Rob's House

Which are those? Jokes? I saw a handful of jokes. Otherwise I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. A second reading of the thread did make it clear how overanxious the White Knights are to take up the cause though.

This thread is as predictable as the Michael Sam threads. There are basically four responses: those expressing great pride and satisfaction in this perceived monumental moment, those taking the positive side of the "all that matters to me is if she can do the job" bit, it's negative counterpoint "I don't give a **** unless she can do the job (I think those calling it a publicity stunt fall loosely under here), and then the sanctimonious white nights decrying all the "misogyny" in the thread. I think the guy who gets uncomfortable with ovulation jokes may be the one who needs to reevaluate his maturity level.

The only crime I see is depriving a player of his career and a team of a star player just because he drinks and smoked pot. It doesn't give them an unfair advantage, and the general public doesn't care that much. The only thing I can figure is they don't want them flaunting it, but you could accomplish that with fines and single game suspensions. I see no rational justification for the existing policy.

I was thinking the same thing. Just didn't want to be the first to say it.

"Whose House?"

I remember when the White Knights of the board declared Merriman the scum of the earth for (according to him) trying to restrain her when she was trying to drive drunk.

I had Knob Creek neat the other night and it was delightful. When I got home I followed it up with Beam, which I usually enjoy. It was not delightful.

I wasn't saying this judge made the law (although I'd be curious to read his opinion to see if he followed the law) but was making a somewhat tangential point that the determination is based largely on case law which isn't inherently democratic.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but judge-made law isn't exactly tied to democracy either way.

That's true, but it doesn't make it right.

Not exactly. You can argue the same point in front of two different judges and get 2 different results. Plus, if the court rules that the earth is flat it doesn't necessarily make it so; it just means that the law (or at least that particular court) is going to treat it as such.

That's fair too. And my comment about CD wasn't just WRT to your comment. If I didn't know better I'd think it was established fact that Whaley was dead set against Rex and Pegula forced him on him based on some of the posts here.

No. That did not occur to me. If you can show me some rational connection between my argument for not arbitrarily rewriting contracts based on the respective financial positions of the parties and blaming a rape victim for inviting the rape by wearing tight clothes I'll be happy to consider it. Otherwise I'll assume it's self-aggrandizing sanctimony. edit: Had I any doubts about my initial assessment, his follow-up post removed them.

What a pathetic response. I'd be fine with them getting paid. What I'm not fine with is signing up for something with full knowledge of what you're signing up for, then demanding a better deal after the fact. And not one of those girls signed up because they needed the money. But I'm sure your sanctimonious shtick gives you a great feeling of personal satisfaction, and isn't that what it's really all about?

I think that's fair. The idea that Pegula overruled Whaley on the HC seems absurd, has no evidence to support it (other than it would be a knock against Whaley and the only thing we know for sure is that Whaley is nearly flawless) yet it is so often repeated as fact. The avoidance of cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful

Those people signed on for a job to make money. These cheerleaders didn't. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Link?

I don't get it. I was at a bar with friends during the last two minutes of that game, so I couldn't hear the play by play, but it looked to me like the refs gave Pittsburgh a bogus 15 yard penalty and then followed it with another 15 yard penalty because they weren't happy about having a playoff game stolen. Did I miss something?

I don't know if he's been following but he's an overall 86 on Madden. Not exactly elite.

It would make no sense to bring in a DC who runs a different scheme than Rex. It's not even a matter of whether Rex's ego would allow it. It's that Rex's scheme is the most fundamental aspect of what he brings as a coach. If you don't want that scheme you don't hire him.

He had the misfortune of playing the prime of his career in a crappy team during the dead ball era. From 80-87 he was one of the best and most consistent players in the league, but the numbers from those years don't compare to what guys put up in the 90s.

I thought it was French.

The baseball HOF is a joke. It was bad enough when they apparently slapped a morals clause on entry (God knows Ty Cobb and others wouldn't stand a chance with the estrogen based life forms that cast the ballots now), but when they shafted Dale Murphy that was it for me.

When I was in middle school I had a teacher who called on the black kid and genuinely thought his name was Lamont. Dude's name was Mike.

You wouldn't know a classy broad if she took a dump on your head.