transient

I was thinking more along the lines of "Well now, aren't you a sexy minx. Handsome set of knockers, deary. You down for a shag? (**slap**) Aw right. Off you go, then. Pip pip, cheerio."

I actually did know that at the time of the post, but where would the fun in acknowledging that have been. It's part of the reason I couched it with "I've always thought of." Also, you see handsome used in this context nowadays about as much as you see the word "comely" used to describe women (which always reminds me too much of homely, and so I have a similar initial impression of its usage despite its opposite meaning). Bob, regarding your cleavage comment, given the second and fifth definition in your post, I most certainly think you could get away with saying that a woman had handsome cleavage without it being too awkward, especially if you were old English (at least grammatically; it has the potential to be very awkward socially).

Son of a B word!!! 10Gs on Atlanta covering and 10Gs on the over... Mrs. Marrone is gonna KILL me!

I think this summarizes what I find so annoying about him. Whether intended or not, he's pretty transparent about the fact that he looks down on his surroundings and believes that he's above them. I think he's also being generous in his self-perceived level of intelligence, which also comes across in his writing. I think he's probably being pretty honest in terms of his outlook in general, though. I remember hearing a morning show segment that I believe Shredd and Ragan did with him back when I lived in Buffalo, which would have been 2004 or earlier. It was in the middle of summer, and there wasn't much sports to talk about, and he was ripping apart his son's little league baseball team as though they were the Bills of the last decade. It was clearly supposed to be a joke, but I couldn't help but wonder if he was dumb enough to believe that 10 and 11 year old kids (who were home for the summer and might be listening to their friend's dad on the radio) would get the joke, or if he was just that miserable.

Not just your opinion. I'm not a big fan of trite analogies or poorly written, wandering non sequiturs, either. There were a few pieces in the early summer that didn't have a by-line on them (at least not that I saw) that reeked of his M.O. and were such mailed-in tripe that I would expect a fifth grade English teacher would have failed any student that turned in assignments of that standard (or lack thereof). After reading a paragraph or two, I started looking around the article and found his e-mail address attached to the bottom. It was for verification before I closed the webpage, as otherwise his fingerprints were all over it. While the vitriol has been there as long as I can recall, I don't always remember the writing style being so lazy. That seems more recent, and is probably a good indication of what he think of his job and his readers.

I feel unclean... this feels a little like choosing between which one I'd rather have, herpes or genital warts. In this scenario, I'd have to say that the Jets are herpes. I'd like to think that if the Jets win it would only be due to the decimated receiving corps of NE*, and that despite one game of bragging rights, there's practically a guarantee that the wheels will fall off before too long, whereas NE* has a much greater chance to iron out the kinks as the season wears on, barring an injury to Mrs. Bundchen, so it's important that they dig a nice deep hole early on. Ok... I think I've talked myself into rooting for herpes. Of course, if the Bills can't take care of business, then I could care less, and all of this is mental masturbation. Regardless of the outcome, as others have stated, I hope there is a ton of animosity in this game and they help to add a few starters to the season ending IR for one another.

Are you suggesting that if you took this approach to grinding an axe that the point you made might be a bit flimsy?

I'm confused... not that it matters all that much... but I can't tell if you just called you're wife handsome inadvertently in and effort to downplay your appreciation of handsome men, or if you were trying to justify finding EJ handsome because your "wife" is handsome as well... or maybe you do find your wife handsome, which I've always thought of as a masculine adjective, whereas hot is more gender neutral... unless, of course, you're using handsome to describe an amount (e.g, a handsome majority), in which case, if you just made reference to your "handsome" wife on a message board, you're just in trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSQAZEp3PA

They give them out at State Farm along with a seatback grill when you do the discount daaaaa-ble check.

Be as obtuse as you'd like, the fact of the matter is the only two touchdowns NE* scored were courtesy of two fumbles in the red zone that they had to gain 35 yards for, tops. The other 400 yards netted them 9 points. Kinda deflates your defense sucks, same as last year's Jets game argument. But, I assume, you knew that before you posted this.

...said the man with the Karate Kid avatar.

:death: :death: :death: :death: :death: The nightmare never ends...FYI, 10 is the maximum allowable number of emoticons. I found this out when I pared it down from the 100 that I had initially put in the post.

Challenge accepted... sort of... I got bored eventually... BUT, between 2001 and 2009 the answer would be 21 times, including playoffs and Super Bowls. I know, more than what you'd think, huh? That averages out to just under 3 times per season for that stretch. Of them, only 9 were NE* losses. Go figure.

Yet another vote for the "x # of posts to start a thread" movement.

So let me get this straight... If you're satisfied with the loss today, you're presumably a "low information fan," and yet you, OP, conveniently back out of this assertion with the "That being said" comment. Personally, I'm frustrated as hell to watch another game that I know the Bills could have won if they hadn't spotted NE* 14 points via turnovers in the red zone, only to see them lose in the last meaningful drive of the game by 2 points. At the same time, there was more fight in this team today, the third youngest team in the league, than there has been in years. I get that NE* is lucky to go 9-7 this year with this receiving corp... but for the love of Jebus, would posters please get off their "I'm smarter than you" soapbox. Am I a "low information fan" because I feel that this team didn't take a giant dump on the season like they did in last year's opener, and therefore might have expectations of seeing a team develop over the course of a season? Or are you, OP, opening yourself up to the "low information" tag by backpedaling in your own comments after starting a thread with such a stupid title... At times I love this board for the info that I can't get elsewhere being that I'm out of town, but at other times... JFC... I can't take the holier/smarter than thou snark!

Might want to re-check your abacus, Graybeard.

Amen. I've had enough of this *%#$ing Goofy franchise.

I think it'll be a surprisingly close Bills loss (hopefully not a "why didn't you just take the touchback" sort of loss). My prediction is that Mrs. Bungchin strains her mangina whining to the refs and Gisele comes to her aid post-game by calling out everyone not named Tommy.

Then he broke into "We've only just begun..."

Were you referring to Jo-Lonn... ...or Jo Momma!

Can't help it. Thread title makes me think of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c69DzQ2Yu8w

Is this a new buzzword that you're bringing to the board? Personally, I would hyphenate: butt-hose.

By this logic, I'm guessing the Jets don't qualify as an actual NFL team anymore. Ask Sexy Rexy which QB situation he'd rather have, ours, or the one he just mangled in NYC. I think they just signed the guitarist from Stillwater.