Mark80

Yeah, and didn't they go way over budget and over deadline for completion on it as well? Not to mention the shabby work where part of the ceiling collapsed and killed someone. This, however, would be a much smaller stretch tunnel though. So at least there is that.

Yeah because our first team defense dominating them on two drives and then the Giants running all over our second and third string guys with their entire first team offense still out there is a real indication of what our rush defense will look like this year. This board has become unreadable over the last week. Unbelievable.

It looks like, from the video, that you screw the set on to the hose, fill it up, shake them off. Then unscrew that part from the hose and re-screw in the next set. Each set seems to come with their own screw on piece, hoses to each balloon, and the balloons themselves. While this is obviously very fast and seemingly easy, I'm sure it's way more expensive than buying the regular balloons, but quite possibly well worth it.

I don't know, I thought Nikki was funny the last two episodes. I also thought Rocky's set was also pretty good this time. I really couldn't decide who I thought should have been eliminated this time based on those sets. But based on the overall show, I'm glad it was Rocky and I'll be glad when it's Nikki next time. If she beats out any of the other 3 next go around I'll be very disappointed.

Well, I just lost all and any respect for Buffalo Barbarian. But then again, didn't he start the old trade Mario for Skelton thread? So there wasn't much to begin with.

Does a punk cover count? Sublime covering Bad Religion can never be a bad thing.

Not exactly, they settled out of court. But I suspect they would have won or the NFL / Seahawks would have battled. Of course it does. That's the law, and the law in our country (relating to business especially) comes down to greed and protecting rich people / corporations. If you don't like it, write your representatives, research and care about who you vote for, and influence others around you to do the same.

The point is that they are protecting their trademark. In trademark law, the more you allow it to be used, the more likely that eventually the trademark can fall into the public domain standard, thus invalidating your trademark. If you allow this one, then the next one, then the next one after that, you are starting down the path to losing it. The safest course of action is to protect it always for the holder. You are correct, I mistakenly relied on another posters quote in my assertion of 1922. However, the Trademark office found their use of the phrase so set in their history that they approved the Mark at that time for them alone. (Forcing the Bills and Bears to stop using it at that time). The Seahawks also had to pay $100,000k and $5k annually for it's use and are not allowed to use it on any merchandising (thus the stuff with only "12" on it). Don't you think that if the NFL thought it would win a case on this they would file a suit just based off of what they could merchandise with it or allowed the suit A&M filed against the Seahawks to run it's course rather than settling out of court? They know they would lose.

Come on man, everyone knows that's exactly what happened.

What in the world makes you think they would lose their suit? They have had the trademark for over 90 years, long before anyone else was using that phrase, they routinely defend that trademark (as evidenced here) when it is utilized outside of the "fair use" standard and, accordingly, have not allowed it into the "public domain." Your legal knowledge is unfounded.

Agree, but he also made a mistake in hiring LaFontaine, giving him complete control over Hockey Operations then allowing Murray to back door him with the Miller trade. This directly led to LaFontaine's resignation. He should have told Murray to get Pat's approval or not hired Pat at all for that role.

I swear I've seen this exact post before sans the FJ extension.

That is creepy.

I think Wild Card is a much more realistic goal for this season. I just don't see us overtaking the Pats quite yet. 9-7 or 10-6 won't get that done but I think we could certainly finish with either of those records.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I don't think neither the OP nor 95% of the people on this board will read it and understand what it is saying. You see, it contains a lot of words and you have to read it a little slow and actually think about it to understand it. Which, in a nutshell, is where the problem lies.

She spit on him, she tried to upper cut him but missed, he hit her and this knocked her over, she hit her head on a railing in the elevator and got knocked the F out. That is what was reported that I saw. I think you are the one missing the point. The point is, he doesn't have to make such "sports nonsense." He is smart enough to be a much more effective host / panelist / journalist / media type but he chooses to create a character (yes, he created a character and is 100% acting, that's all he is doing) instead just to garner attention and ratings. If he embraced his true self, I venture to say that his popularity and ratings would be much higher. He is no different than Rush Limbaugh in the political world in my opinion. Loud, obnoxious, distorter of facts, creating controversy so people will think "what will he do next" and tune in. It's a very, very tired act.

You guys must have missed this gem:

Revis is not the same corner anymore man, 3 years ago, sure, but not anymore. Sherman is a zone coverage corner in a great system surrounded by elite talent. Talib is a heavy contact press type corner who is going to be in for a rude awakening (along withe Sherman and company on the Seahawks) with the re-emphasis on calling illegal contact this year. I would take Peterson over all 3 any day of the week right now. Also, I'm pretty sure that I read on an ESPN ticker (perhaps NFLN) that Peterson was not going to be involved in the kicking game or offense at all this season.

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -George Washington on Political Parties

I think this clip actually proves the exact opposite. It proves what many of us have suspected and / or known for a while; that he's an extremely intelligent, thought provoking, inspired speaker who can very eloquently give his opinions in a professional and quite impressive manner....when he wants to. The vast majority of the time, well over 95% of the time, he is just loudly and offensively (not in content but in delivery) spewing non-sense with no other purpose than to come off controversial (along with his partner in crime on First Take) to garner attention, and ratings. As this clip shows, he could be such a better media personality with some real substance to offer if he wanted to, instead, he chooses to be a "blowhard" idiot yes man who gives in to ESPN demands at a drop of a hat and doesn't even defend himself when he didn't even do anything wrong. I had little respect for him before this incident, after his apology I now have no respect for him.

Now if this isn't the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever seen on this site...You sir, are out of your mind.

I'm pretty neutral on Tom Petty, but everyone I know that has seen him live says they loved it. They say that he doesn't mess around and plays basically ALL of his hits, every time. He doesn't try to force his latest release down your throat but plays what the people want. I can, at the very least, respect that aspect of him.

Employers have the right to drug test and either not hire or fire someone for failed marijuana drug tests in Colorado even though it's legal. Just the same as alcohol.

Rule number 1 of gun safety: Never point a gun at someone or in their general direction unless you plan on using it. This is true whether you think / know the gun is unloaded or not. One mistake, one round left in the chamber accidentally, one spook on the trigger finger and someone could have died. He is an idiot and if I were part of the gun community I would hate someone like this giving us a bad name / rep and doing way more harm than good for the point he was trying to prove.

I look at it this way and somewhat agree with what Firechan and Stephen A. Smith said. As a man, I know that there are others out there who are bigger and stronger than I am and I should not provoke those people as I may get my a$$ beat if I cross the line with them. It could be saying something wrong to them, hitting them, spitting on them (which I believe is part of what happened in Ray's case). If I do cross the line, I could fully expect to pay for it and it is partly my fault (even if I didn't physically do anything to that person). I think Stephen A. was trying to say something similar. I've seen women INTENTIONALLY provoking men through slapping them, through words, through kicking them, through spitting on them, through various mediums. Now, should a man react to this and hit her back, no (unless he is in real physical danger or someone he knows and loves is in real physical danger), but some of them do. And in these instances I do agree that the woman in PARTLY to blame for this, however small that blame may be. You should not antagonize someone who is physically superior to you to the point of them reacting physically. Man or Woman.