OCinBuffalo

Horseshit. Nobody in the history of "color guys" deserved getting splashed as much as Tim McCarver, after all the schit he talked about Sanders. McCarver made his point in the first game, but then insisted on running his mouth, over and over, disrespecting and taunting Sanders. Put it this way, if it had been me? And some clown had been disrespecting me like that, over and over running his mouth? There wouldn't be water in that bucket. Hell that F'er would be lucky if I didn't find him in the parking lot, not after the game, but 3 months later, with no TV cameras around to save him.

I thought Brock Sampson appeared on Maury, talked about the draft, was "not the father" 10 times, and left saying he hated the Bengals, because their colors reminded him of somebody....

I saw this mock....and my first thought was...you know... "all the guy does is watch film. He could be right. And, I hope he is. Why wouldn't we want to be sitting there at 10 with that choice?". Then, I thought, "all the guy does is watch film". He doesn't coach players, have to pay players, have to manage them, play with them, or fit them into a gameplan. (I'm not a big fan of trying to fit players into a scheme, rather than designing a scheme around players, but, you have to start somewhere.) So, I dunno. If all you consider is film, not character, not team needs, etc., it's interesting...but I don't see how it's much use as a prediction tool. Not that prediction is more important than interesting for fans.

I'm sure I can devise something...if called upon.

Dude, somebody comes up with a good parody, one liner, etc. of Obama every week on this board. Is this producer telling us that we are all funnier than they are? Ludicrous statement. Makes me want to do a Good Morning Vietnam-esque bit, but instead of "news that didn't happen", "things that aren't funny about Obama". Lovitz owns all of these people. On the flip side....I am wondering if today's SNL is becoming near impossible to do, because of political correctness, unwillingness to offend anyone, etc. There are people who are screaming out to be made fun of: Biden, Pelosi, even Paul Ryan. But the problem is: if you set out trying to be mean-spirited, or personify Democratic talking points(um, Al Franken, Air America), there's little chance you are going to do something that is actually funny. And, if a bunch of things are off-limits(ahem, Obama) then you have no chance. Gumby was f'ing hysterical. So was Mr. Rogers neighborhood. So was the church lady. I doubt somebody would have the balls and the ability to do that now....after all, we are talking mostly about liberals here.

exactly....no reply at all

Sure enough, they did it again. Now my link is broken...the same way. Ahh, yahoo. Regardless of all of the links i have found, I can't get the audio to work.

Link...is...gone! Yahoo's poor IT skills on display. What a shocker. Here, new one: My link (they screwed up something that is freshman-level programming) Oh man...this HAS to get legs. F'ing hysterical. No way they can spin out of this one. Kevin Smith....is either a genius or...no, he's a genius.

I was waiting for this point....4 posts ago. It is as irrelevant to your charge that Republicans oppose science, as it is ineffective, because you can't be against science, and fund it to this level, at the same time. We are talking about oil companies making (smart) business decisions...not Republicans making anti-science decisions. The science, even if it's BS, is getting funded. As I said...both irrelevant, and ineffective. You are the idiot defining this as a battle, specifically, a Republican battle, against science. I am saying that's a ridiculous assertion. I don't think either party is more/less guilty of twisting the facts to suit their needs. Politics has been inseparable from the science of global warming, since day 1(check the date of the article I linked....not by accident). This was done intentionally, by both the scientists and the liberals. Now, there are consequences. Sure Republicans have been against the political side of Global Warming....it's political How else should a political party respond to the same old unpopular, failed political policies they have been fighting for the last 30 years; being repackaged and renamed, but this time being misrepresented as science? What will it be next time? Republicans and their chief contributors(according to liberals) are not anti-science, and this is easily proven by merely standing one liberal assertion against another: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends. Both assertions cannot be true. We know oil companies fund science, lots of it, so they cannot be anti-science. Now are you willing to say that Big Oil has no/little influence on Republicans? Logic....it's a B word isn't it, birddog? We cannot have a purely scientific debate about Global Warming until liberals choose to remove themselves, their political agendas, and their political "solutions" from the debate. Until then, it's a political debate, and as liberals have already proven their willingness to flat out lie about this, you don't get to cry when it becomes a political weakness, that gets hit by every Republican/Libertarian across the spectrum, from the cats at http://reason.com to the biggest bible thumpers there are.

What does this have to do with the above? Nothing. No, you are misinformed. As if the only people who fund research is the government. As if they only people who fund the arts is government. Go look up how much money corporations donate to both. Legislators have NOTHING to do with this. Again, I repeat that the lion's share of the funding for these global warming/environtology groups is coming from oil companies. I present one, of 100s of articles that YOU can find by putting in next to 0 effort, that clearly states who is putting in what money for global warming research, from the NY times I might add. Meanwhile skeptic groups get 10% of that. Again: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends.

Despite all this "play like a Jet" crap from their head coach, as if they are a "value brand" , that Jets uniform means little to any current Jet, and how much does it even mean to Namath? Now, ask Brian Moorman, or George Wilson, or Fitz what the Bills uni means to them. Ask Thurman or Kelly. When it comes to football "culture" there's no comparison. The fact is: Woody Johnson's pedigree means he knows what a value brand is, and he knows the Jets aren't it. The Jets have sucked terribly as an organization for nearly my entire life; they've had a very few good seasons, wild card, etc. Only recently have they been good, but not legitimate. When Johnson bought the team, they weren't even a legitimate brand, never mind value. Now, he's trying to establish relevance via the Howard Stern approach, and hopes that relevance translates into value. Hey, it worked for Stern. But, if they suck on the field, this approach fails due to their fans, the city they are in, and the fact that they have no history of legitimacy. Who has ever picked the Jets to win the SB two years in a row, and how often have they been picked in the last 30 years? Cheese is cheese, and despite all manner of ESPN wishful thinking, the Bills brand loyalty and value, will always be superior to the Jets. We'll see what happens to the Pats brand post-Brady, but chances are Kraft maintains most of it. If the Dolphins don't get their act together soon, they will have gone from the best brand in the division to the worst, if they aren't already there.

In a few years after the draft, it becomes absolutely definitive. The draft chart said the Sanchez trade up was ridiculous. We can now definitively say that it was ridiculous, based on his play, but the draft chart told us that the day he was drafted. It works the other way as well: if you look at the draft grade vs. actual play, and where ALL players were drafted, over a ten year period, and generate your draft trade chart off of that....there's a good chance it's going to be quite definitive. It's a relatively straightforward OLAP task. However, now that the first round has been skewed in terms of $/player, and the year 5 rider, you'd have to adjust the model to account for that, but this is also a relatively easy task. The only issue would be, you'd have to keep looking at your adjustments, and you couldn't confirm their precision for 4-5 years.

Who? Jesus, Tebow or Revis?

No, it would confirm what I said: modify the first round points, and retain the 2-7 chart, and/or modify it slightly to be in line with the first round modifications. Throwing out the chart completely is not a reasonable option, until somebody tells me what is going to replace it. It doesn't matter what you have put out. This is not about you, unless you want it to be. I can accommodate you, but I doubt you'll like it. For years, posters have tried to wish away the draft chart....so that their dopey "X* said the Bills could have traded down, but we didn't, therefore, Ralph is cheap, Buddy is asleep, and the Bills are moving to LA" thread scenario would be right. The draft chart has been the single most useful too for destroying these stupid threads. Example: posters who have declared that the RG3 trade, or anything the Redskins have done, was a good idea, get destroyed by the draft chart. Posters who said the Sanchez trade up was a good idea, get destroyed by the draft chart. Life would be so much more convenient for these posters, if the draft chart didn't exist. *X, as in media people who are either being played by teams, agents, and players, or, because if they don't write what they are told, they will lose access to these NFL people. Again, I ask: how many times did Mario Williams leave Buffalo, and who do you think were the "sources" on that "story"?

Trying link again. Again, when scientists are asking other scientists, "is it ok to lie about science....for the cause?", and concluding: yes, how the F is that not motivated by a political agenda? This "ethics" lead guy doing what he did is bad enough, but then, to have the rest of them defend him/rationalize his behavior? That, by most basic of definition, is A POLITICAL agenda. It's plain as day. If you are too dumb to see it, fine. I'm not going to explain this again: the attitudes by the CLEAR MAJORITY of these people is that they are entitled to say/do anything, as long as its for the cause. That is not science, that is partisan politics at its worst. What are you talking about? See, when I say you are merely affirmed, you are not informed, this right here is the best example. Liberal politicians ignore scientific data that goes against their political beliefs all the time. They also routinely ignore economic, financial, and historical data. But let us stick to scientific: Every single time a study comes out that counters the "consensus", every single time, the liberal politicians and their lackeys at MSNBC immediately either imply, or directly accuse, the study's authors as either being paid off by the oil companies, Koch brothers, Darth Vader...somebody, as a way to further their political views, and protect themselves from being confronted by the facts in the study. I am not going to google and present each instance of this happening over the last 6 years. It's not my job to inform you. You are an adult. The root cause of the scientist's bad behavior: he intended to prove that this tiny organization, with not even 10% of the funding of its green counterparts, was getting gobs of oil money. When he failed to find that, he forged it, and that they were "anti-science". Unintentionally, he exposed the facts: the green orgs get 90% of their funding....from oil/energy companies. (Which is par for the course with the far left, isn't it?) Now, please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends. This should be good. You walked right into it...again.

Why wouldn't they just modify the points on the old trade chart, and continue on as before? Why wouldn't they use the identical chart for Rounds 2-7, as they aren't affected? I wouldn't be bringing up the Redskins as a way to prove anything, ever. Which is more obsolete? A. the old draft chart B. the Redskins methodology for making football decisions I don't need a draft chart to tell me that 3 first round picks and a 2nd for RG3 is flat out stupid. Aberration? For the Redskins? Before you say it: Albert Haynesworth. There's no end to the examples. The Redskins are....never mind doubling, they are what? quintupling down? After making soooo many bad decisions, they figure the only way to make a good one is to spend even more ludicrously than they have in the past....this time with draft picks, again. The draft chart, or some modification of it, is not going away. It serves a purpose, namely, helping GMs evaluate trade offers quickly when they are on the clock. It also helps to grade out whole sections of the draft, and help determine draft day player trades. Is this an attempt to impugn the draft chart, as a way to remove the #1 impediment to "I wanted to trade up for X, we could of traded up because the internet said so, but you(correctly)called me an idiot because of the draft chart "? It fails because the draft chart solves multiple problems, and we never hear what will replace it. No. The only thing we hear is "now it's ok for the Redskins to be the Redskins, and for everybody else to shoot from the hip, too, because the draft chart is old!" Oh, and this is the 3rd time I've read that Kalil might fall to the Bills....just sayin'. Probably a smoke screen from the Vikings to try and build trade value for somebody who wants to take Tannehill/Richardson, but we never know.

I am sure you can operate google on your own, doctor. However, if you must have an example directly from me: here you go. The ethical science guy....lying, stealing, cheating, and then, when caught by a friggin timestamp(and this guy is a McArthur..."genius" ), more lying? Yeah....if this isn't the height of "overtly pitting politics against science", what is? Now, what would happen, doctor, if this was a doctor, doing the same thing with his/her clinical trials? Again, I ask: will we be able to sue these people, no different than suing a pharma company, if their science turns out to be bad? Why can't we get relief from a recall on global warming? Here's how life works: IF these people want to take on the authority of setting trillion $ public policy, and try to gain profit from it, then they, and anyone who supports them, should be prepared to take on the equivalent responsibility if they are wrong/negligent/incompetent. Again, I ask: why do I need to put thermometers on blacktop in parking lots, and on the tar roofs of buildings....if all I care about is doing good science? Either I am a very poorly trained "scientist", or I am trained, but stupid, or I am purposely trying to cook the data. Those are the only conclusions that fit the facts, so pick one. Why do I need to forge documents? Why do I need to demonize anybody who simply raises questions about my data, when, given the blacktop thing, "good science" DEMANDS that it be questioned? Why am I acting more like a politician than a scientist? Why, after seeing others get caught cooking the science, and seeing the damage that does to the overall concept....would one be willing to do it again? Why would one even consider asking "is it OK to lie about global warming", if all one cares about is the science? Answer to all: because while there may be some pure science happening here, so far, it is indistinguishable, and inseparable, from the political science that is happening alongside. Yes, we are all well aware of the fact that you get everything you "know" from MSNBC. The problem doctor, is that you don't expend the effort to be "informed". Rather, you are only interested in being "affirmed". My cousin, the pure science Ph.D? She responds to your question with: "You can't even search for your apartment keys, if you don't have one." Searching for the truth requires money. Acting like they don't go hand in hand, every day, all the time? No. There is what scientists want to believe about themselves, and what they want us to believe, and then there is the reality. I am learning, as my cousin is telling me, that things are somewhat more like what DC_Tom describes, and more like my job(political war, or soap opera, depending on the day, being fought on a technology set, with technology props) than one expects. There's no logic to follow here. I have tried. You have failed. Adding ergo didn't do anything. Try again. Oh, so you admit that taxing something results in less of it? In fact, you go further, and admit that it is not only possible but likely that something can be taxed "into extinction"? Interesting.

If we've said it once, we've said it, collectively, over 9,000 times .....f'ing Mularkey

Eeeeewwww. Not sure I want a guy named McCants.....or McWont....or McFails w/ Tries. It's like Losman. He has to be a great player....or we have to put up with endless harassment.

Apparently there is nothing about this team upon which Bill and I agree. I hate the idea of trading for Mallet, even for a bag of balls. I hate the idea of Barron @ 10. I don't want the OT who's not really a LT, but might be tried there, but then moved to RT. The only thing left is WR and CB, because I hate the idea of trading down, when and if, QBs are taken ahead of us, bumping a blue chip guy or 2 down to be there @ 10. Well, at least we can agree about the team itself. Go Bills.

I'm just gonna let you have a pass on this. Reading is fundamental....

It is to far too many. Let's see what the board looks like a week from today.....

Oh Bull. Watch ALGORE, Inc.'s movie. It's only a straw man if we are distorting/simplifying what you are saying, and then arguing against that, and, I am sick to tears of people misusing this fallacy, as though "the first person to say straw man wins". It's like juxtaposed. The minute I hear juxtaposed, I know I am dealing with a weak mind. Same with "out of context". Yeah....that's great, until....those citations of academic dishonesty and ulterior motives go from oblique, to actual, undeniable matters of public record. What you need to ask yourself: if this is all settled, or, if it is close to being settled....why did they need to lie? Why did they put thermometers on blacktop/tar roofs of buildings? You can say that "well everybody does it, even doctors trying to get their new drugs approved", to which I will reply "fine, then we can assume we can sue these people for a multi-trillion dollar recall, can't we?". Exactly right. The burden is on the person making the claim. If you can't prove ID in the lab, you can't be allowed to try and legislate it in the school board room, or sue for it in the courtroom. Of course he wouldn't. IF there was no model B, then there is no funding for model C. You need 2 more models to get to E. Or, do you really think we need another study to tell us "smoking is bad, mkay"? Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a liberal not know WTF he is talking about on this board. Hell, it wouldn't be the 10,000th.

Forget mine.....Tommyknockers is my new favorite. Could even be the beginnings of a song. Of course, we'd actually have to see Tommy get knocked a few times for it to stick....

uh- I also said ",confirmed by Buddy Nix/Dough Whaley," Yeah, that reading comprehension, it's a B word, isn't it?