OCinBuffalo

I would love to invent one, just so I could warp around the solar system, collect temperature readings of all the moons/planets for 6 months, post my data that shows them cooling...and troll the hell out of people by claiming that my science is settled. See? What did I say would happen back in 2008? The above. Literally. I bet this was tantamount to a reflexive response for Koko78. That's what Obama et al has accomplished: people don't even care what they say, they are automatically going to characterize it as "war on women"/"racist"/"obstructionist" and ignore them. You go to any comments section of any online article, and you will see the same auto-response. This is what happens when you overplay so many hands. Nobody takes you seriously, therefore, everybody calls you on every hand. Pretty soon the "re-raising" is going to start, if it hasn't already. They have literally destroyed "racism" "sexism" as charges that will stick. And to their chagrin: you have to be the Clipper's owner, for anyone to take you seriously as a racist. The KKK/Nazis(all 3 of them) must be pissed: they have to up their game, because they can't even get on the front page anymore. The real question: what does embiggen mean? Don't say that in the shout box...big tears will flow, and you'll have to sit through a boring lecture as to why "we don't say retarded" anymore. Then, you can remind them of Rahm Emanuel....which is fun...but only for a minute. Not worth the lecture time.

Dude, I'm on the road a lot. Thing have calmed down some, but, I'm moving again. In all cases, people are F'ing high if they think I will respond to them in terms of snail mail. So, no, this isn't even close to unreasonable.

That last one seals the deal: Jay Carney went out and flat out lied about Cinncinnati. There's no other reasonable explanation than that. The other thing? Why even have a Congressional process....when you can just FOIA your way into getting all the documents, post them on the Internet, and have B-Man provide handy links to them? Hell, at this rate, all we need to do is provide our own popcorn, sit back and watch re-runs of the daily Jay Carney press conferences. Beats the F out of regular TV.

Patrick Stewart. He did a fine job of helping to raise me. Especially the part when I realized his character was mostly phony-baloney liberal platitude-based tripe. But, before that, I was greatly comforted by Captain Picard "knowing" what was best for me, Earth, the Federation, and the Alpha Quadrant as a whole.

That's what I thought the other day: What if this was Laura Bush? You know damn well she'd all over George at dinner, but only when everybody else was away. She wouldn't be grandstanding on twitter, while her husband, once again, did nothing. Because those pussies are just a bunch of regular people, none of whom have the power that the first lady does? None of whom are married to a guy that, if he had any balls at all, and wasn't tied to an agenda that makes it impossible to do anything that has the slightest chance of being perceived as "anti-Muslim", would actually send some real troops in to stablize things? That's what this is: the absence of real foreign policy, replaced with "regular guy" foreign policy. Hint: We don't elect presidents to be "regular guys" when they get into the WH. We don't elect "regular guys" to be beholden to the faculty lounge at Harvard. Boy you are dead on here. And, rest assured....I have a whole plan to counter this nonsense(absolutely selfie-centered) since January. I plan to share some of my, redacted, work product here. There will be girls who tend to do as I ask, along with cavalcade other peformers. That is all for now. "You don't go looking for a job dressed like that, do you? On a weekday?" Oh, Jesus. Half of the damn posters here today "made the same difference" you did back in 2009 It's simply inaccurate to claim you are the only one who has made a difference here.

See how wonderful the 2010s are? Everybody gets a helmet! We'd could have had this in the 90s, if Reagan didn't get rid of my wage/price controls!

You will soon find out: like's got nothing to do with this. I like Jauronimo....but that doesn't mean I won't use him, like I did in that thread, to draw out the phony "Look at me! I'm so morally superior! I support gay marriage!" clowns. And why? For the lulz. We get enough phony watching 1 hour of news. We don't need it here. Dis is teh interwebs. We is smartz.

Yes, and it's "conspiratorial" to suggest that Union members work together, for the purposes of receiving a pay increase. How popular is the one guy who stands up at the union meeting, and suggests that they don't have their facts straight, that their demands might put the company out of business, and/or that they haven't made a convincing case for higher wages? A group of people, acting in shared self-interest...is an impossible to imagine phenomenon? Therefore, it must be "conspiratorial"? It's as I've said: the only people they are fooling is themselves. The best is that they think this is still 2006, and that the soccer moms believe them. EDIT: Oh yeah, and: The French! :lol: 500 days? At least ALGORE did his predicting over 10 years(which by the way, the bill comes due on that in 2016).

Ah...fresh PPP meat! Welcome to the suck(and troll, and suck, and troll). It would be a great idea...but it's dependent on 2 things: 1. Like every other app, (or, like every thread here)the knowledge/intelligence of the user. 2. Whether said "simple and concise view" is actually accurate or, biased crap. The better way to do it: 2 simple and concise views, one for both sides, provided that they exist...and one party isn't playing politics with their side of the issue. In that case, it's 1 simple and concise view, and one "assclowns". Also....does this app have a Harry Reid feature? What exactly is the "simple and concise" view of taking 0 bills from the House up for a vote, never mind sending any of them to comittee? Frankly: This app won't be able to operate as designed, until Harry Reid is no longer in control of the Senate.

Yeah, the math/methodology most likely doesn't support rating Kiko as "good starter". Although, outliers do happen. Most likely: This is a case where the method reveals all. Consider: why 8 categories? 8 Categories was chosen because a significant # of players are distinctly "better" than "good", and then "elite", and then "worse" than "average", with some being unknown/injured/rookie = the bell curve is flatter than with a normal distribution. If the bell was weighted heavily towards average: then why 8 categories? Why not 4: good, average, bad, unknown? Or, why use "elite" and "poor"...when what we are really talking about is "shades of average", none of which are "good", or "bad"? Thus, it's safe to assume that "elite" includes 100 players at least, in a domain of 1696(53*32). Perhaps more like 150-200 given that the observations are consistent, and the are collected consistently. This is KEY: "elite" players routinely have bad games. If "elite" is an objective, but, relative(which it is) standard? Bad games, pushes the line for "elite" down, such that more players are considered "elite". That's why 150 "elite" players is more likely than 50. Kiko is easily on that list of 150. So, his ranking is an aberration, or just an outlier, but, probably reveals an error in measurement/data collection. No. What's getting worse is: hacks trying to do my job, who have neither the intelligence(can't teach it), education, or experience to execute it properly. It's like with anything else: somebody(like Football Outsiders) actually puts out a rigorous effort, gains notoriety with it, and then 100 somebody elses decide to rush into the market and grab a piece of the action. The copycats are the problem. But, not every copy cat is a problem either. There's nothing wrong with PFF's methodology, except one thing: it relies on the subjective opinion of the guys that watch the game. Now, in one sense, that is no problem, if that subjective opinion is applied consistently to all teams. (Example: strike zone for a good umpire) It's a bias, but, it's a meaningless bias, because all our results contain the same exact bias...so the relationships/patterns we may observe, are preserved. However, when it comes to the Bills, the subjective opinion, if it changes(which it routinely does for most football aware people, and this is not malice, usually, it's merely human nature), is not applied equally, and so, the real bias becomes meaningful. (Example: the strike zone gets bigger/smaller). The way to fix this? Test the observers to identify team to team bias. Kick the team-biased observers to the curb. Also, obfuscate the team colors and chop off the helmets, on the film that is reviewed. Make sure nobody reviews the same team over and over, by randomizing who they watch each week.

Which is why I find myself, both here and at work, saying the same things over and over: "Analytics can only ever be as good as the raw data collected, and the busines rules(algorithms, etc.) applied." "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it." "If you go looking for something using analytics, you're probably going to find it, and you're doing it wrong. Analytics is about letting the patterns come to you." Which is really just saying: be competent and be objective. The other thing I say "If you give someone with an agenda, some high-powered software, and a few terrabytes of data? I wouldn't be surpised to wake up tomorrow and find out that: of all humans between the ages of 18-65, I have the highest propensity of causing Global Warming, Childhood Obesity, and Heart Disease." It's like the old saying about AI: "The problem is not whether computers think, but whether men do". So my modification: "The problem with Analytics is not whether computers analyze, but whether men allow them to."

Ah, and now, as I've described above, you've stepped in it. (Once again, I love it when a plan comes together. And, It's not like I didn't remind you not to F with me) The crux of the issue is: you belive you are allowed to "suggest" how other people are supposed to interpret the Bible. Thus, you have the power to take away their relgious freedom...because you've decided their interpretation isn't up to your standard. QED You believe that the more "observant" Christian's beliefs are inferior. As such, you have the right to denigrate them, and take away their rights to their beliefs. Your entire argument rests on: "You should listen to the part of the Bible, I JUDGE, to be acceptable, and ignore the parts I don't like". Whenever you get done talking, that is the unavoidable premise upon which you've built your argument, and, it's just as unavoidable as it is absurd.

Then you need to familiarize yourself with the Bible, because, when you complete that task, you'd know that Jesus, referring to gays as an "abomination" resides in the New Testament, not the Old. And, I used the word "observant" (actually, I edited my post, and purposely threw "observant" in there ) on purpose. (I love it when a plan comes together) That some Christians are "allowed" (by whom exactly, you?) to "observe" the Bible with an emphasis on the Golden Rule, with others taking a more literal approach...is precisely what "religious freedom" is all about. Your pals are free to interpret it the way they want. Exactly as free as others are to interpret it the way they want. The trouble here is when we decide that your pals are superior, and are entitled to be left alone, while the other Christians deserve to be called bigots, for merely following their conscience. See? It's that pesky Constitution thing again. If only we could get rid of it...like so many leftist professors want to do....

Ah, another mind reader. It's impossible for someone to not care, truly? It's impossible for someone to objectively view this as "not news"? Or, it's impossible for someone to have the same acumen at identifying phony "contrivance" as you, and respond to it, by saying "I don't care, because this is not news, this is contrived crap"? No. According to you: Everyone who comes to the same conclusion as you did, but you, are doing so because deep down, it bothers them? Do ya see what I'm doing in this thread yet? I'm not here because I hate gays. I'm here because I hate idiocy. What else should we call an argument, predicated on the ability to read minds, and, the contradiction that only you are able to see contrivance, where everybody else only sees "danger! FEAR!"....besides idiocy? Sorry, but I don't see another conclusion. Wrong. The polling is clear...of course, depending on who is doing it, and what kind of questions they pose. If they give you 2 choices: 1. "Gay Marriage" 2. "Gay people living as second class citizens" (Ahem, I'm looking at you: CBS and NBC) Then we learn nothing. If those are my only two choices? I choose the second. The next thing I do? Pick up rifle and rebel against the people who gave me ONLY those two choices...because I am living in Wonderland, not the USA, and the leaders there need to go. In fact, there's defensible, 50+% support for what I would call "solving the problem", not gay marriage. MOST people support some sort of solution to the problem that both respects religious freedom, AND, protects the rights of ALL, not just gay people. MOST people know that in 2014, we are perfectly capable of coming up with a workable solution, that achieves the goals...which is what they support. However, as in this thread: many people are not "problem solvers", like me. No. They are "problem extenders", because...EDIT: a list of stuff, which I cut out, because I don't want people crying PPP tears. (Largely because that list is dead on accurate, and therefore it twists panties) I think it's clear to anyone capable of paying attention, that problem extenders work at ESPN.

Oh horsecrap. You really think you can wiggle out of this? If I am the attention whore you say I am, then you know that's not going to happen. So, yet another contradiction in your "thinking". "Maybe you should do X"? ALWAYS means exactly what you intended it to mean: unequivocation. You want him to unequivocally follow the Bible...the parts you like...and ignore the parts you don't. And you just said that very thing again: How the F is any observant Christian supposed to do what you are asking? Answer: they cannot. That's why this is a F'ing setup and that's why your argument is phony. It's contradictory, and silly, but, mostly: it's phony. Yes you most certainly did introduce the Bible based on authority: Why the F else would you "suggest"(Pfft. Whatever) that he live by it? Do you do this at work? You: "Hey you should buy this stock over here...because I just randomly picked up a Chinese takeout menu off the street. I'm not suggesting the menu is authoritative, but, you should buy the stock because of this, anyway". Please. Stop wasting my time with your obfuscation, that is what you said, because that is what you meant.

Words mean things. You're using different words, that mean different things, now, than what you were using. That's the definition of "change". Oh let's just haul that post out shall we? "Maybe you should find"? Yeah, in ALL connotation, that is know as: Demanding. Or, it could be: requiring? At the very least: Requiring for the sake of argument. Fair enough? So for the sake of your, pathetic, argument, you are requiring that he have "compassion for ALL mankind" as opposed to not having it for "an estimated 10% of the population", or, only 90% of people. You are setting this requirement based on what exactly? The menu at Denny's? Mike Mayock's Mock Draft? Or....is it: the Bible. Yes. It's the Bible. You are requiring that this guy follow the Bible. I merely asked: what about the part of the Bible, which you say we should follow, that says gays=bad? Your whole point was to hold this guy accountable as a Christian/point out the contradiction in his behavior, unfortunately for you: you used your own contradiciton to do that. So, as I said: Try again.

Oh, I'm sure some of the aspiring totalitarians here could come up with plenty of irony, as I have already pointed out. I don't think they can come up with any useful ideas/solutions to this problem however, their agenda restricts their cognition, as I have also already pointed out.

Yeah...I made a bet with myself that this is exactly the response. How bad is it when I know what you're going to say and why, 3 posts ahead? It wouldn't be that this predictability comes from the fact that you have an agenda, and that following that agenda...and not the facts....SEVERELY restricts your options in an argument, such that what you're going to say next becomes easily known, would it? That's why I can keep busting you up: what I'm saying is based on logic, the English language, real morality, and God(or not-God) forbid: decency. Christ, I had what I was going to say next ready 3 days ago. How boring, for me. Oh well, let's do as you ask....Obtuse: Acknowledging that a sterotype exists...while propogating it, and also, denying that you are propogating it.... at the same time. That's exactly what you are doing, and see? Predictably: Obtuse. The ONLY thing you could possibly say to what I wrote was: "I'm only identifying a stereotype"....and hoping that I would let you slide on the "I'm propogating it" part. NOPE! Try again. Yeah, I've missed the point so much so that your response exactly tracks my post word for word? Sorry, not in this universe. Try again. You are speaking of the contradicitons within Christianity now? Ah, so we've gone from "Be like Jesus(but ignore what he says about gays)" to..."Christianity is damn confusing and contradictory"...in 1 post? Let me say that again: You went from demanding he "love his neighbor" which can only be taken as: assuming Christianity's virtue, such that behaving under it's tenets is preferable(especially when it comes to gay neighbors)....to now....demanding that he/I answer for Christianity's inconsistencies? Wait. which is it? Is "love thy neighbor" the goal, or, it is contradiction? Yet....I've missed the point? If me missing the point can cause this much disruption in your thinking from one post to the next...imagine what me hitting the point would do to you? Like I said: you know better than to F with me.

Yes, nothing like a clown laying out the arguments for tyranny. And then self-congratulating for being on the "right" side. You really don't understand equality, or liberty, at all, do you? I can imagine 30 years ago just fine: the great Liberal politician Daniel Moynihan (NY Senator) would be calling you and those who subscribe to your views out as phonies, tyrants, children, the worst sort of names...becaue you deny both free speech, AND, freedom of religion. You know: the 2 major tenets upon which liberalism was founded? Bill Maher said it best the other night: liberals don't stand up for liberalism anymore. Hmmmm....and what is the opposite of liberalism(not political party definition)....ah yes: totalitarianism. Totalitarian....that is precisely what your post above reflects, and NOTHING else. Why do I have to explain the difference between a spontaneous kiss in a pic, which was start/finished in an instant.... and the obviously contrived media event video, that was then promptly rolled out for clicks...like a youtube cat vid... to a person who works in Hollywood? Are you really that dim in your own field? Or, have I, yet again, caught you running the agenda? LOL! How did I miss the point? YOU demanded he follow Christian precepts....but only the ones you like. IF you demand that he follow Christianity, then abhoring homosexuality is his only recourse. But, you are trying to have it both ways: Be like Jesus...but don't listen to him? Clown. You should know better than to try and get this by in a thread I am in. You do know better. Unlike most here, you also know better than to F with me....but go right ahead....I am always entertained by the inferior trying to wiggle out of what they walked into. 1. There's plenty of other threads for you to move on to. 2. There's plenty of misguided people who need to understand they're being played, in this thread. 3. There's plenty of phonies for me to bash in this thread. You aren't interested in 2 and 3? Seek life elsewhere....because I plan on doing nothing but bashing phonies for as long as is necessary.

Not sure yet. I've already smacked down 2 nonsense arguments, and corrected a third that at least had some merit. I'm gonna read trough the rest of this, but, there's no guarantee that we have nowhere to go but phony or ignorant(or real, actual bigot) in this thread. I think he threw this one by you GreggyT. On purpose? Who knows? Lobbing it in for you: Not because of that. No. The end times, if they are upon us, are here because an entire, contrived "media event" can be planned and perpetrated on a whole bunch of dumbasses, who can't seem to recognize the phony for what it is. Are you really telling me that the media didn't have a daily meeting about "the Sam story" every single day for months, and 3 times a day the last week prior to the draft? You're a Hollywood guy...do you think a "show" isn't going on here? Do you really think that show wasn't planned and executed specifically by those with a "you will accept gays now, because you have no right to your own conscience" agenda? If we truly have that many people in this country who can't see what's under their nose? Then yeah, that's cause for more than a slight concern.

Yes, and there's a lot of people diagnosed with cerebal palsy that can't run. Great. You've proven nothing. Now, for all the people who don't have a medical condition that affects their feelings? What I wrote above remains 100% true. They can control how they feel. The liberal grievance culture is about as phony as it gets. Which...is precisely why you see me here, writing this. I detest phonies. For all the people who do have a medical condition? How they feel REMAINS out of my control, REMAINS not my responsibility, and REMAINS a presonal problem, that must be dealt with: personally. The point: we must not make laws/choose behavior based on "how someone feels". How they feel is their problem, not society's, wether it is a result of a medical issue or not, and the solution also belongs entirely to each individual. Oh please, and what of the part of the book that literally calls homosexuality an abomination? I love arguments that are predicated on holding Christians to some part of the Bible, in the most literal form, while others, which are incovenient for the argument, are left completely ignored. Once again, I exist in this thread to destroy specious/stupid arguments, and this one deserves attention. IF you want to use the Bible, use the whole thing.

What it comes down to is: are the 3 players(notice I didn't say picks...) that Cleveland/whoever will ultimately select with our picks...better than Watkins. Essentially: would you rather have those 3, or Watkins? The only way the Bills lose the trade? IF those three >Watkins. If they are =, or <, then the Bills win the trade, because if 1 player = 3? You make that trade 100% of the time. If you can put that much value into one player, on a roster of 11? You can always get people who are worth 1 player, in lots of places, the draft is just 1. You rarely get 1 player who is worth 3. RG3 is the perfect example: he is not worth the 5 players given up to get him. In fact, they need the 5 lost players to put around him now. Lost trade. (And really, other than Peyton Manning, who is worth 5 players?)

And I would be 100% behind this "wired" rhetoric(which is what it is...as it is not science, nor is it logic, as I will soon demonstrate).... ....if bisexual people didn't exist, and weren't demanding the same right to be "wired": to make a choice between sexes, routinely, they feel free to make. You can't have it both ways: if we are saying "some people are just wired the opposite", that's fine, that's out of their control, "they have no choice". But, if we are saying "people are wired however they say they are wired"? Then, that cannot be anything other than a choice. If we have no standard/it's all make up whatever you want, and then proceed to call that "having no choice"? Specious. Period. Again, I don't personally care, I just detest specious arguments, and that is a specious argument. We need better arguments than this, to fix this problem. With "fix this problem" = ensuring that no one is made inferior, by losing out on rights/equal protection. It's the same thing I've demonstrated with the pseudo-intellectual above: you can't put people like transient, who can't even get out of their own paragraph without confusion/contradiciton, in charge of this problem. EDIT: I am not behind doing anything about people that "feel inferior". I couldn't care less how people feel, because how they feel is literally their choice. Micheal Sam can choose to feel a number of different ways: happy to be drafted, pissed he didn't go earlier, etc., and that choice is 100% on him, and is not our responsibility. There's great power in the realization: how you feel is in 100% in your control. But, few people attain that realization. Most end up carrying a stupid set of feelings with them for most of their lives, not realizing that they can free themselves of them at any time. Yeah, and that's the end of it. But then, no, that is not ALL what many supporters, including some in this thread, are the saying. You are not free to start excoriating "those with disdain", by boycotting them, personally attack them, their job, their business...that is...if you ever want to have any hope of convincing them of anything. Apparently it is impossible for some to imagine: that "those with disdain", have that disdain, due to conscience and thoughful cosideration, and not merely becaue they are backward/unthinking/hateful. These dearly held religious beliefs are auto-inferior to secular/gay beliefs? Horsecrap. That is merely a value judgement, and therefore, by definiton, has nothing to do with morality. That is what "acceptance" can ONLY be about. You cannot FORCE acceptance. Only a Totalitarian (Fascist/Communist) thinks this is possible, and they delude themselves. We need to deal with everyone's beliefs on = terms, and form an argument that everyone can get behind. Each person must make the individual choice to accept Sam, or any gay person, all by themselves, and not because some tool is going to cause them harm if they don't. And, I should hope that: yeah, we are not accepting people because they are gay. Rather, we are refusing to not accept people because they are gay. I don't have to accept an a-hole, whether he is gay or not, and you cannot force me to do so. That's what we are are striving for here: the "a-hole standard". Accept the cool people, screw the a-holes... ...oh.... wait. (See? What a fine example of: having difficulty with what I "mean to say". )

I see. Your ignorance, and, yeah self-unawareness, is far more responsible for these silly posts than any sort of agenda. Ok. I'll spend more time on you then. Crusade? No. If you recall, this began with me replying to you. IF correcting idiocy, shaming ignorance, and calling out phonies...can be called a crusade? Then yeah, that's what I do here at TSW. You simply have no idea how obtuse/inconsistent/contradictory your posts are. That's because: you didn't think this through, did you? It's either that, or this is the very best thinking we can expect from you. Well, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean we should let it slide. See the trouble for you here is: I did think this through. Let me help you out: What you "meant to say" is much worse than what you said. Rather than "stupid", you meant to say: evil. Evil, as in: given 100 opportunities to bully someone/disparage gay people....most "frat boys", and by extension NFL players, will choose the affirmative 100 times. Think it through: You don't know that. You have NOTHING to back this up....other than your micro sample of, apparently, a-hole friends, who do make these decisions 100 out of 100 times, and are where your assessment comes from, since they both do, and do not, represent "frat boys" for you. Well, whatever is convenient at the time, right? The irony remains, whether you would have it or not, and you calling this "stereotypical" doesn't make it so. Absurd is the better description of your thinking here. IF I were to take your awful logic, and re-apply it with different parameters? That = me saying: "All gay people are going to be inappropriate and flamboyant in a locker room, because that's their stereotype". Both that argument, and yours, are = ridiculous, for the same reason: they presuppose behavior, and base that supposition on nothing. Oh, and you don't think my words are 100% applicable to your posts? You want an example of obtuse? Here you go: This is the Webster's definition of "obtuse". According to you: the "frat boys" you know are fine. It's the "fat boys", in general, that are the problem. (Holy 1960s, idiotic, "Southern moderate", argument, Batman!) And if we asked the "frat boys" you know, they would be pissed at you if you applied your idiotic stereotype to them, but pefectly okay if you applied it to their brothers, or other "frat boys" they know. Or is it: the ones they don't know? And of course my favorite: there is stereotypical behavior for fraternities(which you predicate on hard data like Revenge of the Nerds), but that stereotype doesn't apply: "in general"? What in the Sam Hell are you on to? Stereotypical behavior that doesn't apply "in general"? Is there any doubt left as to why I have called your posts "pseudo-intellectual"? Yeah, that's precisely the argument you are making....and that's precisely how obtuse it is. You keep saying "let me be clear/my intent" etc. It's more than clear: your problem isn't language. Your problem is you can't be who you think you are, and who you actually are, at the same time. This is called: cognitive dissonance, and you are riddled with it. The good news? At least you are trying, but failing, to be a good person.