OCinBuffalo

Note to self: Patterns that take 4 seconds to develop = good, since our D line will be on Brady in 3. .--Dave Wannstead Also...Welker isn't as fast as he is quick. So fly patterns, against a speedster like McK...aren't going to be open very often. This is the same reason why them adding WR Lloyd doesn't scare me as much as he would have last year. Last year we had no pass rush, and had to rely on coverage. Hence, when we had incredible coverage = 3 of the 4 Brady INTs were coverage, not pressure....we won the game. The D line, if it performs as expected, turns Brady back towards running the pop-gun offense he usually runs...and that's where having a kickass nickel CB(McK), and a kickass LB/S hybrid, or Monster(Scott) comes in very handy. George Wilson is also key in that...and so is Gilmore on Lloyd. Not saying that we have nothing to worry about. Rather, we have done something positive regarding what we have to worry about. Consider: when we beat the pats...McK, Scott and Wilson....all had picks and all got them by forcing Brady to overreach...and then making him pay for it.

Did you read that poll...before you posted about it? I suggest you do. Here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/08/24/rel8a.pdf Care to explain why it has both registered and likely voters(page 1)....and why they fluctuate between samples(page 5), which questions have said fluctuations, and why? I just thought you might want to examine these things. Does anybody really think that Obama has 52% of the vote, under any condition, right now? If we use this poll's RV....he does. A side note: notice how ALL of the polls are moving TOWARDS Rassmusen's methodology? Coincidence? Or, it is because they know they were dangerously close to losing all credibility? Hey, at least this one didn't have a D+9 bias in the sample. Progress! They stacked the deck on RV towards Republicans....but the big question....is based on LV. But also notice...they don't tell us the breakdown of the Likely Voters. So...they can say "they used LV"...but they don't say how they constructed the sample. This isn't going to fly either....but at least it's not another RV D+9. I don't know....should we used Obama's stellar campaign ability, and then record on actually governing, as a standard? If we do, I suppose I'd rather have a guy who is better at governing than campaigning. Since...y'know....governing is actually what matters. Or...are we ready to admit that the 2008 campaign could have been run by Barney Fife, and Obama still would have won, given the conditions then, and the Obama campaign now? It's one...or the other. If the Obama group is/was so effective....why aren't they raising the same money as Romney? Why are they spending faster than they can raise? Why did their $120 million effort to define Romney early....get defeated by a single Congressman from Wisconsin? I know: it's the evil Republicans again, right? They are the reason the campaign that can do no wrong...is losing across the board? It's not Obama's failures, lack of leadership ability, aloofness, and unwillingness to actually do the job for the last year. Nah. the Republicans are the ones who have all the self-interested donors from the oil/coal industries. None of Obama's donors got a single dime for their alternative energy...projects. Look, it's: defying logic, lying, phony moral superiority and massive hypocrisy! What a shocker.

The final say: Paul Ryan is a hugely successful pick for VP, and Obama et al ranges from very concerned....to scared shiteless of him. How do I know? Simple: Obama himself constantly referring to Ryan by name over and over. Did Obama refer to Sarah Palin, by name, more than once = the day she was picked? No. SOP in campaign speeches has been "my opponent", "the other party" etc. However, these are the rules of the top of the ticket. When have we ever seen a Presidential candidate, especially an incumbent, even acknowledge the other VP, never mind refer to them by name...constantly? Did Bush talk about Lieberman? Why would Clinton ever talk about Quayle? Obama's said "the other party" plenty...but 0 "my opponent(s)" for while now. In fact, Obama has been referring directly to both Romney and Ryan recently, but, especially Ryan. That's because: not acknowledging Ryan now...is like saying "the DE the Bills signed". You can try to give me more false bravado...and tell me that they are purposely moving Ryan to the front...so that they crush him. I'll save us both the time: horeseshit. The Ryan pick itself moved Ryan to the front, as intended, day one. Given Ryan's performance since, the very last thing they want is more Ryan. They are better off focusing on Romney...but that would require unity and discipline. In this Obama campaign? . Honorable, yet supporting mentions: 1. The liberal media has run like bunnies from the "Ryan the extremist" story...haven't heard that in a solid week. The only people still trying to make that dog hunt are the usual crackpot columnists...and they have a history of being a week behind the story. Perhaps they have to file their stories a week ahead of time? 2. The polls are now more than clear, moving considerably towards Romney...which is why the "No Ryan bounce" story only lasted a day and a half in the news. Therefore, it's over. All that remains is Oct 11, when we get to see Ryan publicly humiliate Biden.

If you can't even say it, you sure as hell can't do it. Or...without self-respect, there is no courage. (Edit: In case you are confused: self-respect '= self-esteem. The first is earned, while the other leads to "everyone gets a trophy"...which is the premise for the behavior on display in things like Jersey Shore.) Now, sure...schit-talkers exist, but Nix is not one of those. He can say it, because he honestly believes he's put the team together than can do it. If that's the case, then he better say it, every day, or 10x a day. It's starts a pattern of thinking they can do it, and that is the 1st step towards doing it.

Remember, Duck is also the guy that said, 1 day before "put yall back in chains", that Biden is going to crush Ryan in the debates.

Regarding this....the Romans would "decimate" a legion, by killing every 10th man, for losing, as a way to motivate them for an upcoming battle/campaign, or for even more ridiculous reasons. deci- = 10. This IS the meaning of the word. But, since decimate sounds like devastate...the dim have morphed it's meaning into utter destruction. Just think: years from now, unless we do something about it, the dim will overrun "intents and purposes" with..."intensive purposes". Won't that be a great day? "Running down hill" is something that you have to experience to understand. Or...those that have experienced it, have explained it poorly. Since I've experienced it plenty, I will try to explain it properly. First of all, "running down hill" is a feeling. And, it's a feeling that you would not have, unless you were fully aware that you were running on a level surface. Actually running down a hill never produces the same feeling. It may be similar, which is why it is described as "running down hill". But, it's not the same. For anyone who's ever run down a hill, the absence of resistance to your forward motion, is the feeling. So, when you suddenly get that sort of feeling, running on the field...it's weird, but very cool. The difference is: when you are actually running down a hill, you provide the resistance, because you don't want to go ass over teacup. (Something many forget at the Ralph ) But, when you are "running down hill" you don't feel any resistance. You feel like you can run through/dodge anybody, and when it's really rocking, you don't really feel your feet touch the ground. You know they are, but at most it feels like you are lightly tapping your big toes on the ground. In rare instances...I've even felt weightless, didn't feel my feet at all, and that I was being pulled forward automagically. (Hey, I said it was a feeling. ) In all cases, for any announcer to use this a way to characterize a RB is silly, because they can't possibly know if the RB is feeling it, by just looking at him. It's also silly, because it's not like it happens all the time. When it does, it's just about the coolest feeling in the world....and shouldn't be trivialized. It certainly isn't something that you can just turn on like a switch. (No surprise that a pro athlete would give you the impression that they can, though = awesomeness ) It's a state of being more than anything, and it is fleeting. You may only feel it for one play, never mind the whole game. Certainly you don't "do" it intentionally, in the 2nd quarter...and that's why you won the game. You aren't going to feel it on a 3 yard running play. Frankly, this stuff reminds me a lot more of CorporateSpeak, than JockSpeak. I've spent plenty of meetings hearing exactly nothing...because it was entirely filled with cliches, strung together, one after another. It's as if each cliche(win/win, out of the box) has be to posited by somebody, for the meeting to be a success. This way, these turds never have to commit to anything or do any real thinking. It makes me wonder if these announcers are coached in "words that sell" sorta stuff. I can see some PR turd telling these guys what to say so that they can sound "articulate"....with obviously...varying results.

Wait...didn't you say "the time it takes"...etc.? Looking...yeah, you did. Therefore, a guy with a million in the bank's dollar would have a different value...because it takes 0 time to draw out ~$25k and pay for the car....than mine....because it takes me much longer to generate that cash with my labor. Therefore, the time...means that the value of the dollar is different for each of us. But, when are talking market value, which is value for everyone...then that's incongruent. The price of the car is what it is, and the effort required to pay for it today...is not the same for me and the millionaire. Yeah, a single dollar means more to a guy who makes minimum wage, than it does to me. But, that's obvious. And, we can't use that to determine the intrinsic value of that dollar for everyone. Not helping yourself here.

What is it going to take for liberals to understand? 1. health care is a limited resource 2. Obamacare increases, and in fact mandates additional demand for health care 3. Obamacare does nothing to increase the supply of health care, and in fact has a giant miss on things like tort reform, education grants to create more doctors, and competition across state lines...for solely political reasons(trial lawyers give campaign money, and, union insurance companies don't want to compete, because they can't). All of these things would cut cost, and make health care more affordable, bust most importantly they do that, by increasing the supply. 4. Since you are increasing demand...and either decreasing, or holding supply constant...price MUST go up. 5. Since we cannot afford the new price that Obamacare creates....the liberal plan is to artificially cut the increased price-->they created...and then ration care, instead of letting the market make the decisions. Rationing is the only way that this can work. Spare me the "Independent Payment Advisory Board to almost guarantee costs are kept in control" crap. That's code for rationing. Just call it what it is, and only can be: Rationing. Obamacare's dependencies create the conditions that can only be solved by rationing. Just come out and admit it already. Stop hiding from your own position. Look I understand why Obamacare requires rationing, and, I understand that turning 83 year-old Mrs. Jones into a science experiment for the last 6 months of her life, and spending a million dollars on that activity is probably a waste. I'm a grown up, I get it: we have to address that. We may find that rationing is the only answer...but not until we've looked at ALL the other potential answers. You can't say that you've looked at any other answers...you're just trying to push this one. That's why it's a bad law. Why can't you be a grown up, and just admit that Obamacare requires rationing for everybody...not just half-dead 83 year-olds?

Perhaps...but really, this is less about Sanders, and more about just how bad the Jets O line really is. At this point, given what their message boards are saying...some of them appear to be more in favor of a cone at RT...because at least a cone might trip Mario Willams up on a few plays.

Invariably, when one of the talking heads starts talking, at least one of them will say something like: "There's no question that Peyton Manning will make the Broncos offense better". If there's no question...then why the F are you bothering? Stating the obvious is not "insight", nor is it "analysis". The other way they use it: when they dangerously close to saying something idiotic...they retreat by saying something like "well of course there's no question that the Bills are a different team today". Enough with "no question". It's a cliche....that is used to state the obvious, or cover attempted stupidity, which makes it worse. What's yours?

The Jests....are, by most analyses, going to live down to that moniker this year. And, we know that when we can afford to cut guys like Merriman, and have guys like Zebrie Sanders who may not make the team, there's a good chance that they will be looking to pick up our guys, especially DEs and OTs. They also have major trouble at WR. Safety is also a concern, unless you believe that the has-beens they brought in are good enough. So...who do we see ending up on the Jets, week 1? I am concerned about Sanders not getting by waivers and not ending up on the PS. As I have been saying(before John Clayton) Wayne Hunter Vs Mario Williams is a non-starter(literally). I am also thinking at least one of our WRs ends up there.

1. Rich Gannon being exposed for his TE idiocy by Scott Chandler in the Chiefs game last year was funny. I would pay good money to actually hear the conversation he had with Gailey the day before...where Marv alluded to Chan essentially telling Gannon to stop asking about it. The Bills literally were playing away Gannon's talking points...in real time. 2. Then, to make matters worse, Gannon's utter foolishness announcing the first Patriots game was just hilarious...talking about Fitz possibly fumbling(not) even though the play was blown dead...glossing over the inexplicable time out the Pats called, and then completely ignoring the unsportsmanlike penalty the Pats got...which effectively ended the game, as it gave us a new set of downs, and allowed us to run the clock down to 3 seconds. We were all treated to what living in an alternate universe is like.

Sure...but there's many approaches that would yield the same result: why are we stuck with "I'm not gonna talk about it"? Remember "the coach"? He agitated the F out of people. But, it got old. That's the same thing that's happening here: it's just as tired...as it is transparent.

Don't you remember that hilarious thread...with a Mike Schopp buddy...who kept defending his pal by saying "he's turned down lots of better jobs in other cities?" I think I still have the PMs from that guy. What a trollfest. Perhaps my all-time favorite.

From what I saw live, when I focused on him, he's probably 80% of the way there. There is no doubting his ability. Specifically, he was mostly on his guy's hip, and often had his head already turned and was looking for the ball when it came out...but not his way. However, on screen play where he got beat...he was slow to recognize the play. Athletically, he could have stopped it for no gain. There can be no doubt about that. However, mentally, he hesitated, and then made it worse by taking a bad angle to the ball carrier, hence TD. He's not "lockdown" yet. But I have little doubt that he has the ability to be.

The exorcism video was hysterical. You can laugh all you like, but Kip is right: Dallas has no chance at ever having fans like ours, or ever approaching the emotions that will be unleashed, if we can win a trophy in either sport. Few teams have what we have, and that's why whenever I hear people complain about "lack of corporate support/boxes/PSLs" I know better. I've been to plenty of other games, in other cities, in all 4 major sports. In the NFL, nobody has what Green Bay, Buffalo, and KC have. Maybe Denver. And the Steelers is something you have to see personally to understand. It's not the same as Buffalo. The rest of what I've seen is unremarkable. Seriously, I can see pure, hilarious, Marc Miller chaos ruling most of downtown if we win a SB or Cup. It gets like this anyway at times , but I cannot truly know what it would be like if either team won. I can imagine waves of Marc Miller: as soon as everybody calms down a little...somebody else would start freaking out and fire everybody right back up. I imagine people having to be carried out due to exhaustion, never mind drunkenness. I imagine that I'd be compelled to take a week off of work, both to wade into the fray, and then recover from that.

hehe...this is every bit as pedantic as schopp...perhaps that's what this guy was going for? But, it's also accurate. The fundamental problem with Schopp vs. The Bills? He thinks he doesn't have to do his job, because they personally embarrassed him by losing SBs, and has said so directly on his show. Unlike the rest of us, especially those that travel/see new people daily, who choose to endure the same old Bills jokes, but also choose not to view them as personal attacks to our precious egos, Schopp has chosen not to endure it, and does view these comments as a personal affront. The problem is: that's a fan's choice, but Schopp isn't in a fan's job, so he isn't allowed that choice. He doesn't have to be in that job, he chooses that as well. So, what this all comes down to is: his choices are incongruent, and there will be no peace, for him or us, until he gets them aligned.

Is that what I wrote Mr. Strawman? No, it isn't....which makes most of the rest of this a waste of time. As a writer of English, you KNOW, what the words I wrote individually, and taken together, mean. The only question that remains: are you going to be honest with us, yourself...or are you going to continue this patently retarded, "make up a premise and argue against it" approach? Or, should we start questioning your command of the English language? Hey...it's not like it's the first time with you on this. You have it exactly wrong. What a shocker. The TEA party has done NOTHING....to further your party's deride and divide approach. They have ignored the petty and personal attacks, for the msot part. That's because the TEA party is a 100% substantive organization. You aren't born into the TEA party, nor do you gain/are forced into membership because of your job. Your ignorance of what and who they truly are, is showing once again, as the ONLY thing that binds these people together IS substance. Many of these people have very little in common, and more than a few would probably have little to do with each other were it not for the substance. The TEA party has not even acknowledged your Hollywood pals' "racist", "violent" etc. attacks. My understanding is that it just didn't seem worthy of a response. Hell, I've said more about it here, than they have. How is that not insisting that the discourse be elevated? Show me 1 personal attack emanating from the TEA party. You WILL NOT find any. Show me 1 TEA party argument that is not logical, substantive and fact-based. You won't find any of those either.

I don't know about Zimbabwe...but I do know that an independently wealthy guy buying a blue Ford Taurus....is not the same as me buying one, in terms of the production of future labor. (First person to get that sub-reference gets a star) He just gets out his black Amex and drops it on the desk. Not much "labor" involved there.

It's not backed by any commodity other than trust, ultimately, if you want to call trust a commodity. But that's the point, isn't it? You can look at the intrinsic value of a dollar, as being no different than that of gold, silver, etc....and why? Because of the inherent value of the US, as a whole. The dollar is now a representation of the US economic strength...however defined. Or....I wonder how those clowns who were spreading the "the Euro will replace the dollar as the currency of choice" and "reserve currency status of US dollar in jeopardy are doing.... ...now that the Euro itself may not be around this time next year. Edit: Oh....and when the 60k thing...is making firms be unwilling to look at better skilled, more knowledgeable and even specialists in the project being proposed? Then it's the only thing. That's the exact opposite of "better value of service". The nature of the organization itself creates the ability to close those deals....not the actual value of the service provided.....or the future expectations of the value of that service.

No, it is you who is misunderstanding. 60k field people, working at 1k companies...is nowhere near the same as all working at 1. The ability to say "we have 60k people in the US alone", creates a unique, intrinsic value, and is very often the ONLY means by which they win deals. It's not merely re-selling labor. That's what everybody else, who isn't IBM, does. The service organization is constant, renewable source of revenue, no different than a gold mine. And, just like a gold mine, the only way it loses its value, is if the resource becomes depleted. If they were to lose 40% of their people tomorrow, that's wealth...gone.

IBM's ability to consistently derive revenue out of an non-consumable, never mind renewable, asset...based on 1 premise "they are IBM, and they're HUGE!"...isn't wealth? You are completely ignoring what IBM could have also done: lay everybody off and try to make their whole business about Thinkpads, and very high end machines. Then, the labor of the employees would have been comparitively worthless. Sure, they all could have started little firms on their own, but none of that would even approach the success of what IBM was able to do with their "legions". That's the point here: you are looking at each person as a line item/payroll entry. That's not right at all. IF that's all they were, IBM would NEVER have been able to make the moves they made. The point is: the whole WAS greater than the sum of the parts....and the difference between those two #s...that's the "wealth". You could arbitrarily add 2k people and take away 2k people and there would be no difference, even though different labor was being sold, because of the value of the "mob" that was IBM. We're talknig intrinsic value here...derived from sheer #s of people...and of course, the ability to manage those people. It was the big blue machine...that's what made client's sign off...because "hey I can have 100 people here tomorrow, just to focus on that one issue". You can't do that in a vaccuum either. Each one of those people had to buy into the vision, and start learning what life on the road is like. Now, the wealth is the inherent value in: they are bigger, stronger and and all bought in....that's not labor...that's an asset, unless you are seriously abstraction- challenged.

Right, you got smoked both on process, AND, content....and that means you won....by conner definiton. No. Actually, you didn't state that fact that often at all. You stated things that were preposterous, on a wide range of topics. That's why nobody uses Steely_Dan as an adjective, adverb, or verb. But, you will routinely hear "conneresque", "connerly", or "connering"...with no ambiguity as to their meaning. Now, is that because Steely Dan wasn't as good as you stating the facts of Global Warming? So..you're asking me to kick you around some more? Ok, but Mods, please take notice: he's asking for it. Let's start with some old standbys: 1. Conner, did The Surge work? 2. Conner, didn't I tell you in 2006-7, that if the House Democrats acted the way you were, and kept saying what you were saying, they were going to be done in no less than 4 years? Do you remember why I said that? 3. Conner, didn't I tell you that Sarah Palin will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...if you kept up your silly attacks on her, especially if she loses the election? (Confirmation: Katie Couric is long gone out of her "what kind of books do you read?" job...and has been replaced...by guest host: Sarah Palin.) Now, that's "conneresque": unhinged, emotional idiocy leading to the diametric opposite of the intended outcome, with hefty amount of irony on the side.

Go back and re-read the "Evolution of IBM. By OCinBuffalo" above. Do you not see how they created wealth? Simplest explanation: Wealth is owning the gold mine, not the gold. By converting their people into "consultants"...(not really, and is there anything more uncomfortable to the eyes...than seeing a tightass IBM guy trying to go business casual? ) ...they created the gold mine, that could suddenly keep churning out that $100-250/hr billable gold hours. That...was...weath...creation. They took people that cost them money as part of a product total cost...and turned them into a endless revenue torrent, forget stream....via SERVICES...and services alone. The Wall Street stuff is just fluff....designed to be an affront to GG.....because I can ...and he will always respond

Dude...I will admit...with our "board of directors" mostly being family members, flower-shop owners/angel investors and other people that also had no business in my business...it's tough. But the problem back then was: Wall Street analysts were absolutely throwing their weight around, and intimidating everybody who dared do something that wasn't the Microsoft model, and none of us knew we could challenge them. We were far too eager to please(that's not a mistake I've repeated). That is the history. There will be no wriggling out of it.