wealth that supported Michelangelo? Da Vinci? I'd say the world is a slightly better place due to those 2 guys, than if we had just spent it "fairly" on the untalented LCD. Going back further: What is a few guys spending their time and pelts inventing the loin cloth, when they could have spent it on feeding the slowest and dumbest cave man? Without that choice, and many like it, to invest scarce resources into something that would make life better for most cave men, but granted, not all.... ...your practice of medicine today would be: dancing around a fire, chanting and clapping your hands, and howling at the moon. ha HA! See? It's already taking hold. I am pleased. Hopefully soon we eradicate pretending that one's values are = to human principles. Or, that they are = to morality. I thought this was America, so no, here we say: talent and/or developed skill and hard work ultimately describe the ability to obtain or not obtain resources. The simple fact is that far too many people in this country either lack talent, refuse to admit it, or refuse to do what they are good at. Or, they refuse to accept their own limitations. Or, they refuse to do the things that both you and I have been doing since kindergarten, consistently. Instead, we have this "you can be a star based on little" mentality, that says I am entitled to "80k a year, benefits, and a 40 hour work week"(direct quote from an OWS clown)....yet have no real talent, or skills they've worked hard to develop, or willingness to start at 30k, with a 60 hour work week, that merits such a thing. And, birdog? Clearly you don't spend much time in bars. I do, so let me tell you: many are full of people who's biggest problem has been themselves, for their entire life. I hear the stories because I like listening to people in general, seeing how they think about things, etc. Sooner or later you begin to see a pattern with some people: it's not the coach that didn't play them, or the boss that fired/didn't promote them, or the significant other that didn't love them. It's that they didn't learn anything from that experience, or the next 20 . They will learn nothing from the next 20 either, and this is 100% by choice. They are stuck where they are, and they always will be. We could have pity for these people, but that solves nothing, and only enables another round of shots, and more wallowing in misery. My JV coach: "The Greatest Winners are the Greatest Losers". What we learn, and what we change, as a result of losing, at anything, is how we win the next time. There is NO government program that you and your friends can devise that prescribes humility, introspection, and daily, active change. That has to come from the individual, personally, on daily basis. What we can control? Not supporting more wallowing, or telling them that they are entitled to wallow, or that wallowing is an acceptable state for them, or that it's somebody else's fault that they are wallowing. I will be drinking, not wallowing, soon, and whatever comes of that is nobody's fault but mine. (Hmm. Now I think I will put on some Zep before I go...)

No, I'm saying that I put loin cloth in the post for the sole purpose of seeing you respond to it. Yeah...it's ok though, given what I've seen so far, you'll learn. And, that's too bad. I'd rather that you didn't, as it is more fun that way.

That's right, but irrelevant to my point. My point is that treating every social conservative the same, especially in terms of supporting candidates, is what a liberal would do. After all, treating everybody "the same" is what liberals always do. The fact that this is patently unfair, and illogical, never occurs to them, and therefore the cause of so much of their error. (These are just some of the tools they provide me, which allow me to routinely beat the hell out of them, to my amusement. They day they wake up and realize that they could still accomplish many of their goals, without this fundamental design flaw in their thinking, will be sad for me.) In the meantime, libertarians, like yourself must insist that we treat everybody differently AND fairly. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, unless you are a dimwit that is incapable of abstract thought.

Doesn't anybody realize that the Republicans are waging a war on women....but cleverly doing it from Democratically controlled cities? Or, hey I remember this picture: Yeah, that's the ticket.

Do you really think any of this represents the priority problems and/or accurate descriptions of these problems, in this country, today? What happens when Obamacare fails, and fails primarily because the unions withdraw their support(which I and many others accurately predicted in 2007), and the average poor, uninsured guy refuses to sign up, with 0 chance of consequence? He already isn't paying taxes. What are you going to do him? Stop giving him the free money you have been saying he deserves? Try and collect a fine from millions of poor people, in their neighborhoods, that you propagate and from where you derive political power? I wonder: Will you perchance be bringing any guns along for that activity? Why? I thought they were evil. Will you be encountering people with legal guns, or illegal guns during your romp through poor neighborhoods collecting your Obamacare fines? How do you think this will turn out for you? Are you and the rest of the OWS people going to sign up to be fine collectors? Great. This is great news for the gene pool. And call me crazy, but Isn't this the same argument for not deporting millions of illegals? You can't catch them all? So which is it? We can collect fines from the millions who don't sign up, but, we can't ask them for their ID at the same time? You laugh at "self deport" yet you think "self fine" is going to work? Will you blame the 1%, or, the idiocy that is LBJ's legacy and depends on "we can control everything from DC" as the premise for solutions? Or, will you try to blame liberal FAIL on insurance companies, who have had nothing to do with constructing your doltish policies, are your self-proclaimed enemies, and whom you set out to punish, but, due to your idiocy, will end up making too big to fail monopolies as well? When do you realize that your ideology creates schitty non-solutions that die as soon as they are exposed to oxygen?

Wait a sec...a camera is the dependent variable in that equation?

I think this guy is tall, he's got some film(go see) of some good, athletic catches in the NFL, "let's see what he does, because we know what the CB we released does, and it ain't that great", and that's all there is to it.

In a sentence: the 1st class Female Republican Candidate is the single biggest threat to the media and the D party that there is. It destroys their story. Plain and simple. Michelle Bachman is no 1st Class Candidate, but, she is also an invention of the left. No, it's true. I will explain, if you care. Or, I could have just said this, but added identity politics. See, it's simple: a woman, with the identity of woman, who is also an R, destroys the media's/left's story. That's all there is to it. As it turns out, so was Mitt Romney, especially in terms of running a winning campaign. At least Bachman is capable of connecting with people(see the photo in this thread ) What we all must learn from this: Ronald Reagan was in many cases what you would call a nutbag social conservative. How did he stack up against Mitt Romney, in terms of political skill, and winning? I don't remember any Scarlet Letters being sown on anybody during Reagan's 8 years. I do remember a guy who was everything Bachman was...but ALSO something more. Put simply: I don't see social conservatism as a reason to disqualify anybody automatically, and I never will. You might as well tell me we don't want a left handed QB, because he is left handed, and that means the RT is going to be a liability, and that our investment in the LT is wasted, without telling me a thing about how the QB reads the field or throws the ball. Yeah, because the lack of morally conscious people have done such a fine job managing our government, or winning elections for the Rs recently. Like anything else, this argument lacks balance. You make it too many times, and push the pendulum to far to one side, and you get the inevitable swingback that makes you wrong, and look foolish. Why elect candidates that seek to placate the morally and intellectually vacuous left? Why not elect those who educate them, and also to help them to grow up a little more, and understand that rainbows and unicorns do not = governing in a real and dangerous world? The hilarity of this statement, given the reality which is right under you nose, today? What an unmitigated moron. Symmetry? Did you say symmetry? :lol: Theories? Which "theory" is more likely to be true as of 6:53am today? Global Warming, or an IRS conspiracy to target Big Government's enemies?

In fairness? Newscorp kept Fox News away from the meeting, but sent the Wall Street Journal. That's hedging the bet, to say the least. It's not like whatever the WSJ gets isn't going to be immediately pipelined to O'Reilly, Hannity, and Van Susteren. And the hilarious: putting Hannity aside, it's not like the other 2 weren't going to beat the hell out of this WH with what they have now, regardless. The 2X hilarious: Sean Hannity has come out of this situation looking both reasonable and vindicated, before we even know the rest of the story. Great Work Liberals! You've found a way to succeed in making Hannity look both serious, and reasoned. Sean could have spent the rest of his career trying really hard to accomplish Tim Russert status(who he says is his hero), and fail, but the idiocy, and the idiots, you support have handed him this status with 0 effort on his part. You've moved the goalposts, and the entire field, and made it so the slow kid gets a trophy for winning the game, just by standing still and holding onto the ball. NICE WORK Please continue to create reasons for me to laugh at you. But, wait a second...is this really the Obama Administration's fault? Consider: if for the first 8 games of the season, the other team's defense just lets CJ Spiller run by and score TDs and rack up lots of yards, with no effort at all....wouldn't that lead to the O line, and Spiller himself, getting lazy/losing their ability to execute in a tough, competitive environment? What would happen then, if for the last 8 games the defenses played it straight? Would we blame the O for not being able to handle the new situation? How is this any different than how the media has behaved for the first 4 years vs. now? You could blame our offense for not staying disciplined, and doing the job despite the easy. But, wouldn't it be more accurate to blame the defenses, who have been complicit in letting you score so easily, and dumbing down the game...so that they ensure that you win, suddenly doing the job they should have been all along? IF the media had played any of this straight, and up to the level they displayed with Bush and Clintion: would Obama even be President? Of course not.

What? No "when you head is rolling down the stairs, then you care what I call them/what is in them" joke? Weak. I wonder: if I sent this recipe to restaurants down south, or a few choice locations here in Buffalo, would the joke sell the food, or, would the food sell the joke?

Of that I am well aware, which is why I did not do what I said I was going to last night. Even a professional troll has their limits. (I just realized, given the white paper that I read today, that "professional troll" is probably the most accurate description of my existence. I make client-side IT people, and college professors, wrong, in front of their bosses, for a living. ) As I strolled by tonight things looked to be anything but funny from the outside. I detest one girl spewing loud nonsense at me, why the hell would I want to deal with more? This is why I will never understand Mormons, or anybody who wears a loin cloth. On this particular evening there were no less than 8 of them screeching idiocy at each other. The only solace was the "Behave!" glare I gave all of them, which at least quieted things down for the 10 feet I was near them. But, the braying continued as I passed.

Conclusion 3: I am disappointed, because what I had planned to do with this didn't happen. However, I am also encouraged, because the 2 posters I knew would show up to consume this "product", performed exactly as expected. I mean really...."loin cloth"? Is there a better bait in this world for Crayonz, or Tom? I was sitting there last night, drunk as I am right now, thinking "how do I deal with Telepathic on a linear level, but also bait the trap with raw chicken? I know, anthropology, for Tom, and anything that has loin cloth in it is almost certain to attract Crayonz, how could it not?" I say again: I've had your number, for years. :lol: :lol: :lol: (And that is 7 emoticons, which is the appropriate # for a post this size) All glory to me, all FAIL for you! This requires another beer....and those of you watching? Please draw a beer for yourselves...and put it on my tab, if we ever meet.

That's also a pretty damned accurate synopsis(dammit, it took my 5 times to type that right) of what you are going to hear for both the 2014 and 16 election. As I said above, as of now there are only 3 kinds of Democrats: 1. Those that want to protect the agenda, and will sacrifice anybody to do it. 2. Those that want to protect Obama, and will sacrifice the agenda to do it, and anybody as well. 3. Dipshits who are going about their business believing that this is all "no big deal", because that's what they read at Slate, or heard from some celebrity at TMZ, and are in for the shock of their idiot lives over the next 4 years.

Dudes...deleted posts or not, we all know who is supporting detestable weakness here....and who understands the concept of honor. "The law" is based on equity, not on morality. This entire thread, to my personal amusement, is an exercise in that fact. Lawyers, in instances like this, are the people who you hire, when you've done something dishonorable, or made a mistake, and want to get away with it/deflect as much responsibility as possible. This entire situation, and clearly, this thread, merely bears this out. In this situation, only a lowlife needs a lawyer. And that goes for both Williams and the woman. As adults, they should have been able to work this out. Meanwhile, we have lawyers doing what lawyers do, both in the situation, and in this thread. My objective was merely to expose this as the fact that it is. But, the best part is: lawyers are the easiest people to troll on the planet, because they assume that passing the bar exam = the end of their need to learn things. And, my activity in this thread, and the responses and other lameness, merely bears this out as well.

Do you realize where you are, and to whom you are asking this? Perspective: I just spent 30 minutes listening to a guy who knows patio awnings, defining what exactly is wrong with the one they installed at the bar I was at. Now, if I can do that, then, we should all be able to have a little more patience with posters, right? Wrong. This is a message board, and though it has a relatively high reputation for being reasoned and knowledgeable: it's still a message board. My patience, and yours as well, is irrelevant. Here's why: There are going to be posters, no different than in politics, who make a decision to support/decry EJM. The posters who end up being wrong, empirically, will end up defending their position no matter what. You are asking for people, who are already psychologically committed to EJM being a horrible draft pick...to have perspective? We live in a world today, since 2000, where dignity, and especially, honor, no longer exist for most people. Where their heroes turn out to be incompetent buffoons, but they defend them, only because they never bothered to actually find out who they really were in the first place, and now they'd rather eat the crap, than admit they were wrong. My uncle swore up and down that Ryan Miller was horrible, the season before he won the Vezina. Oops. This is because he had committed himself to Biron being the better choice 2 years prior. So, as things got worse for him, he decided to push all in, and hope that he was vindicated. FAIL. The difference between my uncle and most people? He admitted to us that he was wrong. It took a lot but in the end he did the right thing.

Underage cheerleaders doing the nasty...and you guys want to talk about inequitable charges and other legal stuff? WTF is wrong with you? It's shameful. Speaking of odd, does anybody else see the irony in: How can something be inherent, but also, a preference, at the same time? I don't understand the use of that word in this context. Not at all. I mean, I prefer certain types of booze, but, I will drink what you have as well. That's because I like booze, a lot. This post alone proves that. So, in that context, does that mean a lesbian prefers girls, but, will take what you have as well? Depending on whether she likes sex, a lot? If that is the case, I know exactly where I am going tomorrow night.

Sooo..is this the "talk about anything you want besides the OP" thread? In that case, I like surimi. Don't ask me why, because I have no idea why, nor do I have anything that resembles a supporting argument for why. I made not-crab cakes out of it the other day, with ricotta cheese and the usual crab cake stuff, and it was F'ing Awesome. I am thinking about calling them Benghazi Cakes, since what is in them is an "irrelevant fact".