OCinBuffalo

Speaking of dredging up old threads.... Anybody wanna ask Bullcrap where Matt Cassel is playing, never mind starting, this year? EDIT: I mean, it's not like he and the rest of WGR didn't have a giant, 2-month Matt Cassel hissy fit going at this time last year. Time to pay the piper.

Only 12 months ago at this very time, we were being told that Matt Cassel was our starter. But wait! We cut him. Then we signed him. Then we traded him for a 2017 5th, to the Cowboys! Here's what they got: G GS Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost 8 7 119 204 58.3 1,276 6.3 5 7 14 86 70.6 15 78 5.2 0 4 0 Clear robbery. 11 turnovers against 5 Tds, and a 6.3 Avg. What was Whaley thinking? But...I distinctly remember some...very strong...opinions about retaining Matt Cassel's services at this time last year. Where are the Cassel bulldogs? You know, those fans who were just bullish on Cassel? They were like dogs in that once they got a hold of a point, would never let go. Tough dogs, strong like bulls. Unrelenting. Totally loyal to Cassel, as every good dog should be. Every single day last year, they were bullish on Cassel and very critical of Whaley when he moved Cassel in the trade. They continued their dogged criticism of Whaley...until, he started to put up the stats above. There was this other guy Shop. Shop says he likes tennis, so I really don't why, and he really doesn't know why, he talks about football. He says he doesn't like talking about it, so he had little to say about Cassel. I bet he has lots to say about tennis though: Wilzowmina Wilmans had a great game at the US Open. Good for her! Tennis being such a big sport in Buffalo and all. Where are they? Where is Enrico Pallazzo? Or is it Sal? My memory isn't what it used to be. He used to ref college football, right? He said sticking with Cassel was the only smart move. Why didn't Whaley listen to Sal Pallazzio? For Pete's Sake, he saved the Queen of England, and you think he doesn't know football? Then there were the early risers. These guys get up before us...which apparently makes them know football better than us. I mean, it's not like they've ever stolen a thread from this site, and turned it into weekly feature, using the same exact format as the stolen thread, or anything. No, these guys really know football because they get up early in the morning. It's all about being blue collar. Collars are important in Buffalo. That, and an all-22 subscription. These guys had the same story to tell us about Cassel. I'd like to see a story about what we're going to have to give up to get our starting QB back from Dallas. Surely somebody in the local media, if not ESPN, is on top of that. Since, you know, Whaley was so dumb as to give our starting QB away to Dallas for a 5th.,

Well, you know, radical Islamic terrorism isn't an "existential threat"...yet...so.... I wonder: if I asked Merkel if I could cut off her pinky fingers, because, clearly, that's not an existential threat to her; would she let me do it? That's who the people that die in terror attacks are to liberals/Merkel: the pinky fingers of society. If they die, its not an "existential threat".

I can only speak to what I know. I don't know your wife. So, for all I know, you are right. However, I can say, personally, without reservation, that Silverman is...something else. I'll give you she's no 10...but...if you say she's a 5? I'd say she's an 8, because she adds 3 pts of personality...and other things. That's all I have to say about that. Fantasy? Not hardly. See, you're the reason I deleted what you quoted. It's gonna be nothing but pissing and moaning....blah F'ing blah. I just know. That's all I'm gonna say. I know that most of this board, the thinking people, in person after 10 mins, would be on that like stink on schit. If the posts here over the last 10 years are even half indicative of their authors? Stink on schit.

First, let me be shocked that the toad actually started a thread, never mind wrote more than 140 characters in one. I mean, please, let us all acknowledge the toad for posting some original thought, and asking Socratic questions no less. As far at the content: it's perfectly reasonable to expect Gore minus Nader outcomes, especially in Florida. Live there for 4 months straight. Imagine telling the worst joke in your pantheon, and it working, every time. Why even bother getting to your best ones? In fact, telling your worst ones get girls to sit on your lap, so...yeah: the Greens have a great shot at taking FL away from Hillary, just like they did with Gore. Low information, C+ voter in FL...is like a D+ student in VA, and a held back student in NY. So, Jill Stein is only a couple of half-price happy hours/bikini contests away from doing the Nader thing in FL. In fact, I believe that Stein has no effect anywhere BUT FL. Run through the swing states in your mind. See? FL is the ONLY place where Stein's message gets anywhere, because those people are flat out stupid. (EDIT: When I retire, one of my hobbies is going to be making FL people do stupid things for very little $, on Youtube. The game part is, if they do the first stupid thing for free, then they get a chance at doing the much dumber thing for $. Now, you tell me, first, "Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?", and 2nd, what are the chances that they won't do the 2nd thing? See? An entire business model based solely on the idiocy of Floridians...and it's a goldmine with practically no overhead.)

Just in case anybody was wondering? This is "conservatism". The best part is the hypocrisy. GG has scolded me from year 2 of this account...for the very positions he posts above. See, the internet is a great thing, as long as GG gets to use it his way. The second the rest of use it: to create business models that are post-Wall Street relevance, or, that blatantly avoid both the tax AND audit side of most accounting firms? Yeah, now we are the "outlaws". Remember GG's Bitcoin position? Did any of you lose $ on that? Every day Kickstarter does things...but GG and his pals don't get any commissions. Shame! Poor GG and my banker aunt. The cheerleaders/sideline reporters are no longer in control. Can anyone imagine, bringing half of the schit that gets funded by Kickstarter/GoFundMe, right now, today, to GG, for approval? Yet, it is all approved. Every time kickstarter works? One of GG's angel feathers falls off and turns into a turd. Soon the Midtown hotels are gonna start charging GG for cleanup. Ah. 2. Yeah, you really proved me wrong. Binary thought. Today its 1. Tomorrow? 0. Ergo, "I am an abstract thinker!" You have earned this and this and this and nobody on this board would dare argue otherwise. No...no...no, no, no. Hey rookie? Welcome to PPP. You don't know, what you don't know. For example: why is the numerical answer to all numerical questions, on this entire board: 3.5? You don't know. The ONLY reason you don't know...is that you have yet to see/participate in a 37 page thread...from page 1(ah Ha! eat that disclaimer like a hot wing, biotch). When you can come back and tell me the significance of 3.5? Then, and only then, do you get to talk about who says what on PPP. Hmmm? Perhaps that is the motion, can I get a 2nd on that? Shall we vote? Only those who know 3.5 get to "police" posts. Short of that, you get an automatic STFU. Seems like a reasonable motion, since all it requires is the search function.

Um...do you always start conversations off this way? Christ all Friday, that is perhaps the best beginning to a novel, of all time. Forget "It was the best of times....". Forget "To the red country and part of the gray country of Oklahoma"(which I believe is how anyone gets away with calling Southern/Midwestern states "red"). Forget "In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me advice..." No. In this day and age, despite 100s of years of the British trying to get India right, and Rikki Tikki Tavi being as about as close as it gets? That line, I'm sorry, is flat out better. If you truly did just wake up in India, imagine my persona, standing in the middle of the market in your town, saying: "Free passage to the USA, and a 48 month visa, if you eat this McDonald's Cheeseburger in front of your mother, and praise Kali!" Um, yeah, the opening of the DNC...was that kind of chaos. (EDIT: Some people have faggy bucket lists. Clearly, I do not)

Sarah Silverman is a unmitigated piece of ass. Let's cut the crap. Every one of you would kill to have a wife like that. Unfortunately, she knows it. EDIT: I decided to redact what I wrote, because although I have relevant personal knowledge of Silverman...it would twist too many panties here.

No, your theory is that today it is more effective, more pervasive, and is more likely to go unchecked than in the past. History disagrees. The internet disagrees. We are currently witnessing, in real time, corruption being checked. Speaking of checks, I'd say we are seeing the internet throwing a helicopter check on the DNC. See that guy who got checked just sorta not know what to do, sorta go after the ball, then realize he has to get his stick first? That's the DNC right now. No Tom, today it's just straight up. See, that's the difference between me, and you, I can think in the abstract. You are linear, so you must always post the same way, every time. Not I. Or, do you deny that you always post the same way, every time?

You're going to eat those words. I'm just sayin' I give you 1 chance in 3 of being right.

The Democrats own tactics of shouting down those people with whom they disagree, and preventing speakers from speaking...are now turned upon themselves. DWS getting chased from the room by these fascists...my God, I can't decide on "hilarious" or "righteous". Bernie sending texts to tell his supporters not to protest. DWS telling people to "settle down". Oh, really Debbie? So it's OK when you incite assclowns to prevent speech on college campuses, but, when it's your turn to speak, everybody has to "settle down"? :lol:

I revel in the chaos that is occurring right now. ALL those months of "Republicans are facing a contested convention" .... ...only to have a contested convention materialize before our eyes, in real time, for the Democrats.

Well, you got your wish. I am just in time to hear the anthem. Not bad. Just before this I saw Cilizza[sic] from the WP saying they can't stop people from booing tonight. EDIT: yeah, and the guy's thing is stuff we already do. I love it when people demand my time, to tell me things I already know. Ah, and now I find that not only does this guy know less than I do, but his thing sucks in comparison. Well, call over, MSNBC it is.

Bah, I am trying to listen to a guy talk about a thing...and instead you'd have me turn on MSNBC?

I'd give that, "1 chance in 3".

Yeah, but Greggy? You often don't put things in historical context. You act like Tammany Hall never existed. Thomas Nast is a personal favorite of mine, because he was so effective. Many of his positions were totally vile, but, no one can ever say he didn't do his job as a media, "shaper of opinion": Ahem, New York Times. The difference today, and you'll be happy to know, the thing that puts a bat up GG's ass, is the internet. Not just the thing itself. The internet is a culture, it is also a warning, because it is an arbiter of justice, that also self-corrects. True, we'd never know about the emails, because there wouldn't be any, without the internet. However, because there's an internet, there's no longer a gateway for NBC et al to control, and thus decide what people get to know, and what they don't. IF NBC/CBS/ABC has gotten copies of paper memos, because this is 1980-something, that showed the DNC's bad behavior, do you think they would have run the story? The bottom line: It's damn near impossible to run a proper conspiracy anymore. Only 1(one) person has to say "the rest of you do this, and I will put it on the internet", for the bad actors/actions to cease. In this way, the internet is the great...punisher. We don't even need the real Punisher anymore. The internet is the vigilante, operating outside the system, that cuts through all and holds the bad guys accountable. Why else do you think the Democrats want to control the internet, regulate it, and set up a taxation system on it whereby they can punish those who punish them?

The entire day's relevant data, according to Breitbart. What I haven't seen posted yet: Check out the 9:42 entry. It's sets off alarms that a Sanders guy used a "bug"(yeah, right), to get Clinton data. The "Yeah, Right" part: 1. No bug in this world says "hey, my error is that I give you all, and only, the data you need", unless either it's a role/privilege(RBAC) error, or a bad data request. But, if it was the latter? Everyone would have had access to Clinton's data, not just one Sanders guy. 2. IF this software is local install to datacenter/dedicated host, then no "bug". It would have to be an intentional hack/internal breach. 3. IF both "files" were located within the same DBMS instance, cluster,(or insert product-specific word(s) here), then, there would have to be some kind of RBAC F up, that gave admin/Clinton data rights to Sanders guy's username. 4. You wouldn't be running an integration between the 2 "files", so that is out(unless we are talking seriously dirty/stupid deeds here). 5. This is not a bug at all, but rather an intentional exposure of the Clinton data to the Sanders guy. Of all of them, 5 is far and away the most likely. Of all the RBAC F ups available, Sanders guy, and only him, just happens to get the Clinton data rights? NO! Sanders guy was referred to them by the DNC, and he REALLY looks like a plant now. His orders: "go and use this exploit to get your hands on Clinton data, get caught, get yourself fired, and embarrass the Sanders campaign". "But...but...but...conspiracy theories": STFU. This already IS a conspiracy. How stupid does Jamil Smith look tonight? Also, how funny would it be, if, in all this F'ing about with data/exploits, the DNC left their front door open...and that's how somebody else got at the DNC's email server? <5% chance, but...we are talking about a known data breach, most likely caused by nerfing security. This is mere speculation, but, boy, that would be the IT fail of the century. Also, 8:38 says Monica Fudge to replace Brazil? You must be feeling very validated today. A year ago, you said the whole thing was a con, and that literally "everyone" was conspiring to make Hillary POTUS. Now, we have evidence in hand that you were right, at least with the DNC... ...so far.

Ah, being coy? In a single sentence, for the butthurt: There are people here and elsewhere for whom there is literally no data, no facts, no empirical evidence, that can change their silly, "let's engage with the Arab world" position on Islamic terror. (Are you following me so far? Or, do I need to break that sentence down further? ) These people claim to be reasonable, they claim to be intellectual. However, if the above single sentence is true, then, by definition, they are neither. (How're you doing? Confused? Or are we OK?) They only way they can prove they are actually intellectuals, reasonable, etc. is to specifically define a set of stuff, a line, whatever, that CAN and WILL change their position. My observation is: they have no interest, or perhaps even lack the ability, to create that standard for themselves; which renders them useless. My purpose here, was to make a thread that I knew would tweak them. You can't tweak people with a single sentence. No, you need to pound away to piss them off enough(because they know I'm right) to get all sorts of weird behavior. This thread, and the mock thread, put that weird behavior on display. Consider: the very first reply in this thread was DC_Tom's "9/11". See? No prevarication. Not even a full sentence. What have we seen since? Tons of prevarication. I love prevarication. This handle makes its living off of it.

Neither of which, if you had read my post, speak to: 1. His ability to manage an IT firm, or his leadership in the field of IT. The man is a pretender, who knows less than you do about the field. The couple that owns the San Jose Sharks is no different than Cuban, in terms of what they did to get where they are. Right place, right time. The difference is: they don't need to seek personal validation on a daily basis. 2. His hilarious failure of combining his money with his politics vs Trump's, now obvious, wild success. Trump has 3x his net worth. I'm no hater. I just know a phony IT "leader" when I see one. Ask Mark Cuban his opinion on who will win between reactive javascript and native app architecture for mobile devices. This is not some arcane question. Every competent person who works in IT knows about this, and follows it closely. Laugh at his answer, though, because he'd be caught in headlights. Talk about missing the entire point. I said: I see the same opportunity. What they did/do with it, is not the same as it never existing. I see no opportunity for real change in Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders for that matter, not because anything on the ground changes, but, because neither is either willing, but more importantly: capable of getting big things done, correctly. You can add Romney, McCain, Bush 2, Kerry, Gore, Clinton and Bush 1 to that list as well. None of these people had an opportunity to be true change agents. At best they were competent administrators. None qualify as real CEOs, using the real definition. Speaking of a title you will never have: I love it when stock brokers talk about management of large organizations. It's like listening to Colin Cowherd. All opinion. 0 personal experience. I'm more qualified to talk about management at large organizations than you will ever be: because I've either done it, or I've been asked to advise on it, at levels you've never even sniffed. But you keep yapping there sideline reporter. The players and the coaches see you, but we take you exactly as seriously as you should be taken. I wonder: what is your line on declaring Donald Trump a successful president? What data is required for that, for you? Or, do you have no line?

Talk all you want: when you get done? I'll still be right about some of you having no intellectual line when it comes to certain issues, and therefore, no intellectual honesty. It's F'ing hilarious that the best you have, is the same old thing you have. You can't duck the content here, and you know it. But go ahead, by all means keep running your mouths. All it does is further underscore my point, and further prove: you have "no reply at all".

Same. Is this: 1. an arraignment hearing? 2. the set of Judge Judy? 3. an anti-Jim Everett vs Jim Rome setup? Cowherd relies on 3 feet of wood and 10 feet of distance so that he can make it off the stage if somebody comes after him. It's like a deterrent: "don't come after me because you'll never catch me!" The picture of that set belies 10,000 words from Cowherd.

Yeah, and then? How do you explain his year last year? Come on: it doesn't take an expert to know that Clay is a guy you want on your team. Miami couldn't make that decision properly. Just like they keep foisting Tannehill on their fans, under the delusion that somehow, someday, he's going to stop being a 50% of the field passer. The notion that Foster is going to come in and somehow change any of that is silly. And....really? You know I only leave that EJ stuff up there...from years ago, to annoy specific posters/media. Those of the Geno Smith and later, Matt Cassel, persuasion.

Did they sign him? Did they lock him up 1-2 years before they tagged him? What have you seen from Clay that does not scream "get a long-term deal done ASAP"? Better: Is Ryan Tannehill your starting QB in fantasy? Is there ever a case where you would choose to have that guy as your starting QB? Do you believe, even slightly, that Foster "helps" Tannehill to not suck? And, that's the gist of the headline" "Foster brings running game to help Tannehill in passing game") Don't tell me you can't see that in the stack on the left of the screen. Don't tell me that's the working "story" right friggin' now. Hell, after all of the years of nonsense pandering to the Miami large market, I can write the "2016 Dolphins Preview: Foster Helps Tannehill" article all by myself, right now. I can't wait to be treated to yet another cavalcade of "Tannehill is improving" ESPN training camp segments, like the last 5 years...just so I go watch us clobber them again.

It's the Dolphins, so no. Need I remind anyone of their track record on draft picks/signings over the last 10 years? I will tell you right now, the team I personally watched get destroyed by the Bills, in their own house? One aging RB and Mario Williams does not help that team anywhere near enough. We have Charles Clay. Miami thought wisdom was letting him walk. Now they think wisdom is Foster? Do that math.

You're a great believer in the concept of "falsifiability". What falsifies your theory, or should I say, hypothesis here? I'm not taking you on, although I easily could. Rather: I want to know what you think the opposite of what you say looks like, and how it might happen. I see an opportunity here. I see the same thing I saw with Obama: a real chance at a gamebreaker in governing, not merely campaigning. For those of you who don't know: a gamebreaker is an exploitation/tactic in a game, without hacking or anything nefarious, that causes the user to almost always win, entirely within the rules of the game. Gamebreakers usually cause the developers to "nerf"(change the game's program) features of the game that prevent further use of the exploit/tactic. The difference is, we have no devs that can react to Trump's gamebreakers. Well, as I write this, I wonder if big donors/corporations/media are actually the devs in politics, and that they can, or, at least try. But, that is beside the point. Trump has already used multiple gamebreakers. That much is obvious. There has been nothing anyone could do to stop him from winning. In terms of the analogy, we've even had the supposed devs try to devise and deploy cheats to stop Trump. All have failed. Thus, I am curious if you can at least entertain the possibility of your scenario above being 100% wrong, and the polar opposite happening. Also, what would that opposite be? Separately, what would need to happen to prove the contrapositive of your theory correct, thereby proving your theory correct? Oh, and I can feel LA's butthurt from here, after Cruz saw fit to give both Donald Trump yet another win, and, the "longest suicide note in history".