GaryPinC
-
Posts
2,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GaryPinC
-
-
Op,
Thanks for your thoughts. The one clear thought about the Pats I had is Mac Jones is a strong backup and not your guy. He tries to execute the offense but displays no individual playmaking ability in crucial moments to carry his team.
-
13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Again it was just me wondering aloud. I felt that it was as if it was reported this way.
There are 1,000 people admitted to ER with Covid. And there was this footnote of: Well yeah but only 400 of those people were actually in ER due to Covid. The other 600 were admitted for other reasons and just happened to test positive for Covid. I made the leap, and a large one I will admit to this: 1,000 people died with Covid today. With a footnote of: Well only 400 of them died FROM Covid the other 600 died from other causes but they HAD Covid. Bottom line is we are all pretty certain the deaths from Covid vs with Covid are two VERY different numbers but were not initially reported as such. This drove the fear hysteria.
Ah. Well, there's your flaw. It is never definitively stated that any of them died, though I'm sure some did(maybe the 21?).
And no, outside of far right circles most of the US does not believe deaths from Covid vs deaths with Covid are two VERY different numbers. Sorry, the evidence is not there. But happy to entertain evidence you feel proves your point.
-
6 hours ago, Chef Jim said:
Then what are you basing your reasoning on and by how much do you think they overestimated Covid deaths?
My whole point was in using this “stupid”
article was if they could be way overstating the number of COVID hospitalizations could they have way overstated the number of deaths by the same ratio 4:6? But I guess you’re the smartest man in the room and I just share stupid articles. 🙄
Help me out here, because I fail to follow your reasoning. The article seems to drive home the point:
Out of 100% of Covid positive admitted patients, 40% were admitted for Covid (severe enough symptoms) while 60% were admitted for indirect injuries/symptoms but tested positive for Covid. It's worth noting these are not 100% of total patients admitted, just 100% of the Covid-positive admittees.
And you are wondering if this ratio translates to how much they overstated the death ratio?
1. 40 and 60% are not death ratios in this context. They are admittances, plenty of patients admitted for covid symptoms survive, especially at this stage of an endemic virus. This is what Sundancer is alluding to, you don't know how many of these patients survived, especially in the context of 40 vs 60. If any deaths from this 100% group were all from the 40% would that really be applicable to your reasoning? Should you change your mind and decide deaths weren't overstated, why or why not?
2. Without digging too deep, at first glance it appears the CDC examines death certificates and applies criteria for who died primarily from Covid and who died with Covid. This may be separate from the hospital declaration to control for mis-attributed deaths. You're welcome to dig further, they discuss their criteria:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Here's also their excess deaths graph (all causes) compared to historical data, which speaks volumes:
Wherever you choose to attribute the deaths, the impact of the virus is clear.
3. Finally, these are medical professionals working hard to help people. There are very clear symptoms and progressions for most people who die from Covid.
https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/covid-19-symptoms-progress-death-3536264/
Obviously if someone has ongoing respiratory issues at the time of infection, it can get complex, but medical professionals are intimately familiar with what it looks like to die from Covid so while I believe there was some over-attribution of Covid deaths, I do believe it wasn't a large amount and may have been corrected for, even if the hospital got paid incorrectly.
-
15 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:
So sad! 90s all over again.
Ha! I don't think OSU is returning to the days of Cooper and Bruce anytime soon.
Sorry about the loss. I'm not an OSU fan, but watching the game I can offer you this:
OSU coaches are lazy due to the talent there. Edwards broke two touchdowns on the same exact play. No adjustments. I feel like Michigan's 2nd half deep balls were thrown looking more for the PI call than a completion. For as good a game as Harrison Jr. had, I felt like he was uncoverable and should have been used more.
OSU has greatly qualified coaches on both sides of the ball. They need to take a page from Harbaugh and dedicate themselves more to coaching details and dictating identity on both sides of the ball. Including adjustments, which are generally unneeded for almost all their opponents. Almost all.
It's why Harbaugh almost got fired and his improvements made all the difference today, just like last year. I think cutting Day loose would be a stupid move, but he does need to grow.
Shoutout to TE Cade Stover, who went to my high school and has to be hurting from those important passes on his fingertips he just couldn't quite corral. Great player but those will torture him a long time.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, B-Man said:
You do not need educating.
I answered with an eye roll, because you ask the question when you know the answer.
Guess what Jim, no they didn't put "we bought your vote" in the government announcement, you sure got Billsfan in NC there.
Except the belief that student loan forgiveness was a way of obtaining the support, and votes, is certainly the majority opinion across America.
Look, I know that you like to repeatedly "ask questions" to force other posters to confront their inconsistencies. . . . . . . that's fine, you be you.
However when you ask something so obvious, you shouldn't be surprised when you get 🙄.
.
How is this any different than Trump getting his name put on the spring 2020 stimulus checks?
In either instance no one directly asked for votes, just different tactics to make it clear who was responsible for the "free" money.
Did any of you right wingers get outraged back then? However tasteless both times, I don't remember any legal repercussions for Trump, should there be some now for Biden?
-
On 10/14/2022 at 5:52 PM, SoCal Deek said:
Gary.....remember that we don't know the age, experience, and maturity level of everyone on here, so pardon me for the schoolyard analogy....but indeed it somewhat does apply. (everything you learned, you learned in kindergarten). Mediation is used to resolve all sorts of disputes. In fact, it is really, really rare that ANY other form of dispute resolution ever works. I believe these two combatants have now punched themselves out. The front line of this war has moved back and forth now for months and months with neither side making any significant progress. This is the exact time in any conflict when BOTH sides are generally ready to resolve it. Of course, they aren't going to say that in public because there's a ton of pride involved for both, but I'm betting both are dying to have someone step in.
In my experience, people of any age, experience, and maturity tend to respond to how you approach/address them.
There's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying, and key is the fact that both sides have to want to resolve it through compromise. I have to disagree with you that both sides are ready to resolve it. Further, even if both sides were to cease-fire right now to negotiate, I don't trust Putin to negotiate in good faith, instead using it to regroup. To avoid the initial conflict, his terms for the entirety of Eastern Europe were not remotely realistic, just insincere. Zelensky has been pretty consistent about Nato and even at August's end was open to negotiate the Donbas/Crimea region: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20220308-in-nod-to-russia-ukraine-says-no-longer-insisting-on-nato-membership
This should have sparked mediation and I guarantee you mediating diplomats reached out and made the effort with the Russians. I think Putin's going to try a Stalingrad-style assault on Kviv from Belarus, if that fails then maybe he might negotiate if he doesn't nuke. He's simply not and has not been interested in peacefully resolving this dispute through compromise.
I also disagree that rarely any dispute is solved without mediation. World War II in both theaters was enduringly resolved just fine without mediation. Nations have disputes all the time that they resolve without mediation. Disputes in personal lives, same. But both parties have to be interested in compromise and we just don't have that here yet.
"All I Really Need to Learn, l Learned in Kindergarten" is a great essay about how to live your life but not much help with conflict resolution I'm afraid.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Bobby Hooks said:
It’s not just the LA part for me. It goes hand in hand with the I would’ve taken less to go to Dallas, I decided on my way to Buffalo I didn’t think I would sign, etc.
Heard it all enough. It’s not like he was in LA that long. It was what, half a season?
It would be fine with me, if it wasn’t always a bit of a comparison. Like, we know Buffalo isn’t LA, we don’t need to hear every chance you get how much Buffalo isn’t LA.
I don’t know, at the end of the day I’m glad he’s here, so it’s a small complaint, I’m just ready to turn the page is all.
Nah… but if she did go on and on about every other dude she spent time with before you you might be like, okay, I get you have a past just as we all do. But like how about we focus on this now. Cool?
Me too, but it's getting him attention and money. Hopefully the page gets turned soon.
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s how disputes are settled every day everywhere. Both sides go into the discussions sure they are 100% in the right and by the end of the process a solution is reached that isn’t mutual destruction. This doesn’t work on the first day of a dispute but after length of time and the amount of death and destruction we’ve seen in this one (to pretty much a back and forth stalemate) you’d be shocked at how quickly this would be over.
Except this isn't some stupid, impromptu schoolyard fight. This has been brewing since before 2014. On one side is a free country that doesn't want to give up their land and resources, the other is a dictator that is adamant in what he wants to the point of nuclear strikes.
My thought for a solution is to hold internationally monitored, secured elections in the Donbas, Crimea, Kherson, etc and let the residents decide. But would Putin abide and respect any results he didn't like?
-
7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
My argument is if you want to achieve some objective and avoid conflict you need to negotiate. As I'm not an expert on Russia affairs or some sort of profiler, I don't know what Putin thinks.
But your "we should be able to do what we want" thinking is like the guy that has a 200 foot deep backyard that puts his kids jungle gym and his tool shed 199 feet away from his back door and one foot inside the property line. Placing them about 20 feet from the neighbors back porch while seeing nothing wrong with it. Or one of my buddies neighbors that decided it was okay to divert the water flow into his backyard which floods his yard every time it rains.
After all, everyone can do whatever they want! But real life don't work that way. There are actions and reactions and consequences. I've witnessed, or been a party to, situations where somebody thought they could do whatever they wanted and ended up getting the crap kicked out of them. And as far as countries go, I'll wager anyone expressing the idea Ukraine can do what they want will have a slightly different opinion about the Saudi's doing "what they want to do" with regards to lowering oil production levels. One lesson is where you stand depends on where you sit. Life's all about perspective. And our official perspective is governed by our own interests.
I certainly don't know what Putin thinks, I would just offer up the perspective that Russia has historically prioritized maintaining a buffer zone between Europe and itself:
In this day and age, buffer zones should be unnecessary, thanks to nuclear weapons. But I agree with this article that Putin desires them for political purposes, to preserve his authoritarian form of government. No bordering a democracy whenever possible.
He seized Crimea and supported the Donbas separatist movement in 2014 when Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power and a more democratic system took hold.
Here's what he wanted the US and NATO to do to avoid the Ukraine invasion:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html
He wanted NATO and nuclear weapons out of all Eastern European countries. Preserving somewhat of a buffer zone but leaving these countries vulnerable to the Russian military.
So, if Putin gets what he wants, a large number of bordering countries don't sleep at night fearing future authoritarian expansion. Since we didn't cave, he decided to take what he wants.
Putin knows we're not willing to give him a buffer zone, because it entails giving land from democratic countries. We know he's at least bent on creating a buffer zone, at worst reconstituting the old empire.
Until one side or the other is in a dire situation, what is there to talk about?
-
1 hour ago, Bobby Hooks said:
I agree with both of you. There’s probably lots to miss in LA. But I do feel like Von’s said it enough, and said it to enough people that it’s time to turn the page.
With that said, great interview. So glad to have them both on this team. Hoping Von has a big game. This game (and hopefully the ones to come) are the exact reason he’s here.
It's tied to his stories about deciding to come here, of which Allen and Diggs played a huge role. I've heard the entire story at least a few times (Bahamas, instagram contact, LA, etc) so I'm ready to move on but why single out the LA part? It's just part of the flow of rehashing the entire story.
They also spent more time talking specifically why they love it here (people are happy and helpful, food, etc).
-
4 hours ago, skibum said:
Why is everyone so certain that Tua was concussed on Sunday? I have had back pain that has literally knocked me to my knees, and I have never been tackled by a 300 lb man.
I rewatched the film of him after Sunday's concussion. Keep in mind Tua may believe in hiding any concussion symptoms.
When I think of a back injury, I think of weird posture, most often displayed in the positioning of the shoulders and muscular tension in the upper body. Arched back, grabbing at of jerking your posture to alleviate the pain, etc.
There's none of that displayed, his shoulders and upper body are well aligned and overall relaxed. The only thing he does is shake his head and briefly grabs at is his head and chin strap. After his fall and stumbling, the trainer comes over and the first thing he appears to do is maybe grab at his back (which is why I think Tua is BSing) but he may have also just been trying to hold Tua up.
-
35 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:
That is what the evaluation is all about - they take it out of the players hands.
If they fail the cognitive testing they enter the protocol and can not return.
Therefore as Bart Scott stated - many players cheat on the off season baseline testing to help if something happens during the season.
For the protocol to work it’s best - it takes the players being honest, both during the game and in baseline testing.
If players are going to lie and cheat - the protocols are going to fail and you get exactly what happened with Tua - a guy that should never had returned nor played Thursday, but was cleared for both and will probably be cleared by next Sunday so as not to miss a game.
All great points. I definitely think Tua played a role in hiding his concussion by blaming it on his back
But you cannot absolve at a minimum the training/medical staff. No way should he have been cleared to go back in so soon after, regardless of what he was blaming. I don't know the details of the NFL rules but there's the damage from the concussion and there's post-concussion syndrome which is delayed effects.
I've seen kids/people who've sustained concussions and seem fine initially only to have neurological and coordination symptoms set in 15 minutes to hours later.
To keep it simple, I have no confidence that Miami's staff had Tua's health in mind because of how rapidly he came back. I doubt his eye's/pupil and motor coordination was re-evaluated at halftime. Probably just passed the baseline test.
-
16 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:
Get back into your little compartment, 'Gary'.
Yes, and you continue with your helpless victimhood. Everyone else must change because your body has changed.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
I'm mostly talking about watching with people at home. Had a roommate that was a huge fan of a college team, and would literally yell "oh come on, what the $*&@ was that you gotta be kidding me!!!" on every play that wasn't positive.
I'm not saying don't cheer good plays at a football game, I'm saying don't react the same way on every play.
Also, as far as thinking you can do whatever in public and if others around you don't like it they can just go somewhere else. Part of being in public and in a social situation is caring and understanding if those around you are having fun as well, and if your actions are contributing from that or taking it away.
Just because something is fun for you and the group of multiple polo shirt wearing crew you showed up with, doesn't mean you're making it fun for those around you. Now that of course applies to everyone, but everyone includes you too.
Life is about dynamics and changing pace. Just because someone likes to jackhammer away in certain situations, doesn't mean everyone is getting something positive out of it and the fact that one person is getting enjoyment doesn't make up for the negative the other person is experiencing. It's always a good idea to ask if it is good for them to, and then make changes, because there is probably a middle ground.
Of course if you're unwilling to change and just want to keep jackhammering away and pretend your some gift from the heavens as a result of how awesome it is for you when others around you tell you otherwise, well as the person unwilling to compromise, you're always welcome to leave.
Btw, not talking about you personally when I say you, more of a general stand in I have for people who exhibit a certain form of behavior, which I have no idea if you personally do that or not...you may never have even wore multiple collars for all I know
, other than as a joke on halloween of course.
All in fun btw, this post is half genuine and mostly tongue in cheek.
Haha, well go to the bar or stadium then! Yah, it's hard watching at a home with people like that. Rooting for the other team is always a great option if it's not the Bills!😂
Just to be clear, I don't advocate doing whatever in public. I stay standing if everyone around me is standing and sit down when everyone else is sitting. As long as I can see, I am very conscious not to block the view of those behind me. But if everyone stands, then so be it. I also feel that fandom has evolved to more people standing longer at games. And I understand that's frustrating to those who want to and even have to sit, well instead of blaming others, change your situation to your liking.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, nucci said:
you don't have to stand to be able to cheer loudly
Ok, but I often like to be able to jump up and down while I'm cheering loudly. Plus I can high five more people while standing.
56 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:Well. It is obvious that you are a lousy judge of character, and subscribe to the culture of 'Selfish'.
Ok. What I see is you whining everyone should sit and cheer as you see fit.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:
Truth?
You mean, 'right, or wrong'.
Some people were just not 'raised right'....
Well, I would count you among those people.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
I cannot stand watching football with people who live and die with every play in a football game. They are quite possibly the most annoying people ever.
Football is a game of cat and mouse and setting up things for later in the game. Plus, the nfl comes down to typically 4 or 5 plays in a game...the run for two yards on 2nd and 7 in the first quarter that people are complaining about loudly and angrily is not one of those plays.
If I'm misunderstanding live and die as you meaning paying attention to every play, that's great, but having a loud vocal visceral reaction to every unsuccessful play...it's insufferable and my guess is a lot of people who do that at some point in their lives wore multiple collard shirts at the same time...
Okay, this is your truth and that's fine. You take the longer and more cerebral approach. Just watch from home if it bothers you too much. But those annoying fans also set a louder, more fun atmosphere IMO. I'd rather have those than the fans who sit on their hands the entire game only cheering for touchdowns or those 4-5 plays.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BUFFALOBART said:
How does standing 'help with that'?
Yes, it's difficult when you refuse to understand that people have their own truths.
I was at a handful of Bills games, University of Michigan and MSU games during the 90's. There was significant periods of standing at all of them depending on the section. Including entire games.
Is long term standing more prevalent today? I think so. I certainly stand for big plays and won't stand for long if everyone in front/around me is sitting, but I understand many feel more engaged in the game by doing it and have certainly felt that way also at times.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, BUFFALOBART said:
..That is, if you have no consideration for other fans...
Good sir,
I am very sorry to hear of your physical limitations impacting your ability to see the game. Having to deal with the pain must be very frustrating and I can understand how much easier it would be for you if everyone sat.
Being a long time season ticket holder, you have to realize that long periods if not entire games of fans standing is just the reality of the stadium. It happens at many pro and college stadiums.
Myself, I go with the flow and would like to point a few things out to you about my truths which differ from yours.
Myself and family are composed of men over 6 feet in height, with decent shoulder width. In sold out games, surrounded by other good sized people, it is impossible to sit in our seats with shoulders square unless leaning forward at various angles which becomes uncomfortable and compromises the view. Standing usually requires angling shoulders, but becomes more comfortable than sitting as it strains my back less.
Also, jumping up to only cheer for a big play involves having to wiggle and negotiate to sit down properly again without infringing on others. And in a big or good game, there is lots to cheer for so it naturally becomes easier just to stay standing and sit at breaks. I'm 52 and if standing an entire game (if needed) becomes too much, I either won't go or will pay for bigger/more comfortable seats.
As a STH, why not talk to the Bills about your problem and consider switching seats (clubs) or asking them make a section(s) sit-only? Or do like others in a similar situation and watch from the comfort of home?
You are the one with the impediment yet you demand all others conform to your needs? Stop calling other fans uncaring, selfish, rude, etc.
It starts with you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, boater said:
Grass doesn't do well in winter climates. For example: the Steelers have grass, by the time December comes around, it's a mud bowl.
Pittsburgh's stadium also hosts the Panthers and High School football playoffs (or used to) during rainy November. Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. That's a lot of use for a soaked grass field. Probably the biggest reason it looks so bad in December.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:
So it was up to the Bills themselves to determine whether or not Belichick came out of there looking like a genius...that's actually my point. The Bills suffered too many self-inflicted wounds that night. The Giants capitalized. But the biggest factor, imho, is that the Bills D could not get off the field. This in turn created the need to press on O, but Belichick had nothing to do (at least to my knowledge) with the Bills suddenly forgetting to tackle---too many times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgWfLZgr-YA
I don't disagree with your emphasis on our defensive failures but to believe Belichick deserves no special credit for that game plan is extremely ignorant. Our offense was breathtakingly successful and efficient back then, especially that year.
Let's cut through the crap and focus on this: our amazing offense got the ball on the 10 with 2:16 on the clock and could only provide Norwood a 47 yard opportunity. That was plenty of time for our well-oiled machine to score 7 under most circumstances. How is that on our defensive failures and why does Belichick deserve no credit for this and throwing us off our game in the first half?
-
4 hours ago, RobbRiddick said:
Wayne Fonts is the only guy to make the Lions consistently good during all the years I've watched the NFL They routinely got to the playoffs with him and even made the championship game. Of course it helped that he had the best RB in history (IMO) running the ball but he also had guys like Kramer at QB.
I've often wondered if they'd somehow managed to beat Washington in the championship game... imagine that, Bills Vs Lions in our second SB. We might have actually won one!
Man, we think we've had it tough as fans. Those Lions diehards deserve medals for the way they continue to support their team. I actually feel a sort of spiritual connection with them. This is why I always pull for them (unless they're playing us). Those fans deserve good things to happen to them. If I had to pick a second team I'd definitely pick Detroit
Between Detroit and Cleveland, we have no claim on being the hardest-luck fans.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Niagara Dude said:
What a contrast from another former OC Hackett, when with 20 seconds to play and trailing by one, he choses to have McManus attempt a 64-yard field goal for the win instead of letting Wilson try to lead a play on fourth-and-5 at the Seahawks' 46-yard line.
End of the day, higher percentage of making a 4th & 5 with Wilson than a 64 yard FG.
Yeah, Hackett clung to Marrone for too many years and picked up his bad habits.
-
3 hours ago, Gugny said:
If healthy, the only team that can stop the Bills is the Bills. They're just that good.
Watching that game on Thursday, the feelings from the 90's came back: our offense is nearly impossible to stop on a consistent basis and our defense is more than good enough to shut any team down. That's how it felt at the end of last year except for those blundered 13 seconds. We've picked right back up in 2022 and added a Von Miller.
I think our consistency and camaraderie on both sides of the ball supersedes those explosive 90's teams.
Our D-line is already frightening even as it is still developing, our rookie DB's are adequate and growing, then we get our lockdown corner back.
F being afraid of anybody. I'm mostly curious as to who will beat us and how? So flexible on offense and strong on defense with years of playing together in the same systems. We'll have plenty of tests, it'll be fun.
I hope they set a goal in the locker room to go undefeated through the super bowl, just for added focus against shooting ourselves in the foot.
All those turnovers Thursday didn't faze us one bit. That was the scary part (for the rest of the league).
Myles Garrett claims officials told him he wasn't going to get holding calls vs Bucs
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I believe Garrett. It's pretty much the same way with pass interference. It has to impact the play significantly enough. Garrett needs to learn when to take a dive.