OCinBuffalo

I have been saying Tannehill is a joke because: his mechanics suck, and I can prove it, and so can he, because he can't throw accurately down field directly due to them, he's a half-field reader, and I can prove it, he's a 1st rout...then panic "progression" guy, which means he's a playkiller..."coincidentally" they moved in read/option last year, midseason, and various clowns rejoiced at his "running ability" ...so I don't have to prove it, as they already did it for me, he doesn't read Ds very well, and I've proven that plenty, he lacks toughness/is a Kyle Orton clone when he knows he might get sacked, and has proven he will put the ball on the ground if you hit him hard, ....for 3 years... ....and demonstrated this/backed it up, beyond all doubt, in multiple threads/posts with film and screen shots. Now, what is easier to believe? That I have done as I have said, or that you, with 65 total posts, haven't been around here long enough to know that's what I have done? The simple fact is Tannehill is the personification of the Emporer's New Clothes. Miami is a big market, the media wants to talk about big markets, and therefore Tannehill is "good", "improving", "leading", blah F'ing blah. Everybody "sees" Tannehill, because it's good business. But, when you actually sit down and watch the game, and rewind the film and slow it down? Like it or not: EJ has shown better at this point, it's just a matter of opportunities to play. Once again: I will remind you of the last game of the year, where Geno Smith outplayed Tannehill, easily doubled his QBR and nearly doubled his rating. Tannehill got sacked 7 times...precisely because of what I said above: you take away his first read, it's panic time. Here's what I can't believe: We watched Tannehill crump over and over against our own team 2 times last year. How does anyone come away from those 2 games thinking we want Tannehill on this team? When he fumbled the ball away, during the Thursday Night game, while "running" ? When he got sacked, in the shotgun, by standing like a statue, and watching our saftey blitzer run all 20 yards towards him, never moving a muscle? I want to know who here was sitting there, watching that, and saying "yeah I'd take him over EJ any day!" It's F'ing preposterous.

Is that what I said? I am willing to discuss this with you, but not if you're going to play games like this. Or, you know I am right, and this is the best you can do. And, since this all you have, there's little point in me continuing. In any event, I've made my case, we are talking career #s, and where EJ goes from here going forward in his CAREER. Obvious. Unless of course you have a time machine, and we can go back, knock off Marrone in an "accident", and see how EJ would have played out 2014...this discussion is pointless, and so is your post. The simple fact remains: we don't "know" anything about QBs until they've played enough games for us to know. EJ hasn't played enough games for anyone to know much of anything, especially since we've seen such wild swings with him. I remember the game winning drives as much as I remember the passes to nowhere/4 yards over the WR's head. Which is the real EJ? We simply do not know. Accept reality.

Hilarious. My post was clearly defined in aggregate terms = "95% of all passing QBs", etc. Your response is limited to a single, anecdotal, guy. Here you go: Anyone can pick any story, like Gabbert, to prove they are right. That's called anecdotal evidence.(Protip: anecdote means story). I am speaking in "over the last 30 years" and "ALL QBs" and "overall" terms. Specifically, I am saying that the recent rookie QB anecdotes...fall apart when compared against the 30 years of "ALL QB data" compiled. Period. Take EJ's inherent, easily observable to those with trained eyes, physical skill, and compare that skill to the rest of the starting QBs over the last 30 years...then.... Actually, nevermind. The "figuring" has already been done for you: look up tQBR by Football Outsiders/ESPN. You'll find that EJ's entire career = ~50% compared against last 30 years of AGGREGATE QB play. When one is at 50%? The logical outcomes: he can either improve, get worse, or stay the same. Since staying the exact same is very unlikely mathematically? Then yes, EJ has a 50/50 chance of improving...by definition, math, logic, and Holy F'ing God! Another emoticon: A few dipshits in the media(most likely college football fanboys) have been running this silly "college football = rookie QBs in NFL are day 1 starters" nonsense for about 3 years now, and it's time for it to end. These are the same tools who say "Alabama could be the Jacksonville Jaguars. Yee Haw!" You are talking about your opinion. I am talking about sound, fact-based, and properly processed predictive analysis. That is the difference. Of course I can tell you if CB is good right away, by merely looking at his film/measurables. I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't. I'm not alone. Many people can. It's called: knowing what you're seeing. CBs tend to go high in the draft. Why? Unlike other positions, it's much easier to see if a CB has "it" or not. If he does? The surety of his value vs. risk of bust(Pac Man reasons, not play) ratio means his draft stock goes up. Thus he, and all similar CBs, trend higher(much to BillinNYC's chagrin. Whether he likes it or not the "safest" draft pick IS a high end CB, while the "scariest" is a high end C, followed closely by LT, and I will explain below) The equation: (observable, inherent value/ bust potential) + value of shutting down opponents #1 WRs, in 2015's NFL = Draft CB high. This is quantifiable observations + basic algebra, not magic. Meanwhile, with a S, there are many variables both due to the position, and how the player will physically and mentally grow into it, that simply cannot be known on draft day. A safety has to do a lot more than a CB, has many more skills/angles/recognitions to master, AND, a safety has to make adjustments/tell all other DBs what to do, which requires leadership ability. These things can't be easily measured, and require years of play in the NFL to determine. A safety is one of the most unknown positions there is, especially year to year. The same is especially true for Cs and Ts, because of the # of skills and responsibilites they must master, and keep at a high level. OTOH, if a CB is "good" today as a R, 90% chance he's going to be "good" for the next 8 years. Which, is also why they get so much in FA = known, rare commodity. EDIT: The exception that proves the rule Jim Leonhard. The man has inferior measurables, the Bills drafted him and dumped him. Yet, he went on to play S at a high level, for mutliple teams, for years, and even came back to the Bills. How? Because what's inside Jim Leonhard's head == his ability to play S, and we can't see inside his head, can we? This is reality, because this is what can be measured, instantly, and therefore quantified, instantly, vs. what takes years to measure, and therefore years to quantify, if at all. Any deviation from reality is, by definition, nonsense. You are allowed to say whatever you want. This is a message board. However, whether we respect it, and you, depends solely on whether you can quantifiably prove it. QB is by far the hardest position to quantify. As we've seen with people like Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and even Ryan Fitzpatrick: trial and error is as good an approach as any. Literally: "Ok, we don't have another QB..so, throw him in there" = Trial.. "No error?" = "Ok, get rid of Bledsoe!", "Start ex-grocery store clerk", "Extend Fitz with big $ now!". In the total, aggregate, history of NFL QBs, there's a lot more Tom Brady/Kurt Warner/Fitz...and Drew Brees(ahem, Chargers cut him loose, lest we forget), and a lot less John Elway/Dan Marino. So, if you want to form an opinion, I would suggest you do so based on the proper contexts I have provided here. When Geno throws more completions to our guys than his guys , and gets yanked, we're not supposed to mock him? Not even a giggle or 2? Show me the last time EJ has done that. Then, check tQBR for both players. Come on. This isn't supposed to be ALL about math/rigorous analytics. We are allowed to have a little fun now and then. But, can Geno improve and be a top 10 starter? Of course he can. He has the physical skills to be very good. But, given the data we have, I'd take EJ's brain(leadership/field reading/decision making) over Geno's 100% of the time. And, don't forget, Geno was the better QB by a mile the last time he faced Tannehill! That's what's missing here: objective standards of measurement. Instead we have anecdotes and emotion. Odds. Look what I posted above. Mathematically, it's 50/50 as to whether EJ improves or gets worse, with an infinitesimal chance of him staying the exact same. Since his play thus far has been enough to see him start for this team? He doesn't need to improve by that much to start again, since his play is literally "average" by tQBR so far. His competition? Also "average" or a little below average. Therefore, mathematically, your 5:1 odds are on shaky ground at best. How did you come up with them? You might want to reconsider them. Somebody could take you for a lot of $ you don't have.

Well, since 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything? It's hard not to love it. However, here at TBD, we have found that 3.5 also has a similar profundity. For example: there have been ~3.5 threads started about EJ per week since he's been a Bill and all of them contain the reiteration of "Because Todd McShay said so!". Even when his own network's ESPN Sports Science show has rated EJ as one of the best pure talents in years. Recent problem here, posters locking in their opinions FAR TOO EARLY and then denying all contradictory facts. Example: "We gave away a chance to draft a QB by trading for Watkins." :lol: That was locked in on draft day, mostly by WGR parrots, and is now: Hilariously Stupid. What this is about: pure talent. Given how things ended up with Marrone, we have to take his judgement with a massive grain of salt. There's a 50/50 chance EJ improves the same way Tannehill did last year. We can NEVER know. So, to base any conclusion, for EJ or against, on that, is patently retarded. It's merely conjecture/opinion presented as fact, and therefore, useless. What I can say is: EJ's has a lot more pure talent than Tannehill. Period. It's obvious to anyone who is capable of observing athletic ability PROPERLY. Notice: stats/scores/blah has nothing to do with that. If you've never played/coached a team sport at a high level, your opinion is worthless, unless you can show me your ability to evaluate athletic ability is competent, and how you obtained it. X years of watching football doesn't count. Unless you can point out detail: like where a guy's elbow and toes are, in relation to the outcome of his throw? As I said: worthless. For the people who can only see this as a black box, where you put QB X in one end, and wins/whatever subjective measurement you use, come out the other end, but, you have no idea what's in the box or how it works? Please stop. But...all of these are symptoms of the larger disease. The disease: in the last 3 years we've suddenly decided to abandon everything we know, everything that has been proven about QBs, for reasons passing understanding. Rookie QBs(1st year out of college) having huge success in the NFL is an aberration. It hardly EVER happens. In the history of he NFL you can count on your hands the # of times a true rookie has had instant, and sustained, success. Why then have we suddenly accepted that every rookie QB that is drafted in the 1st round can "come right in and not only start, but take his team to the playoffs"? Because of yet another FAR TOO EARLY now set in concrete opinion: "College football has changed, and guys are ready now!" Horseshit. The reasons for it: Luck, RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton. All of whom played well in the beginning but, all of whom have come crashing back down to earth very suddenly. How well did Wilson play in the SB? For 30 years, we've known it takes time(on average 3 years) to develop 95% of the true passing QBs who eventually meet with success in the NFL. Now we forget that, because of a few aberrant seasons? And then, these aberrations correct themselves: RG3 might not even be a Redskin next year. Enough of this nonsense. Let's go back to doing this the right way, shall we? We can't evaluate EJ, or any QB/WR/TE, either OT, C, DE, or S until AFTER their 3rd year. We can evaluate CB, DT, G, LB, RB immediately...due to the nature of the positions, as it has always been, and always will be.

Well then you know the problem: Ds merely use these kinds of issues to get elected. They do nothing afterwards, because it always means more $ to spend/more useless turds to hire. If you want real action on this, you have to look to the right, like it or not. As I said above, whoever lays genuine, believable, claim the Mantle of Reform? That candidate will win, and, that candidate will probably be able to do just about anything the first 2 years, including fixing the surveillance state. Think about it: obstruction to reform by anyone? == That person is protecting corruption/self interest/political allies/doesn't care about what's best for the country. Easy. The Reform candidate, after winning should pick 3 unrelated issues, like the NSA, Welfare, and the EPA, and begin immediately reforming all 3. The media/their D surrogates won't know WTF to do, because so much is being fixed so fast, there will hardly be time to cry about this 1k useless turds losing their government jobs/consulting contracts, before another 1k do. Meanwhile, to keep the debate from getting out of hand, you don't have one: keep it simple. Cause-->effect, cause-->effect. etc. For example: Cause: The Obama administration used NSA wiretapping to tap the phones of a reporter and his family. Effect: I need a new law from Congress that reforms the current law. Or, I need a law that removes any enforcement wiggle room wrt the current law, and, also a law that mandates an after-action report on any and all domestic taps be sent to the Senate Intel comittee. Hehehe. Now that is a deterrent. You know Congress can't keep it's mouth shut. So, the only time a domestic tap will be used, is when it's 100% defensible. And that's your problem: solved.

Another thing: there is a genuine political opportunity here. These don't come along very often. I don't mean "elect a black man to the WH, regardless of his quality". That was a canard. I'm talking about an opportunity. Whoever seizes it will win. And, Hillary can seize it too. It's called: Reform. Just like with "Change", it's a single word that can summarize what a candidate is about, and therefore galvanize his supporters. Libertarians will not quibble with conservatives over a candidate who owns the word Reform. Both agree, hence, it's easy to galvanize both. You do that, and you win, because independents will get behind that simple message as well. Whichever candidate can lay claim to "Reform", or, should I say #Reform, will be unstoppable. Now, Hillary has a mountain to climb to try and say that she's going to reform...herself and her own party's behavior of the last 8 years. But, we are talking Clintons here...and with media assistance? It's possible. When you consider that Paul Ryan has been working dilligently, meeting with the inner city poor and those who work with them, for years, all in an effort to come up with a better way to address poverty, child hunger, etc.? It's the most honest, and largest, work anyone has done on poverty in decades. You have to figure that the Reform candidate is going to co-opt that plan. (And don't forget Clinton triangulation: Hillary is just as likely to co-opt it as anyone else) So, now, we aren't just talking about reforming the NSA, and the other things I mentioned....we are talking about a better "user experience" for the poor with government. That's real Reform, and who will argue with it, since it comes from the poor themselves? See? Where does that leave the media/Ds? Ryan has spent more time with the poor, and is now a better representative of their interests, than any D alive. You can't call him out of touch...when he's been in touch...for years. Whichever candidate lays claim to Total Reform...will essentially be immune to all media bias. Why? Because they won't be able to pin their tired, old, anti-R tails on that donkey. "It doesn't matter what Rs have done in the past, we are about Reform going forward, everything is on the table, and the past is irrelevant." And there ends the media's character assassination. They can't attack something that hasn't happened yet. I don't know if anyone will go all out with Reform. Christie and Walker have a head start, as they can show the net + results in their states, as well as being able to work with, or defeat, their opponents as necessary, overcome barriers, and get the job done. But, I do know: there's been so many government F ups in the last 6 years, that Reform is the way to the WH. NSA reform is merely one cog in the wheels of that war machine.

This is absolute and complete bull ****. Neither side wants to fix this because neither side (other than Paul) is even willing to discuss this topic in a legitimate political setting. Politicians don't like to talk about the ways they're !@#$ing over their constituents. And there is ZERO shot Bush (Jeb or otherwise) or any GOP current front runner will do anything but strengthen the NSA and security apparatus of the state. Paul might try, but he won't get the support unless there is a national debate on the issue. Well then you aren't paying attention. Which is BS as well. We've already had the national debate, and the Rs have had their debate as well. Thus, as I said, not all, but many would move on this. I'll give you Jeb Bush...and Christie would use 9/11 as his excuse to do limited reform, but really ONLY Bush is not on board. Literally everybody else, has at one point or another sided with Rand Paul on this issue. But, reforming the NSA isn't the issue or what they are actually talking about. Reason: how can we have this discussion, while doing nothing about the IRS? State Department? ATF? DHS/TSA? FBI? Justice Department? Secret Service? HHS? VA? We cannot. Every single one of these organizations, and others, have proven they are either unmanageable, are out of control, or see themselves as accountable to no one, and that's only in the last 6 years. The EPA thinks it can write laws by fiat. The establishment Rs? Who knows? But the conservatives and libertarians agree: why should we limit our reform effort to the NSA? That's why you are misreading what is being said. You are looking for specifics about the NSA, when in reality, the entire right, and most of its presumed candidates, are talking about a complete overhaul of the entire Federal government, cuttng it's scope back to something that can be managed, and therefore, be held accountable, to include cancelling entire agencies wholesale. Reforming the NSA is seen as merely treating a symptom of a much larger disease. You'll see.

And it's this very lack of understanding that has prevented me from getting the flying car I was promised, by Discover magazine, and by the book on Future Science I got at The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago when I was a child(and going down in the coal mine there remains my favorite museum thing...I highly recommend it, if it's still there) As you all can imagine, I am and have remained livid. I want my flying car delivered yesterday. It was spec'ed at the very least as a Landspeeder from Star Wars, but could also fly above treetops, buildings, etc. I don't want to hear any more excuses about how we don't understand gravity. I was supposed to take delivery of my car years ago. Another "scientific" prediction, that was so mainstream...they actually assumed the applied engineering as so nominal that that flying cars would be commercially pervasive by last decade. Please tell me more about prediction and consensus. Then tell me that there can only be 2 reasons why I don't have my flying car, conspiracy or payoffs, because faulty/lacking science cannot be the reason. Then tell me I'm being stupid and hypocritical, for merely demanding what I was promised. All the excuses in the world don't matter, because empirically, I don't have my flying car, and the only reason I don't: we don't fully understand gravity. And, as Tom said: we understand even less about climate than gravity. I don't have my flying car....yet I'm supposed to buy into Global Warming at face value? No. Common sense says give me my flying car, something you predicted 30 years ago(along with the ice age, I remember the cover of Time Magazine with the US attack submarine stuck...on top of the ice) and then we'll talk about your new "predictions". And I ask: where is the conspiracy? A conspiracy is not required for behavior like this to occur. People are suggestible. Advertising proves this. Hell, there's an = chance of Lois Lerner/IRS employees/Treasury acting on their own is their is receiving instructions from the WH. It makes no difference in the outcome. In either case, the "leader" set the agenda, and it was acted upon. Did someone "get" to this Dean, and force her to answer these questions in such a ridiculous manner? Does she sit in on the weekly "GW conspiracy's PR/Public Information strategy" call? No! "Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism." may be true, but I offer other, more likely and passive, explanations: laziness, malfeasance, fear. IF the Dean had been diligent, and not lazy, she'd know Enstrom's work. After all, how the F is a competent Dean not fully aware of their employee's work? Which leads us to malfeasance: she has a responsibility to be fully versed in her entire college's work on behalf of the university. At the very least, her understanding is supposed to be better than "general". And of course, the easiest explanation for why she shirked her duty? Fear. What if Enstrom is right? Now she's got a shitload of problems she doesn't want. Now she's got to defend her employee. Now she's got to deal with the pitchfork and torches people. Now she's got to do media explaining herself, and every single decision she's ever made, because the media is now out for her blood. It's far better to essentially ignore Enstrom, and hope his work comes to nothing. When it didn't? She was limited to a single option: fire Enstrom, and hope for the best, because even losing his HR case is better than going against the "consensus". All of this? It is far easier to accept, and much more plausible...than conspiracy.

There's another explanation you haven't considered. 1. This thread was already 2 pages of calling you an idiot before I got to it. My will is being done, so why do I need to bother? 2. I hardly see the need to jump in and merely reiterate what's already been said. But fine, since you appear to have a need here? Menendez is a scumbag, he deserves to be punished more than what he will ultimately get, but most importantly, like Doc said: We've come to expect this. I mean, how many scandals have there been? As I stated in the other thread: it's become clear that the only "values" the current version of the D party has are: Self-Promotion, Self-Aggrandizement, Self-Enrichment, and Power Accumulation, both personal and for the state. And please, spare us the BS: you know damn well that there are at least 10 other ongoing scandals/questionable behavior involving D Senators/Reps, right now(see: the 4 values stated above). This WH is either aware, complicit, or actively participating in all of them. What makes this different? The WH pushed this button to make Menedez an example...ONLY because of Netanyahu.

What changed? This version of the Democratic party, the Saul Alinskyites, used this issue to gain power. The Change: Now they have it. This was always a means to an end. How is the current version of the Democratic party, led by the extreme left, being completely disengenuous and hypocritical...amazing? They are cowards, obvious liars, and the most obtuse and cynical people to have ever been in the WH/Senate/House(EDIT: Senator Harry Reid, with our troops in the field and fighting, saying: "The war is lost". Need another example?) They have no values, other than self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, and self-enrichment and power accumulation. Your values, as a guy who leans left, are subject to, filtered by, and as you point out: even distorted by, those 4 main values. Thus, why would them doing a 180 on the NSA be amazing to you in any way? How is this version, pushing us to be a nation of men/women, and not a nation of laws...amazing? You've stated that the Patriot Act(a law) was a problem for Democrats? Some Ds, maybe, but not the ones in the WH/in power currently....as the IRS, spying on a Fox News reporter/listing him as an enemy of the state, and various other behaviors have already demonstrated. It's incorrect to see this in only binary terms: R or D. Everything depends on which R, and which D, we are talking about. Right now, there are very few Ds with a chance of winning the POTUS who would correct the NSA. OTOH, a number of Rs, not all, but still most, would take immediate action to correct them. It's as simple as this: whose ideology wants all power concentrated in DC, and believes it has the right to circumvent the law/Constitution whenver it sees fit? Who has a literal track record of doing this while in office? Whose ideololgy wants: 1. more power given back to the states 2. wants to see the power of the Federal governent explicitly limited to the powers granted it by the Constituton 3. truly believes in liberty first? Look, if President Bush, playing crochet on the WH lawn was something these far-left Alinskyites thought could be used to gain them power? We'd hear about it immediately through their media surrogates. The sad part is: that is not a joke/ridiculous example/exaggeration.

Christ, if there ever was a save-ass in this world, it's the former CEO of the shitheel outfit. Read the end of the article again. He's doing everything he can to show that he was out of there before "the bad" happened, and sticking the shitheel Europeans with this? Typical far-left hack. A coward and a liar. Liar? Notice how he doesn't say a F'ing word about the agenda of OneVoice or V15? That's a lie of omission if I've ever heard one. All he's doing is talking process = when he resigned, and in doing so? He's admitting that the content is awful, because he's avoiding it completely. Which means: busted. And this is who is in charge of the country right now. Every Obama voter should be asking themselves if this isn't the stupidest choice they have ever made in their life.

Yeah, I'm so sure we need a lesson from you, or should I say, Mike Schopp, because that is who you are parroting, in opportunity cost. It's always hilarious for me, and I'm sure the rest of the other consultants, Wall Street people, executives and financial and/or accounting folks on this board, to read posts like this. The simple fact is that cost is never fixed, in any of its definitions. Not even "fixed cost", is truly fixed. It's merely an abstraction. You're(Schopp's) relying on the notion that a 1st rounder has an inherent fixed cost, which it absolutely does not. The market determines the value of any cost, opportunity or otherwise. This year the value of a 1st rounder is a hell of a lot less than last year. PERIOD. Markets set value...always...unless somebody F's with them, which always results in FAIL(and I can prove that at PPP). And, since we are talking opportunity costs here: what would have been the opportunity cost of NOT having Watkins? Answer: we won at least 4 games this year because of him. So, we got real damn close to the playoffs/were relevant in December for the first time in 12 years...and if we didn't have Watkins? It would have cost us all of that. That is the opportunity we capitalized on, meaning, literally, we spent additional capital(1, 1st round pick in 2015) beyond what we were going to spend anyway(our 1st in 2014)on it. One cannot talk about cost, unless we talk about ALL costs. Not understanding this, is why Mike Schopp does what he does, and the rest of us do what we do. And, finally: all this entire point is? Schopp and Bulldog's save ass position. The ridiculous "we traded away a chance to pick a QB for Watkins" point they clung to for 8 damn months....was always utter folly. I said it on draft day 2014, and I'm right. There never was a draftable QB we were going to get at our draft spot, period. Only people who self-admittedly "don't know football", like Bulldog and Schopp, clung to this folly. This "1st round has inherent value" BS is their fall-back position now that the QB thing is, finally, dead. And it's as pathetic as it is hilarious. Don't be a dupe, dude.. Do you really believe today, that Sammy Watkins was only worth 1 first rounder in 2014? Is there any single indication so far that not only was he worth the cost, but probably more? No. In fact, he now looks to be worth 2 1s and at least a 3. I watched him play live 5 times last year from 10-20th row seats. I spent each game watching nothing but Sammy. He was open 70-80% of the time, because he beat press coverage 90% of the time...as a rookie. Wide open 50% of the time(the Jets away last year is my new favorite Schadenfreude games = the tears and the empty stadium...priceless). The times he wasn't open...he screwed up the rout. It rarely had anything to do with the D. And, that's what you get from a R? This guy has already shown, and shown in a big way. We could be talking Jerry Rice level play. Whaley said Watkins HAD HOF potential going into the draft. Watkins then proved he HAS HOF upside, easily. And, we get 3-4 more years of HOF caliber WR for rookie salary? Only an unmitigated moron, or somebody who "doesn't really know football" would not see the value proposition here. That's the real phrase you/Schopp are looking for, not opportunity cost(but you don't know it, because you don't know it). The value proposition Watkins presented had simply too much upside to pass up. When value outweighs risk by so much? Not moving forward on that value is known, to people who actually do this/use these words in our work, as either: 1. Incompetence. 2. Chickenshit.

I'll remember: "but only if you think employment is a zero-sum game. In reality, employment is not a fixed pie to be divided, with more for some resulting in less for others." the very next time you bring up income inequality, and every other time as well. It's hilarious that when it comes to illegal immigrants, gator quotes the Hoover Instituton talking about no fixed pies, but, when it comes to the economy as a whole? Oh no, of course there is no such thing as economic growth, it's all "fixed pie", and in order for one person to make more $, s/he has to take it from someone else..... ...right gatorturd? Say 1% again. Hilarious. The entire Democratic line of thought on economics is Zero Sum/Fixed Pie, and has been since FDR. But, now, apparently gator has F-tarded his way into arguing against his own party's multi-generational thinking. Economic growth, and individual, not collectivist, achievement, is the end of the "fixed pie" argument, in all things economic. The "fixed pie" concept died with Nixon/Ford/Carter, because wage and price controls proved to be an utter failure. Why we are still keeping alive these late 60s and 70s nonsensical/proven failure ideas? Nostalgia?

Yeah.... Once again we see the rampant wishful, or more accurately, crackwhore, will do/say anything, behavior of the left. Do you really think that this cartoon represents the take away on this story, for anybody but your fellow crackwhores? She blatantly broke the law in a premeditated, and highly planned, and therefore absolutely intentional way. Who the F runs a project(which means hires guys, buys hardware, code gets written, etc.) that sets up their own email service, never mind account, and then proceeds to use it exclusively, and why? She never even bothered to get an State Dept account. I'll tell you who: somebody who knows damn well they are walking into trouble, day 1, as SoS for Obama, AND, somebody who is stupidly thinking that they will get away with it. Sorry dude, but cartoons and the rest of the "say anything" campaign couldn't be less relevant. She's busted. There is no spin/no damage control here. Anything more in that direction, and you only do more damage. She needs to learn from her husband: come clean immediately and beg for forgiveness.

What ? I suppose you don't buy in to Baskin's "Obama hasn't lead, foreign policy is a mess, and Hillary was SoS for most of it...which are all good things for Hillary" analysis, huh? Well, it's not hard to see why, when one considers that if the exact opposite had occurred...they would ALSO all be a good things for Hillary. Just like with Climate Change, everything that happens...is good for Hillary. And you wonder why I say that most of the left lives in Wishful Thinking theme park and resort? It's hilarious just how far the Obama left has fallen since 2008. We've gone from arrogant, absolute self-certitude...to shameless, crackwhore-like, will do/say anything...in only 6 short years. That's the theme I've picked up on, even with the reasonable pundits on the left. They are in full "say anything" mode, and they know it. They know it's only a short term thing, and that doom awaits, but, they are simply doing what their bosses tell them...and patiently waiting for the day when they can begin the long and arduous process of regaining their dignity.

I have a new plan for this mess. Well, it's more of a postulate than a plan. But quibbling aside, here it is: Any part of any country that has been declared a part of "The Caliphate" is no longer subect to UN/Geneva convention protections. My reasoning is simple. First, the Caliphate is not a legal, recognized country, or singnatory of any of these treaties, so, by definition they are not entitled to protections. Second, apparently the majority of the people in that territory have chosen to live by medieval rules. Fine. So be it. When operating in that territory, we shall also play by medieval rules. Make that clear to every single civilian/supposed non-combatant. We have raised the black flag, and no quarter should be expected by anyone who continues to remain in that territory. Then, we will see who wants their town/job/kids to be contained in that area, and who does not. IF there are moderate Muslims there, this is essentially the ONLY thing that lights a fire under their asses and get them moving towards proving that ISIS does not, in fact, represent them/Islam. Sun Tzu spoke long and often about the great effects of putting people on "killing ground", meaning: you either fight, win, and live, or you die no matter what. We put these people to a choice: maybe die fighting ISIS, or, definitely die due to us-->Fuel Air bombing your entire town. Hey, I said Medieval, didn't I? Or, it goes the other way: and we find out that these "innocent civilians" actually: aren't, either word. One thing is for certain. We will get a definitive answer to whether the "majority" or "minority" of Muslims in that territory support the evil that is being done there, or not. And don't cry to me about fairness. It's every adult's duty to be one. What is the point of "I have to protect my children/stay alive so I can feed them", if all you are doing is consigning them to live in the F'ing Caliphate? Yeah, an ensured lifetime of slavery, terror, and/or subjugation for your kids...what a parent you are! Sit by and do nothing, and make your street the rest of the world's problem? How is that fair to us? What hope does your cowardice actually bring, to anyone, most of all, your kids? IF this kinda crap started happening here? At least in upstate, it would be over in days. We wouldn't put up with it. Americans, once the first guy got burned to death down the street, would rise. Most would. And that's the point: I'm not expecting anything that I wouldn't expect from people here in WNY. So, it's absolutely fair.

The Casting Society of America? You know that actually makes sense? Hollywood throws more money around in US/world politics than most of the GDPs, never mind the political contributions, of most of the countries on the security council. It's always funny to watch the credits of movies and see the "Miranda Cumstein, C.S.A." thing come up so much. I've often said "what the hell were they thinking?". Anyhow, I have been swamped recently, but, if it helps, give me Nigeria.

Apparently you haven't met very many heart surgeons.... There are a wide variety of professions where, it's bad business to NOT claim elite status, publicly, and often. Thus the % I would assign to heart surgeons is at least 80. Think for a second: you have a heart problem. Who do you want doing the work? The guy who is mamby pamby? No. You want the guy who is going to look you in the eye and say "there are maybe 15 guys in the country who can get this done, and I'm one of them". Same thing for a project manager, same thing for an engineer. Hell same thing for an architect. What you don't know is more than I care to write, but, it can be summed up in a single sentence: It's not bragging if you can do it. Some people get to laugh and say that, and other people...they never get to say it, and get their panties bunched when they hear it. Often, it's tactically advantageous to publicly state your elite status, especially in what I do, because it shakes up the room == it forces people to respond, or not, and in their response lies the truth of exactly who they are/how they are going to act on this project. That info is infinitely useful when you find yourself constantly working with people you don't know, have few ways to draw it out, and you need to know the answers now. Tactics are...just that. Thus, as I said: your silly implications aside, it can be a tactic, or, like you: a tool. Despite your lame attempt here? All you've accomplished is ask an elite person a question, that any other truly elite person would never ask, as they already know both the question and the answer. -------- That mask? Why not? The whole point of Anon is: Anon. The work is the state of mind is the work. You've just told me things you think are cool(er). Which means you've just given up info about yourself that I can use to profile you. Sure it's only a small thing, but, why would you give up anything, especially if you are planning some bad antics? There are probably 3 Anon buddies in some abandoned warehouse right now, laughing about co-opting that mask as a way to throw off the FBI profilers. There are probably FBI profilers right now trying to track sales of that mask and link them to attack origins, etc., which will once again lead them to the useful idiots. Thus, the mask, just like everything else Anon does, is a facade. A mask of a mask. And, why does any super hero wear a mask? To protect his identity first, then, to intimidate. The movie is stupid. But, the symbolism of Guy Fawkes is not. Most educated people know who he was. You see a guy with that mask on, your expectations are set. The only difference is: Fawkes was caught. Anon will never be, and will always exist in one form or another, as long as the internet exists. The mask is here today, gone tomorrow. You know how many shows have "Winners/Losers" on Friday? I've been voting for Jimmy Carter as a winner on Special Report nearly every Friday for a solid year now. What crap. Why bother? Because leading is in his F'ing job description? Why it is always everybody else's fault but Obama's? Still can't shake off the self-congratulations and personal win for electing the first black POTUS, huh? Boy you did a wonderful thing there. It's been great for you, and the rest of us. Good thing you decided to be so righteous. It was time for a black president, and man, you stepped right up and did it, didn't you? You and every other shitheel that voted for him deserve a trophy. How proud you must be...for electing an obvious incompetent! Obama has done more to ensure that another black D will NEVER be elected POTUS than the entire existence of the KKK. Or, depending on your perspective, worse, he has ensured that the most conservative candidate in 2016, another black man, does get elected. If he won't lead, he needs to resign. Today. You are absolutely high if you think Obama's refusal to do his job somehow == good for Hillary. Politics don't work that way, son. Hillary was the man's SoS. The entire world is a much more dangerous place as a result. Those 2 sentences are all the Rs need. And you somehow think that any of that is going to rub off on the GOP House? I'll ask again? Are you high? In a country where most of the D voters can't tell you the difference between the House and Senate, you think attacking some amorphous group they don't know is going to help Hillary? High. With a House that hasn't had this many Rs since almost 100 years ago? High. This analysis is sheer inanity.

Same Old Bills is dead. Like it or not. Ever since I've been here, and before, we've always heard about the Bills not being aggressive enough in the off-season, draft, trades, etc., and it has aggregated over time into the "Same Old Bills" trope(sorry, yes, trope is over used by pseudo-intellectuals, but it's the right word here). Well, from signing Mario Williams, to trading for Matt Cassle, the one thing you can't say is: this FO lacks aggression. Same Old Bills is now ludicrous. How? Because even if every single move fails, we made huge moves...which, by definition is the polar opposite of "Same Old Bills". The trope has been obliterated. You can't do the opposite of what you had been doing for a decade prior to the last 3 off-seasons in a row now, and call it: "the same". As of this minute, exactly NOBODY is "right" about anything regarding this team. Not fans, not the media. That is, if we are all being honest with ourselves/each other. It falls on every fan to do the right thing: re-evaluate every single opinion we have/have ever had about this team, because this is obviously not the team we've known. Not by a long shot. We've got a lot of work and thinking to do then, don't we? I'm looking forward to it. Everything we have ever said/thought has to change, at least a little now, and that's interesting. We are a long ways from making definitive statements about any aspect of this team(exception: Jason La Canfora is a shameless click whore, especially when it comes to the Bills). I am as excited as I am terrified, and I have no idea how this is going to work yet. Which means: there's me being honest with myself and the rest of you. Example: I have developed serious doubts about whether "ground and pound" offense...is, in fact, what we are going to be running. But, again, I have no idea if I'm on the right track with this. All I have is pieces...and when I look at them, they don't automagically mean "ground and pound".

Speaking of records...Boston could break it's snow record this week. http://www.weather.com/news/news/new-england-boston-record-snow-tracker Now, notice I said snow, and not rain? Hold on a sec: if we accept that greater percipitation is a outcome of GW(let's put aside AGW, for obvious reasons, right now), AND, we accept that the planet is getting warmer, shouldn't Boston be getting hit with record rain, not snow? This also speaks to the Arctic vs. Antarctic issue from the link above as well: If we accept the premise in the link that GW means cooler in some places and hotter in others? (Which is weird, because until the article above, I have NEVER seen GW presented in this light by any government agency. It's always been GW == hotter in ALL places, all the time.) Then how can we expect to make any reasonable predictions about catastrophic outcomes anywhere on the planet, and have those predictions fulfilled by anything, other than random chance? This Bay Nobody Cares about with its low pressure system crap? WTF? It's colder, over an entire continent, than expected, moron. I can make up random weather patterns, and have them do whatever I "predict" they will as well. There's a game that does it: Elements of War Nobody predicted the Antarctic ice record. In the article above, Dr. Semantics tries to play it off, but there's no way they "expected" the Antarctic ice record. (Once again I direct you all to: behavior). Read the quote a few times: get it? She passes in the word "expected" but never cites the source of that expectation. We'd call that passing an empty variable, so you an slide by your unit tests. Given all of this, how can anyone reasonably predict 3 feet of water in NYC in 2016? Or, for that matter, endless drought in California? I could just as easily "predict" 3 feet of snow in California, using the same premises/assertions and parameters established in both articles, and my prediction has the same propensity to occur as any other. So WTF? I'll tell you: We're back to a problem definition. Sorry, the inconvenient truth here is: we have no idea what to expect, largely because we have very little understanding of what is actually happening, to include whether man is causing this(in part or in total), and especially, if he isn't, whether man can do anything whatsovever to prevent/mitigate it(in part or in total). Hence, ALL the policy(carbon credits, Solyndra, crushing the coal industry, etc.) is based on nothing other than "because I said so". Which.....is par for the course for essentially every major leftist idea in this century and the last. Example: People bitched about Viet Nam and Iraq...but the War on Poverty has been going on 5x longer, and has 50x the casualties. The War on Poverty has never been won, because of piss poor problem definition, and therefore, piss poor solutions. Here's help for all you jr. problem solvers out there: we don't start proposing solutions to problems, until we have defined them fully and properly. So, don't tell me anything more about solar and wind and tax credits....until you can clearly define exactly what the F the problems are, in detail. Both articles make it abundantly clear that the "consensus" cannot do that. As I said above: it's far past time for the scientists to get back to working, and cease talking. And it's time for the leftist politicos to STFU about this issue until the problem has been soundly defined as a result of that work.

Willy Wonka: The notion that heavy snow causing chaos....was portrayed as a "prediction" 10 years ago...is hilarious to anyone from WNY. 100/100(who am I kidding? It's more like 3456/3456) times in my lifetime, heavy snow has caused chaos. Only an unmitigated moron would make such a "prediction". To make it simple: how many people now own a generator in WNY due to the October Surprise Ice Hell? A real prediction would be: "heavy snow in Buffalo will cease 10 years from now, if we don't do something about GW". But, not even these clowns had the stones to make that call. Hottest(actually that is a concotion based on retrofitting historical data, especially from the 70s) year on record: utter crap. In fact: here you go We're back to 1936. 1936 as the hottest month on record. So, whoever "they" are? One thing is certain, they are basing their entire argument on the activities of people who got caught intentionally fudging the data, and now they've changed it back. Period. Paragraph. Page. End of story. How about that for a "political point"? Why the F is the NOAA screwing with data? Especially when one cosiders that the original, non-fudged data was used to supposedly "settle" the science on this issue in the first place? As I've said over and over: forget the "you/I/we are not a climate experts" argument. Their BEHAVIOR/time has rendered that point worthless. You don't need to be a scientist to recognize this behavior for what it is, correct? I see 3 possible explanations for F'ing with "settled" data, and then changing it back: 1. Political Agenda 2. Political Agenda 3. Political Agenda The entire notion of "hottest on record" is now, due to the behavior of the usual suspects, in and of itself: a political point. I didn't do that. They did. Don't need to be a scientist/have a background/whatever to figure that one out either. You're a lawyer. This walks like a duck.

And if that ever gets old you can go with "...son's....heeeeeeeeeeeeering bone." Except in this instance, when publicity has no value whatsoever. It's like Cuba getting bad publicity for their "everybody gets a new pot" economic plan. If you're Cuban? In the end, you either take the pot, or you don't. WGR could do 0 appearances and no advertising for years. WGR could crap on both teams constantly(oh...wait)...and we'd still listen because we know that it's the only place we can get Bills info. If you're a Bills/Sabres fan? In the end, you either take WGR, or you don't. It's not like ESPN is worth a damn. It used to be about the bias towards big market teams. Now? It's about injecting PC stories wherever they can find them, and demanding "apologies" from anyone who crosses their imposed "line". And if not, spending hours discussing who does/does not have to apologize. Yellow journalism? Hell ESPN is now muck raking. ESPN will spend 100 minutes on Michael Sam or Tim Tebow for every 1 minute they spend analyzing football plays. NFL network was OK, but now they are headed in that same direction. Our current choice: listen to WGR or go without. Thus, we are left with attempting to condition their behavior with threads like this. What other recourse do we have?

...because I am snowed in, I think of all of the promises that were made about snow, and it going away, never to return. I know there's a thread about the hoax. However, I want to focus attention on the very specific promises that were made years ago, and how many of their deadlines have passed/are about to pass. There is of course the famous Rush Limbaugh/Al Gore countdown clock(which is probably where Olberman got his idea for his show) that has been running since 2006: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algore_we_have_ten_years_left_before_earth_cooks In less than a year, the ass falls out of Al Gore's prediction. This is not some obscure kook scientist we don't know. This is a former VP of the USA talking about US policy, that must be implemented to avoid catastrophe. If Brian Williams gets 6 months for his delusions of grandeur? What does Al Gore get? And of course there's the hilariously famous "children just aren't going to know what snow is" from 2000: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html This one is fun because at the end it has "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time". When doesn't heavy snow cause chaos? Or, in other words: There's the skiing in Scotland that was forever at an end: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland Hint: any time you see "theguardian" in a link? Prepare for bias and/or BS. 10 years ago? Scottish skiing was done? Well, I think not: http://ski.visitscotland.com/conditions/ Read it and weep, clowns. You get the idea. And now? Since the snow predictions have all failed? Let's invoke "The Grapes of Wrath"! 'Generation Long Dust Bowl' for 35 damn years! They can't get it done with snow, so, they try to tell us deserts are going to be dry. I mean, after all, you're much more likely to be at least in the ball park when you say a desert is going to be a desert, right? No annoying accumulations of desert to contend with, only "Look, 20 years later and it's still a desert! See?".

I am honestly encouraged by your excitement. However, I have been hearing the word "exited" from health care people for so long... Demonstrations? No. The very last health care trade show we went to, we shut it down. Everybody was in front of our booth/no one could walk by/pissed off the association people. Something that attracts every health care worker at their show, is somehow a "problem" for the health care association people. Isn't showing health care workers the best stuff the entire F'ing point of the exercise? We were told we have to pay 5x the fee and buy the biggest space if we show up again. And you wonder why I say health care is largely comprised of unmitigated morons? The last demo I did was for the VA. 8 years ago I spent 2 months working on a proposal, and a damn good plan, that would have prevented 60-70% of the recent VA scandal for sure, and possibly all of it. They acknowledged my work and our gear as "far and away the best presentation and software they've ever seen in their careers/exactly what we need", but said "they weren't ready for it." How are you not ready for...exactly what you need? Apparently they were more ready to see those guys die/denied care instead. And you wonder why I say health care is largely comprised of unmitigated morons? We have been "invested" in 4 times. 2 times the guy was a liar and we only saw a small amount of the promised funds. One of them went to federal prison. Another time the guy did fund us for a year, but, then put all his $ into one stock and it tanked. One time the Chairman of Columbia Presbyterian said "I want this fully funded, tomorrow"...and then got into a pissing contest with his employees...total waste of time, and they offered us a poison pill-laden deal. None of these include the rip-off offers I've turned down. For lack of a better explanation, it seems this stuff is "too good", in that it elicits greed...and eyeballs widen that wouldn't if it were merely some dopey "wellness app". Thus, I've had to start this company all over again 4 times...and you wonder why I can be a bitter bastard? No. We've done far better with a small group, word of mouth, no sales, no marketing, just us picking our clients carefully. No more demos. No more shows. No more health care investors. I lost my, legendary, patience years go. However, we will never reach everybody this way, and we can't grow this way. So, as I said above, this is our new health care approach(as far a you are currently concerned): I am going to PM you a link. You are going to click on it, and doing so will give you free access to your own solution framework for the rest of your natural life. You will learn by doing. No training. Think: You build what you want. Training on what? But, there are questions, and answers, however, and we use the "cookbook" approach. You get the cookbook, and you can add your own recipes, and read other people's. Solution framework means you can make as many "apps"(not what they are, but whatever) as you want, and have as many users as you want use them. Great care has been taken to make it workable for those with an 8th grade education. We literally involved 7th and 8th graders(damn, shoulda got Crayonz for that). Thus, an MD should be able to accomplish a great deal with it. Despite your personal deficiencies...like thinking squash is important...you do care a great deal about making things better. Once empowered, you can make a whole lot of things better, but it's easy, and easier, to enlist help. Your team of doctors can divide the work and build yourselves quite a system in no time at all. That is the collectivist nature of this software. But remember: every other health care worker, even a lowly nurse aid, is allowed, and encouraged, to do better than you. Best ideas win, because nobody, not even I, can stop them from being posted to the community. If your office secretary builds a system that is better for you than your team of MD's? Don't be fools: use hers. That is the individualist nature of this software. If you put reasonable effort in (half hour a day for 2 weeks), you'll get far more than you expect out....and you're only getting about 40% of our total functionality. The rest(like integration and advanced workflow/analytics) requires our time, and that costs. How much depends on how much. This is the way it is, and as you can see, it is this way because of you, and not me.

Neither. Think of it this way: that engine is one of infinite components that can be integrated/packaged and used to flow data into our core. Around he edges of that core, we have not-our software that does some of the things we need, like integration, but, our core was designed and coded from scratch by me. The other reason we use tools like this is to expand the possible # of people who can control the system, and allow for DIY configuration/client specific one-offs, etc. If we caught a requirement that said we needed ABBYY input, we'd handle it via the (not our) integration tool, and flow the data into our core that way. But, even in a perfect ABBYY world, not all of the data that needs to be recorded can be. Housekeepers don't do much dictation. Neither do janitors, and in most places? You don't want them to, because "English bad". So in most cases we have a mix of software/devices in play. Yes, I did. Our core is an entirely original set of concepts created by me/designed by me/coded by me. It's a complete departure from all software design (I am aware of) in place today. I have broken rule after rule because my experience has proven that most "rules" are more about making money/life easier for IT people, and less about producing better software/solutions. Or, these "rules" represent the extent of somebody else's understanding/ability to perceive the problem. Often their "rules" are their best effort, but in reality? They are simply make-believe. Example: Ruby on Rails and their Convention vs.(over) Configuration nonsense. Pretending these two things exist at opposite ends of a line, and thus the closer you get to one, the more you give up the other? Make-believe. Understand, the potential problems are real. But this definition of them, misconstrues their nature, and using these made up "rules"? That's a child's understanding. The very existence of McDonald's disproves this notion, and I can go through that if required. These 2 concepts are only intrinsically linked in the minds of Slicon Valley morons who spout CoC, while they eat McDonalds. They are literally eating their own contradiction, and you know how much I love stuff like that. This is one example of how we blow by the nonsense, and that my work is indeed original thinking. There are many. 1. You will get it for free. 2. You will see. 3. You will see because I know why EHRs have failed. We do not fail. Not because we are smarter or whatever, it's merely because we build systems properly. EHRs were, and remain, misguided, because they continue to be about replacing paper/redoing paper systems in electronic format(for reasons passing all understanding), and have never been about building a system, properly, from scratch as a system. Every single one, and I've seen ~150 of them now, all started with replacing some dumbass Ph.D RN's/MDs paper system. What you get out of that approach...is exactly what you've got: crap. See? That is the EHR problem defined. Bad approach, taken by incompetents, who don't know how/care to learn how to do this job properly, who just wanted to start writing code, and replace the paper because: quick money. That's how we got here. I can tell you more about this if you care. If not, then merely understand that our design is, in every way, the diametric opposite of an EHR. This action? Not for you. But, they do have bingo down the hall....there you go... You know why it's colder? Climate Chaos. (That's the new thing....chaos). I mean, straight out of Hollywood: "Nah, it can't be Indiana Jones and the Temple of Relatively Scary,,,you know, in comparison, to other temples. No, I have it! The Temple of.....Dooooooooom! Hooray. Write that one down!" I would love to find my way onto that show in some capacity just to crush that turd and his audience. And I'd have one of my people record the whole thing(i mean it's not like we don't know how to get that done), so even if they did edit it? We'd throw it up on youtube as is. This is similar to Tom Clancy's solution to what needed to be done with a bunch of eco-terrorists at the end of one of his books. Took them all, stripped them naked, left them in the Amazon jungle. Observed from space. They were all dead in 2 weeks(IIRC). But Clancy's is superior in one key way: you leave these people amongst us. That makes for some smelly pie-holes, and other....holes... I mean, indoor plumbing sans electronic pump only goes so far, I mean, it's not like we can expect these people to possess the engineering skill required to create some sort of personal aqueduct/water tower right? And, by your rules, if the city uses electricity to pump water to them, they can't use it. So, if we are gonna go through with this, let's not keep this mange-ridden, foul-smelling around. Let's at least put them somewhere....down wind. Might as well go the whole hog: the government owns whole swaths of land in the midwest. Carve out half of Nebraska or whatever, call is CrunchyLand and dump their asses there.