Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Thanks BoystThat's a first. Cheers!
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Thanks sounds like a good idea. Their intentions are clear. Surely not to converse rather to troll at a cyclic rate and insult at a much higher rate. Thanks Boyst no, their intention is to just have a little bit of fun. Many people including those nimrods are tired of this whole matter so interjecting humor into it is entertaining. Tom doesn't have much to occupy his time so he stays here, in Kelly it's kind of that special guy we all appreciate and we just laugh with because we know he was always picked last in gym class
Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 no, their intention is to just have a little bit of fun. Many people including those nimrods are tired of this whole matter so interjecting humor into it is entertaining. Tom doesn't have much to occupy his time so he stays here, in Kelly it's kind of that special guy we all appreciate and we just laugh with because we know he was always picked last in gym classExactly. That dude you just responded to jumped me from behind. I don't even know who he is and he just took a random post of mine and started attacking me. Look it up. Granted, it was gibberish and neither Tom, who is a certified madman AND genius, couldn't make hide nor harebrain out of what he said, but I know it was nasty. So I responded in unkind. And then he gets upset. And finds solace in YOU. 😂😂
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Exactly. That dude you just responded to jumped me from behind. I don't even know who he is and he just took a random post of mine and started attacking me. Look it up. Granted, it was gibberish and neither Tom, who is a certified madman AND genius, couldn't make hide nor harebrain out of what he said, but I know it was nasty. So I responded in unkind. And then he gets upset. And finds solace in YOU. 😂😂 you wrote a lot, I didn't read it. But the Emojis are kind of cool. Thank you
Bill_with_it Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Exactly. That dude you just responded to jumped me from behind. I don't even know who he is and he just took a random post of mine and started attacking me. Look it up. Granted, it was gibberish and neither Tom, who is a certified madman AND genius, couldn't make hide nor harebrain out of what he said, but I know it was nasty. So I responded in unkind. And then he gets upset. And finds solace in YOU. 😂😂 Not true two letters one in each word of the first sentence. You are about as bad as a liar as you are as a poster. But continue on. I like it when people dont hide behind a facade.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Not true two letters one in each word of the first sentence. You are about as bad as a liar as you are as a poster. But continue on. I like it when people dont hide behind a facade.I don't care. Im glad at least you admit it was a totally unprovoked ambush. Which is fine if you actually had anything to say. But in about ten posts directed mine or Tom's way, you have yet to make any cogent point whatsoever, except "wah, wah, wah, you are bad" - which now that I think of it, isn't a cogent point at all. Carry on with your gibberish. Edited September 27, 2017 by Kelly the Dog
Gugny Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 I'm too good at this, it never ends pretty. A dedication to me from you Get out of here with this kitty rock ballad crap. Is this what you play when you fist those cows?? I pegged you as more of a Depeche Mode kind of guy.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Get out of here with this kitty rock ballad crap. Is this what you play when you fist those cows?? I pegged you as more of a Depeche Mode kind of guy. Que
Best Player Available Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Well, he did want 2% of the team from the Pegula's...... Then Pegula's lawyers briefed him on the POS he was stiffing many during his bankruptcy. And all of a sudden he is a huge liability to the brand. Ownership, Thought about it and decided he would be best as a stage prop on the sidelines during home games. Glad he turned his life around but many in Buffalo don't forget.
Gugny Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 I posted this Luke Bryan video because I think he's cute. This guy is, arguably, the worst singer on God's Flat Earth. But I'm glad you think he's hot.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 16 jumbo shrimp (12 per pound, about 1 1/2 pounds), with heads and unpeeled 1/2 cup Worcestershire sauce 2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice (about 2 lemons) 2 teaspoons ground black pepper 2 teaspoons cracked black pepper 2 teaspoons Creole seasoning 1 teaspoon minced garlic 1 1/2 cups (3 sticks) cold unsalted butter, cubed French bread as accompaniment In a large skillet combine shrimp, Worcestershire, lemon juice, black peppers, Creole seasoning, and garlic and cook over moderately high heat until shrimp turn pink, about 1 minute on each side. Reduce heat to moderate and stir in butter, a few cubes at a time, stirring constantly and adding more only when butter is melted. Remove skillet from heat. Place shrimp in a bowl and pour sauce over top. Serve with French bread for dipping.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 This guy is, arguably, the worst singer on God's Flat Earth. But I'm glad you think he's hot. I'll raise your flat earth and see you flat earf
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 No, it is not. The policy uses both words, with clear distinction between the two. Should is a suggestion. Must is a mandate. It's really that simple. He was right should is about as definitive as must. and again - No one is protesting the Flag or against the military. They are making a protest while the anthem is being played. It's got peoples attention ergo Winning. In corporate terms Shall - Work Task that Must be done May - Work Task that Could be done
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 He was right should is about as definitive as must. and again - No one is protesting the Flag or against the military. They are making a protest while the anthem is being played. It's got peoples attention ergo Winning. In corporate terms Shall - Work Task that Must be done May - Work Task that Could be done if gugny would to otherwise understand this https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 He was right should is about as definitive as must. and again - No one is protesting the Flag or against the military. They are making a protest while the anthem is being played. It's got peoples attention ergo Winning. In corporate terms Shall - Work Task that Must be done May - Work Task that Could be done Here's your NFL Corporate Statement: Twenty years ago, the NBA suspended a player who refused to stand for the national anthem. The NFL will not be doing the same thing. “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the National Anthem,” the NFL said in a statement issued Saturday, in response to the controversy that emerged when 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick opted not to stand during the playing of the national anthem on Friday night in Santa Clara, prior to a game against the Packers. http://profootballta...ational-anthem/
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Here's your NFL Corporate Statement: http://profootballta...ational-anthem/ maybe in Twitterland or basements does NFL trump US Code, but not in the real world. Ctrl V summore Not to mention you failed egregiously to capture the point being made. Disirregardless of the NFLs policy we were discussing the fact that it is law. Please, let the adults converse if you can't keep up. Edited September 27, 2017 by Boyst62
plenzmd1 Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 maybe in Twitterland or basements does NFL trump US Code, but not in the real world. Ctrl V summore Not to mention you failed egregiously to capture the point being made. Disirregardless of the NFLs policy we were discussing the fact that it is law. Please, let the adults converse if you can't keep up. Two points. I appreciate all the links 26 provides, makes it easy for me to find stuff. Name calling is just silly and juvenile, and you talking about adults and WTF is this "Disirregardless "
tlfcbb Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 He was right should is about as definitive as must. and again - No one is protesting the Flag or against the military. They are making a protest while the anthem is being played. It's got peoples attention ergo Winning. In corporate terms Shall - Work Task that Must be done May - Work Task that Could be done This is an interesting argument you all make. Looking at the words individually I can see how you could conclude that "shall" could mean "must". However I think you need to look at the context in which the word appears. The rule states that the National Anthem "must" be played and that players "must" be on the side lines. Why then would the legislator not continue to use the word "must" when referring to standing. In my opinion the change here from "must" to "shall" is deliberate. If I was writing the legislation and I wanted to make standing during the Anthem mandatory, I would have simply continued to use the word "must". I would imagine when writing rules every word is closely scrutinised as the author would be aware of the potential challenges somewhere down the line. I therefore would conclude that "shall" does not not carry the same weight as "must" in this context. This is of course only my opinion and I fully accept that there will be many who disagree with it.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 This is an interesting argument you all make. Looking at the words individually I can see how you could conclude that "shall" could mean "must". However I think you need to look at the context in which the word appears. The rule states that the National Anthem "must" be played and that players "must" be on the side lines. Why then would the legislator not continue to use the word "must" when referring to standing. In my opinion the change here from "must" to "shall" is deliberate. If I was writing the legislation and I wanted to make standing during the Anthem mandatory, I would have simply continued to use the word "must". I would imagine when writing rules every word is closely scrutinised as the author would be aware of the potential challenges somewhere down the line. I therefore would conclude that "shall" does not not carry the same weight as "must" in this context. This is of course only my opinion and I fully accept that there will be many who disagree with it. you're comparing 3 different articles. The US Code was written long ago and SCOTUS has had to weigh in that Shall had different meaning at an earlier historical point whereas shall is now regarded by legal eagles to mean without obligation. The rule stating the players must stand is an NFL corporate rule, essentially which is independent of the entire legal code which was discussed Two points. I appreciate all the links 26 provides, makes it easy for me to find stuff. Name calling is just silly and juvenile, and you talking about adults and WTF is this "Disirregardless " disirregardless has been around for at least 2 years meow And it's not calling him names. It is calling him out that he fails to respond to the most basic arguments set against him then cherry picks replies which he can essentially provide a higher ground rebuttal that actually falls short of any actual argument or ability to be engaged due to lack of critical thought.
quinnearlysghost88 Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 16 jumbo shrimp (12 per pound, about 1 1/2 pounds), with heads and unpeeled 1/2 cup Worcestershire sauce 2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice (about 2 lemons) 2 teaspoons ground black pepper 2 teaspoons cracked black pepper 2 teaspoons Creole seasoning 1 teaspoon minced garlic 1 1/2 cups (3 sticks) cold unsalted butter, cubed French bread as accompaniment In a large skillet combine shrimp, Worcestershire, lemon juice, black peppers, Creole seasoning, and garlic and cook over moderately high heat until shrimp turn pink, about 1 minute on each side. Reduce heat to moderate and stir in butter, a few cubes at a time, stirring constantly and adding more only when butter is melted. Remove skillet from heat. Place shrimp in a bowl and pour sauce over top. Serve with French bread for dipping. I'm saving this. anything that recommends three sticks of butter is doing something right.
Recommended Posts