ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

As long as you don't marry her, you should be good to go.

Darryl says that both Bruuuuuuuuce and Maybin were pass rushers, so they were both on the field in the nickel and dime packages. I mean, not at the exact same time, more like 20 years apart . . . but still . . .

My older brother Darryl says 1/175 = 0.0057. Even Maybin had more sacks than that.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status-2014-domestic-drone-legislation-states Discussion of types of legislation and a chart with state-by-state breakdown at the above link.

To answer the OP's question: colonize Mars.

Wonder if you're often actually safer at airports with challenging conditions because the pilots generally know in advance that they need to be on top of their game - - kind of like how the most dangerous highways are often the long straight ones that put you to sleep and can literally bore you to death.

Shouldn't the thread title be changed to "Truckma?"

My brother Darryl's a moron and wanted to post a contrary opinion, but I told him it wouldn't be a fair fight.

Sorry for the delay - - life got a little hectic for a while. Anyway, here's Darryl's analysis: [Note to mods - - neither the lease nor the relocation agreement is copyrighted, so there is no problem with quoting them extensively below] 1. From the Non-Relocation Agreement: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf The relevant language is in Section 3(b) - - I deleted extraneous language for clarity: That's still a lot of verbiage, even with extraneous language deleted, but here's the key part - - the phrase "except as permitted by clause (iv) of this paragraph" clearly shows that there are some circumstances in which "clause (iv)" allows the Bills to attempt to move the Team. So what are those circumstances? Per "clause (iv)," it's when the "relocation . . . would first take effect after the Non-Relocation Term." Note that the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" is capitalized. That's not a random grammatical error. Initial caps were used because the exact phrase "Non-Relocation Term" has a precise meaning defined in an earlier part of the Non-Relocation Agreement. Here's how paragraph 1® defines the phrase "Non-Relocation Term:" So the "Non-Relocation Term" doesn't end until the "Stadium Lease Expiration Date." That sounds good, right? The new stadium lease runs for 10 years and doesn't expire until 2023. But there's a problem - - the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" is also capitalized, and if you go back to the definitions section, you find that paragraph 1(y) defines the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" as follows: So if you plug the definition of the phrase "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" found in paragraph 1(y) into the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" found in paragraph 1®, the definition of the phrase "Non-Relocation Term" becomes: See the problem? The Non-Relocation Term doesn't necessarily end on July, 31, 2023 - - it could also end on "such earlier date provided for in the 2013 Stadium Lease upon which the Stadium Lease Term shall expire." The language used in the Non-Relocation Agreement makes the "Non-Relocation Term" end whenever the stadium lease ends, and if the Bills exercise their option to pay about $28 million and terminate the lease effective July 31, 2020, then the "Non-Relocation Term" also ends on July 31, 2020. That's important, because paragraph 3(b)(iv)(y) of the Non-Relocation Agreement allows the team to discuss relocation at any time so long as the relocation would actually take place after the "Non-Relocation Term" ends. I realize that the above analysis involves long and tedious reading of a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but this type of analysis of specifically defined terms is what lawyers and judges will do when they are trying to figure out exactly what conduct is prohibited by the Non-Relocation Agreement. Bottom line is that any move that would actually happen after the stadium lease ends (whether it ends by expiration of the full 10 year term or ends by the team exercising it's option to terminate the lease after 7 years), can be discussed by the Bills today. I realize this conclusion contradicts some media reports. If Erie County published accurate versions of the Stadium Lease and Non-Relocation Agreement on the county's website, the media reports are wrong.

And with that, TXBILLSFAN joins the pantheon of people who have just plain ruined it for everybody: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93druining.phtml Unfortunately, the SNL transcript will have to do, because the actual video appears blocked on YouTube. Hey TXBILLSFAN - - FWIW, both my Darryl brothers are far more upset with Bob Poochie than with you (if you read the SNL transcript you'll see why)

"He performs under the name Christ Bearer" Maybe now he'll change it to "Eunuch Corn" and apply for a government job in India: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10767555/Indias-Supreme-Court-creates-official-third-sex-for-eunuchs-and-transgenders.html Eunuch guru?

Hey Bandit, The Franchise Maintenance Covenants are in the Stadium Lease, which is a different document than the Non-Relocation Agreement. There is a separate link to each document in my post above. Not sure if that answers your question. When I have time, I'll post a further reply here explaining in more detail why Darryl thinks that the Non-Relocation Agreement doesn't survive past year 7 if the Bills exercise their year 7 option to terminate the Stadium Lease. It has to do with how specific phrases are defined in each of the two documents. But right now I gotta help both Darryls finish their taxes.

My older brother Darryl had a thought (that's rare, but it happens). If you want to know what the stadium lease and the non-relocation agreement say - - READ THEM! They aint that hard to find: Stadium Lease: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Agreement123.pdf Non-relocation Agreement: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Buffalo%20Bills%20Non-Relocation%20Agreement.pdf The above documents aren't signed copies, but unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County would publish inaccurate versions of the final documents, it's a pretty safe bet that the final terms match the published drafts. So how does the language of the actual documents compare to media reports and what's been claimed in this thread? Darryl aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but here's what he says about it: Nope. Read the Franchise Maintenance Covenants in the Stadium Lease, specifically at section 6.2(b)(iv)(D)(y), found at page 33. The owner of the Bills can talk TODAY to anyone about moving the Bills, so long as the move being discussed would actually happen AFTER the "Term" of the lease (e.g., after the lease expired in 2023, OR after the Bills exercised their option to terminate the lease after 7 years). I don't see any language that restricts what the Bills can do in ANY way if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after 7 years. The Bills would pay $28 million, but what they do after year 7 isn't restricted. It's possible that there is restrictive language somewhere in the lease and I just missed it, because it's a long document, but I don't think so. There is certainly nothing in Article 7, entitled "Lease Termination" found at page 35 of the lease, that requires the Bills to play future games in some new WNY stadium if they exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7. True, but if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7, there is no more lease. Article 7.1 makes it clear that the Bills obligations arising under the Franchise Maintenance Covenants don't survive if the Bills exercise their option to terminate the lease after year 7. Nope. They just have to follow the Article 7 termination procedure and pay the roughly $28 million. If they exercise an option spelled out in the lease about how they can terminate it, that's not "breaking" the lease, it's merely ending it pursuant to a contractual right they bargained for. The Bills can make all the moving arrangements they want, so long as the move being arranged would actually happen after the lease expired (in 2023), or was terminated (in 2020). The non-relocation agreement gives very specific meanings to the defined phrases "Non-Relocation Term" [see section 1®] and "Stadium Lease Expiration Date" [see section 1(y)]. As Darryl reads it, basically, if the Bills exercise their right to terminate the lease after 7 years, the "term" of both the lease and the non-relocation agreement end. Unless you have some reason to believe that Erie County published an inaccurate version of the lease, you're gonna have to show me where the lease says anything remotely like this. I don't see it. Again, I don't see anything remotely like this in the version of the lease that Erie County published on its website. What "numerous in the know sources?" This doesn't seem to be what the lease says.

My younger brother Darryl noticed this: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rise-Planet-Apes-Sequel-Lands-Andy-Serkis-Seven-Figure-Deal-27704.html Spandex? Alzheimer's? Considers himself super-intelligent? Healthy seven figures? This could explain a lot. Who knew Caesar had cats?

In the Daniel Kaplan interview on WGR, Kaplan mentions that he interviewed Ralph in 2005. My friend Google turned up this 2005 article written by Kaplan: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2005/05/20050516/Other-News/In-Profile-Bills-Owner-Ralph-Wilson.aspx

I'd like to see the Bills stay in Buffalo, but this sequence of events worries me: 1. From 2006, before Ralph struck a deal for the "Bills-in-Toronto Series" (re-publishing a Toronto newspaper article that I could not find a direct link to): http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/toronto-seeks-nfl-team-752684/ 2. From 11/24/13: http://www.theglobea...rticle15581107/ 3. Less than 10 days ago: http://www.wgrz.com/...oronto/6929179/ Of course, a sketchy preliminary outline of stadium plans could be drawn up on a shoestring budget without any sort of encouragement from the NFL, and without any Rogers family member's commitment to help finance anything. But the sequence of events does make me wonder if Tanenbaum is trying to put info together and rally support for an eventual bid by Toronto people.

He thinks I'm an idiot, but I think he's a moron - - so we're about even.

Wayne Cubed and mannc: The language that you folks are trying to interpret says Mary Wilson is the "controlling owner," but doesn't specify in what sense it is using the word "owner" - - my brother Darryl says it can be two different things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law Darryl doesn't know which meaning of "owner" was intended in the language you've been discussing because the exact language used is ambiguous. It would be consistent with earlier media reports about the team being placed in a trust, however, if Mary Wilson is now an "equitable owner" (sometimes called a "beneficial owner") because she is a beneficiary of the trust with a vested interest in the proceeds of any future sale of the team.

My youngest brother Darryl claims he got rich writing off the interest he paid on an interest-free loan, so I suppose it could happen.

Brandon Lee died during filming, so I don't think he's gonna be much help.

So if the unionized scholarship athletes strike, and the walk-ons understandably want their best chance to actually play, are the walk-ons scabs? That's gotta be great for team unity. http://www.faegrebd.com/21351 Full text of the NLRB ruling: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-nlrb-northwestern-football-union-ruling-20140326,0,2025939.htmlpage

Don't have a link, but reminds me of another story about a US prisoner who had his middle finger extended in a propaganda photo. His captors either didn't see it or more likely just didn't realize the significance. Was it the Pueblo spy ship incident with N. Korea?

I don't see anything in the video that allows anyone to say for sure whether, after he passed her the first time, (1) she sped up, or (2) he slowed down. Do you? Wouldn't both scenarios look exactly the same on the video? Because she knows she's got the video camera rolling, seems like she would be likely to maintain constant speed and do nothing confrontational that the camera would show.

About a week old, but belongs in this thread: http://www.wgrz.com/story/sports/nfl/bills/2014/03/26/group-working-to-bring-nfl-to-toronto/6929179/