OCinBuffalo

And if you believe that The Dean just randomly showed up for a thread like this? You don't know the 1st thing about this fracking board.

Thus, you have completely missed the point. Yes, thank you, I'm fully aware of the literal interpretation of the rules, hence the disclaimer. I suppose if I hadn't added it, and hadn't stated WHY I added it, you'd have a point. I did both, so you do not.

So, strike 2 on a substance...and now you are running to the mods? Who suggested they would bet on what Bulldog said? Me? Try again.

Yeah, reading comprehension? Not your strength. Neither is distorting what I did say. Do you really think this distortion is going to fly? Here's what I did say: 1. Fracking has 0 implications, political or otherwise, for Terry Pegula, owner of Buffalo Sabres and Buffalo Bills. 2. Raising it: is a weak-ass attempt to spread FUD. Listen to what he said at my link: fracking came in out of left field. You don't raise this issue by accident. You plan to raise this issue.

Yeah. Personal attacks are par for the course when you lack a substantive reply...on PPP. Not here. Either defend the notion that Terry Pegula's fracking activity "has political implications across New York State", and could affect his Bills ownership , or get out of my thread. So bet then. EDIT: Or, you can be wise, click here: http://audio.wgr550.com/a/95094624/7-30-schopp-the-bulldog-hr-3.htm and listen at 12:40. I'm only giving you the answer...because I respect you as football poster, and, because you're honest. I encourage you to listen maybe starting around 10:00, and see, that even given a boatload of "context", these fracking comments were political, and were from left field. That is, if you're honest.

Bulldog's words were clear. Kelly, you of all posters should know that above all, precision is what I do. You admit to knowing nothing about this, yet you wanna make bets? OK. 100 naked pushups on youtube....says Bulldog specifically said what I wrote above. Your options: take that bet, or, wait for me to post the transcript(that you should know I already have, right?....lying in wait for the leftist hack who denies what Bulldog said? Did you forget how this works? ) Come on, you should know better.

DISCLAIMER: One could call this is a political post, and, we have rules about not posting PPP stuff on the football board. I acknowledge that. However, Bulldog broke that rule with his comments today, via his fact-free "concerns" regarding Terry Pegula's fitness to own the Bills. I am responding to political hack comments made today, in the football forum, because that's precisely the forum where they were made. If we are going to talk about Pegula's fitness to own the Bills, using nonsensical, fact-free, leftist affectation, as our basis, then I am going to respond to it as such. That is the point of putting this on the football board. Feel free to move this to PPP, but let's also understand: I didn't cross the line. Bulldog did. I am merely responding in kind. On to the retredded Bulldog comments: There is no basis in reality for the assumption that "Terry Pegula making his $ in fracking, has political implications in NYS, that could affect his ownership, and thus, the team". This is patently retarded. Largely because: Bulldog never stated what those implications are. Largely because: they only exist in Bulldog's addled brain. What are they Bulldog? "You don't like fracking", is not a political implication. What are the, real, not make-believe, political consequences for Terry Pegula, extended to his ownership of the Bills, because he made his money in fracking? What makes Bulldog think he, or any leftist hack, can lay a glove on Terry Pegula, ESPECIALLY if he buys the Bills? Are you and the other leftist hacks who live in the cities of NY, going to actually DO something that hurts Pegula, and by proxy, the Bills? What exactly? Make a speech? Sit between 2 ferns? More pajamadouche? What a surprise that the leftist city people of NYS, like Bulldog, who don't stand to benefit economically, or personally, (recent polling here: http://www.capitalne...-split-fracking) are against fracking. There isn't even a real majority on this issue, in a state whose population is dominated by city-dwellers, and routinely votes Blue. Meanwhile, the leftist agenda is being roundly rejected in this entire country. Which is sorta important, since: Pegula does his thing all over the country, not just in NY. Country-wide, the left is rapidly descending into joke status, and so is opposition to fracking. Thus, why should any of us, never mind a guy with Pegula's resources, be afraid of the left, on any subject, including fracking? In closing, do you know what this is? We call this FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. Spreading FUD is how one IT firm tries to talk schit about another one, that they can't beat straight up. This old, largely abandoned, IT tactic is being applied by Bulldog now. I have news Bulldog: spreading FUD about Terry Pegula possibly having a political problem, due to fracking, isn't going to work. It's gong to get you laughed at, like you see me doing right here, right now! :lol: :lol: You want to try your hand with PPP stuff? I dare you to sign up here, and post something on PPP. We shall tear you apart. Otherwise, keep your nonsensical, rapidly FAILing political agenda the F out of our sports coverage.

Once again we see that Mike Schopp sucks at "analytics", even though he now portrays himself as Mr. Quantifiable. The above is OK....but incomplete. And really, basing our analysis on this alone is doing it wrong. Sorry, but it is. If we are going to do analyses, and draw conclusions from them? How about we do the analyses properly? I shall. A real analytics expert, (um, I wonder who that could be?) would recognize that we must study, yes, the existence of a condition, but also, its non-existence, when attempting to identify a pattern. In other words: only looking at road wins against playoff teams, by definition, ignores the definitive relationship between beating another team, and in doing so, keeping them from the playoffs. Yeah, think about it. Be the opposite of Schopp. Don't begin with a premise/agenda. Let the patterns come to you. I'll help. When we beat another team, 100% of the time we lower their chances of making the playoffs, unless they have already qualified. If teams have already qualified, us beating them has 0 effect on their chances to make the playoffs. They already have. No. The real cause/effect here is teams that make the playoffs because they beat us, and, don't make the playoffs because we beat them. Teams rarely qualify for the playoffs by the 12th game on their schedule. Therefore, in a normal distribution, for at least 75% of the games played, each Bills win negatively affects the playoff chances of each team. (And each Bills loss helps them, of course.) If we are doing proper analysis, we'd be comparing helping to hurting in terms of relevance/chances. Let's do it properly. Properly: Only looking at road wins against playoff teams...is essentially only looking at 25% of the picture. You're only looking at Case 1. The other parts of this quadrant: Case 2. road losses against playoff teams Case 3. road wins against non-playoff teams Case 4. road losses against non-playoff teams (And really, we need to add 4 more cases for home, because a win is a win, and so is a loss, for our purposes) 1 and 4 are the least relevant to our analyses. Why? Because, with Case 1, the other team made the playoffs despite losing to us. So, losing to us, in the overall schema, is by definition less relevant. And, with 4, despite beating us, the other team still didn't make the playoffs. Their win, in the overall schema, is less relevant. Actually, you could consider 1 and 4 to be totally irrelevant, for this purpose. No: if we are looking to determine "quality/relevance of Bills win/loss", Cases 2 and 3 is where we need to place our focus. How many of our losses helped the other team make it, how many of our wins kept the other team from making it? The job is to figure out the # of games distributed to each quadrant, and weighting down the games where, regardless of outcome, the other team was going make/miss the playoffs, or throwing those games out completely. Ideally you want to do both, and run the #s for both weighting and chucking those games, to see if there's a real deviation. Then, you can do a % of relevant wins/losses, and that will give you the answers we are after here. Real World: In no uncertain terms: we played a significant(in every way) role in keeping Miami OUT of the playoffs last year. They had a higher than average propensity to make the playoffs throughout the season based on who they beat, but, first we beat them on the road, which lowered their chances, THEN, we beat them at home, which devastated their chances. On the whole, the 1st win had the same effect as the 2nd. However, in terms of odds, the 2nd was devastating. Miami had less chances to make the playoffs as the end of the season approached. There's math, and then, there's psychology. In terms of math, over the entire season, both wins had the same effect. In terms of psychology, Miami got destroyed by the Jets the subsequent weekend, because due to their loss to the Bills, they lost the chance to control their own destiny. Once again: there's a difference between good analysis and bad, and it comes down to familiarity with the material/competence.

Right on. If this is hockey, we have just gone through a 3 year rebuild....and before our new team even hits the ice for the first game? We're sellers. Now, nevermind before the deadline. "Trade/cut everybody, there's no point in even playing the games this season. Todd McShay said EJ was a wasted pick, and he knows things, and I like carrying water for ESPN hacks, so...we need to find a new QB". Don't you at least have to allow the rebuilt team 1 year to play, before you blow it up? Since when does 3/15 recent rookie QBs being instantly successful, against the legions that haven't been over the course of the last 20 years, suffice as a "trend", that all NFL teams must now follow in lockstep? WTF is this absurdity? This board has been batshit crazy this week. Examples of batshit crazy: "Let's trade CJ...in a contract year! We'll get a 1 for a RB! Smart move! And damned counterintuitive, since the entire league refused to spend a 1 on RB this draft. They are bound to want to spend one next draft! But even better, why wait? Who wants to spend that 1 on a RB right now?" "We traded away a chance at drafting a better QB than EJ, by trading up for Sammy Watkins! We could have drafted a sure thing QB....from #s 12-25(ahem, our REALISITIC, because it is PROBABLE, draft position next year) in the draft! Because you know, the teams at #1-5 routinely let sure thing/better than EJ QBs go right by them! ) "Andre Reed says F Bon Jovi....but we'd rather talk about the other things he said...because they matter!" :wacko: I'll ask again: What in the Sam hell is happening here? My guess? This is what happens when Clown 1 and 2 at WGR are taken seriously.

Exactly. What the hell is going on this week? We have one obtuse assertion after the next. I'm really starting to get concerned.

Andre Reed comes out and blantantly says "F Bon Jovi"...and the "takeaway" is Reed having a good night out in Toronto one time? The man literally said: "F Bon Jovi". Hint: um, that is the story. That is the only story that matters, yet we are talking about some irrelevant night out in Toronto? What the Sam hell is going on here?

Yeah, you really want my attention. That's a good plan for you. Hehehe....yeah, now if only we could add some javascript to that tag, right? Then we could have some real fun with gatorman.

Hmm. That's a nice project for gatorman. I say we require him to do a report on the # of birds in the world. But why stop there? We should also require him to provide a detailed listing of the entire phylum. Then, he will finally have a single competency. Something he actually knows about. Something he actually knows better than the rest of us.

You're an unmitigated moron. I am specifically referring to what those soldiers, in those battles believed, not some dopey good vs. evil allegory. Did the Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, Jordanians and Syrians believe that they were really doing the right thing when they invaded Israel, all those times in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? Look at the results. Time after time, they were overconfident, due to their numbers, and, they knew they had no real pretext for war. Their war aim: extermination of the Jews. Look at the results: Time after time, their initial forces were annihilated, causing the rest to flee. Which, is basically the rinse and repeat history of the Arab at Holy War. No honest man can claim to support Jewish extermination as a war aim. That's what makes you a moron. My assertion is based on the fact that in most wars, both sides begin with mostly honest men in their ranks. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to recognize fighting for extermination as evil, and thus lowering morale, or fighting against it as righteous, thus raising morale. Morale is a very powerful thing. So powerful, that it can make the seemingly impossible happen. EDIT The Jihadi Martyrdom/Death Wish is a myth, on the battlefield. They always run when they are losing. They rarely stay and become martyrs. Why? Because they have no courage. Why? Because they have no self-respect. Why? Because mass murder, rapine, and destruction represents the ulimate loss of self-control, as a human being. Once again: Self-Control is the key element in self-repsect, and self-respect is the key element in courage. Now, you've been educated. Will you learn?

Um, not even close, there reading comprehension champ. I'm proving birdog wrong, I just quoted you because, I was already telling him what you said above. Moreover, I'm giving you credit for the Mongols thing, which I hadn't thought of the way you posted it....in the last, or was it the 2nd to last, thread about this. I specifically used the term "threat of certain annihilation". I also used the term "near annihilation". And, where I didn't modify, I spoke in context of battles, where the portion of the Muslim army that stood and fought, rather than run for their lives, was annihilated, over and over, by Polish Hussars. Once again, you've been educated. Will you learn? The point is: Muslim Jihadis have no Alamo. They have a long tradition of running away, hiding, converting, rejecting their certain place in heaven.... ....but only when faced with certain annihilation. In fact, historically, it's the only stimulus they respond to. EDIT: Think Saddam Hussein in the spider hole. EDIT: Muslim Jihadis also have a long tradition of having vastly superior numbers, but getting completely smoked, beyond all rational expectation. Just like in all the wars against Israel today. We can debate why, but I believe what is most likely to be true: those Muslim Jihadi armies always knew, deep down, that they weren't on the side of good. Meanwhile, the lesser forces fought brilliantly, and often times unbelievably. Why? Because they knew they were facing an evil that had to be eradicated. It's no different than Chamberlian defending Little Round Top. Having right on your side, and communicating that to your troops effectively, can turn a battle you are supposed to lose, decisively in your favor.

Of course not. That is one of the working parts of the political trap. IF they had forced ALL states to create exchanges, they would have trapped themselves politically: the Red States would howl about the expense, the government overreach, and on and on. Essentially they would have given the right a 2012 election-winning issue. They didn't want to take that risk, especially since the "public option" hand been roundly rejected by members of their own party, in the House and Senate, which they controlled. No. For the trap to work, it had to operate on the R governors making a choice: you either "give the people affordable access to health care" or, you suffer the political s-storm the Ds thought they could create. Turns out: the Rs scoffed at them, the people living in R states scoffed at them, and they've now created a s-storm for themselves, in the fact that they clearly can't make the system work as they designed it. That is the point: rather than making a working system, the created a political trap, first, which was also supposed to be capable of working. FAIL

And yet, we are supposed to believe that this...represented cleverness? You don't even due long post trolling properly.

Whelp? Now you know what's happening here. Yeah, Chairborne Rangers talking about what's what? I'm sure the front line troops totally give a frog's fat ass what the rear echelon has to say. You know, because front line troops always like to hear what the 3-star corporal, who runs the night shift at the laundry, and is therefore a "leader", thinks. In fact, if only we'd be more attentive to the guy who failed to qualify...in everything, we'd all be better off! This is moronic. The fact is that EVERYBODY serves in the reserves in Israel. Scraping together 51 people, out of the entire population, most of whom have never carried a rifle beyond basic, and have 0 first hand experience in dealing with the enemy, and their "tactics", or the realities of the war? Christ, how hard would it be to find 51 Bills fans who are for firing Doug Whaley immediately? What exactly does that prove? Other than we have 51 idiots in our fan base? Not much. This is flat out political propaganda, and it's not even very well done political propaganda. Only an idiot would link crap like this. Oh, I forgot, it's Joe again. Actually, no. This isn't true, and what a surprise that it comes, once again, from the poster most likely to be ignorant of his history. I can remember 3 separate posts in 3 separate threads, that you were in, where DC_Tom has talked about the Mongols, and their deep, ongoing effect on the Islamic psyche, due to actual, not attempted, annihilation. Oh...wait....see? This is what I get for not reading entirely through a thread first: So, once again you've been educated, yet you refuse to learn. Also, apparently you don't know much about Charles Martel. You don't know schit about Napoleon either. Worst of all, you don't know anything about, man for man, perhaps the greatest win/loss column warriors in history, these guys: http://veneremurcernui.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/husaria.jpg What did 200k Islamic Jihadis, after murdering 30k hostages, find out the hard way? It only took 20k Polish Hussars to turn their flank, and then spend the next year running them down like grass, nearly annihilating all 200k of them. Every time, the Poles were significantly outnumbered, yet annihilated their enemy. The Polish Hussar didn't talk to them, he didn't negotiate, he didn't give grand speeches to other countries, he didn't talk about leadership, rather than actually leading. He annihilated Muslims, 10ks at a time. They got the message, and never returned to Central Europe again. In fact, this was the beginning of their end, and eventually led to their colonization/domination by the British, French, and Russians. But, please, tell me again how, historically, Muslims have ever responded to anything other than threat of certain annihilation. The only think fake here is an religious wingnut pretending he isn't a religious wingnut. These people are playing PR games, because it's finally dawned on them that the American People, regardless of who is president, aren't ever going to side with wingnuts, or wingnuttery. So, they are trying to modulate their message, make it sound less wingnutted. It remains to be seen of we are dumb enough to fall for modulated wingnuttery. Certainly Kerry and Obama are.

Almost 2 weeks and Not-Crayonz has nothing. Looks like, once again, the bar is set too high for this poster, even when they set it themselves. Not-crayonz: I'll save you the struggle of trying to create a profile/reasons why I am posting this(or whatevertheF you are babbling about) I am making fun of you. Largely because it's hilarious, for me. Also because it's fun to watch you try and operate at a level that, as you've demonstrated yet again, is beyond your capability.

Of course there's nothing new on this. It has ceased to have co-opting PR value. In other words, if People magazine/TMZ sees no value, then neither do the Obamas. Besides the last thing Obama wants right now is another Muslim terrorist story. Especially one they can't turn into a "Look at my courageous stance! With no fear at all, I'm saying I'm against it!" story. Obama has made his "courageous stance" known to the world, and has both self-congratulated, and taken the congratulation from the Hollywood Delta Bravos, at the last fund raiser. There's no place left to go on this. Lord knows he isn't actually going to do something. However, if something covert is going on, and it succeeds? Obama will swoop in at the last minute and feign like he personally planned the operation, and didn't make them jump through unnecessary hoops solely to protect his own behind, just like last time. Basically, there's about a 5% chance these girls don't turn up dead/mutilated. But, by all means, let's hear about the "war on women" again!

Hmm. So I guess I'm the only one who sees the irony in talking about "examining things over a wider time frame", and then, immediately following that sentence with comparing data from one year to the next? Unmitigated moron. Do these people ever think anything through before they say it? Are any of these people capable of proper statistical analysis...unsupervised? The simple fact is: IF liberals were right about any of this, then, the strictest gun laws in the country should have cut gun deaths(over a wide-r? time frame ) year in and year out. If we "widen the time frame" to include the all the years these gun laws have been in place? We should easily be expecting 20 gun homicides per year at most, not 196. Year after year, if working as advertised, these Chicago gun laws should be be "getting the guns off the street" by preventing the new sale of guns, and reducing their # by attrition, if nothing else. But, that would require liberal gun laws to actually be effective. Clearly, by "widening the time frame", they are not. The gun laws are in place because: they are supposed to be preventing 196, or 185, gun deaths in Chicago. They are the "solution" to the "gun problem". Some "solution". Oh I already know the liberal(since we aren't saying progressive anymore) excuse: "but..but..but...the criminals are bringing in guns from other states!" Yes, shitheel. And what about that was ever going to change, by you passing tougher gun laws in Chicago? Hey Joe? When do we end this farce, and begin a real, actual solution to the people problem in Chicago?

I was going to say "I hate to pile on TJ Graham, but", but , I just realized, I don't hate doing that at all. Enough is enough. TJ should be in the first round of cuts. That's the class/Bills thing to do. And, once again, thanks Astro. I look forward to these camp reports every year.

This thread is also retredded.

Look for a coupon. Last year I got it for $15.

Facts? Please. Watch the games. And, this contex is in terms of "EJ being OK". How many of the games you're referring to did EJ start? Go back and watch the Cinncinnati game from last year. This was the turning point. I was there and my killer seats allowed me to see this up close and personal. Case in point. The secondary started the game horribly. It was the Gilmore, "don't touch my club hand/1st quarter/death by screen pass" game. As per my exact description above, they took an early lead, and that lead got bigger because we couldn't stop their passing. Then, as the game went on, the secondary got their feet under them, they started making plays. Gilmore got better by the series. Suddenly they stopped scoring, and we came back. Why? Because we stopped their O from making plays, which allowed our O more chances. With those extra chances, it went into OT. No way we come back if the secondary doesn't fix itself. Off hand, IIRC, I believe this is also the game where Robey took over for Rogers and/or Williams was moved to CB to take over. Meanwhile, the entire game, the O line didn't play any worse, or any better. The O line's play was practically irrelevant, in terms of "difference in the game". No. The main difference was the play of the secondary. Now, watch the Miami game. This was the point where the secondary hit top level performance. Miami literally couldn't throw the ball to anyone, because they were covered, and/or the #1 and #2 guys were covered, which, in terms of Tannehill, might as well mean we are playing with 20 guys in the backfield. This lead to sack after sack, and picks. Watch the games. Please spare the me the "facts".