yall

Ditto. I have more respect for OJ than these two. At least blind raging jealousy is understandable, if not forgivable.

I haven't seen many folks report stuff here that seemed out of the norm for these two. Granted, they may have been quoted poorly, and often out of context, but there is little denying they prefer the dark cloud to the silver lining.

3 TD's is "not losing the game"?

I used to like Schopp. Then, there seemed to come a point in time where, ostensibly, his favorite restaurant began serving dishes with a giant helping of insta-jerk.

Lets hope it doesn't have any of yours...

Yeah, we get it. You are a knee biter. By the way, there is a correlation. A very direct one. 9.144 meters to be exact.

Do you eat paint chips too? How will the baby being born 9 after the supposed rape prove a damn thing about where the baby was conceived? She could have been knocked up 3 days later for all you know.

You should never give fliuds to people in shock. (Let me be more clear... you should not let them drink) However given the circumstances it would have been ok to do so, because heat stroke/exhaustion may have been the problem, in which case fluids are good. Edit: Few peeps beat me to it, but all in all, it sounds like you used good judgement. These types of "rules" for treatment need to be applied with a dose of common sense.

I'm guessing you can't read well. Where did I slag CoachChuckDickerson for his priorities? Please... show me. Edit: Rather than triple posting, I'd like to throw this out there as well. A few people, myself included have demonstrated that a percentage (although possibly a very small one) would consider leaving the area if the Bills were no longer here. Considering that the Bills also have the power to "lure" in residents (as they did in my case...) their absence could, and likely would, have a detrimental effect on the current problem of population exodus that WNY is experiencing. If you think things are not so hot around here now, can you imagine the potential economic impact of the Bills leaving?

I guess my point is that I can get cake anywhere. I have no relatives in the area, and I get job offers from all over the country all of the time. The fact of the matter is I enjoy watching professional sports, and if I really don't give two stevestojan's about where I live with regard to climate or proximity to family (they are all spread out). I may as well find something about an area that I enjoy. The main thing that sets WNY apart from the rest of the country FOR ME is the 2 pro sports teams. Otherwise I could be just as happy in San Diego.

Screw that. I moved here because of the Bills. What's wrong with that? Some people move to Arizona for the dry air, some to Florida for the sun. I could move to California if I wanted, but I wouldn't be able to go to Sabres or Bills games. Sure the weather would be nicer, and I'd make more money, but figure in the cost of living adjustments and I'd be no better off... well except for the few extra dollars I might have from NOT attending the home games for my two favorite profressional teams. "Life decisions" are based on a number of factors. Don't slag somebody because their priorities differ from yours.

Real sorry to hear that, but keep your head up man. I don't know much about breast cancer, but my pop had esophogeal cancer and he had a 5% chance according to his doctors. At one point they told him to call hospice because they thought he had about 2 weeks left before he died. That was 2 years ago. You look at him now and never would know anything was wrong. The biggest thing is a positive mental attitude, which can help even in the worst cases. Stay positive, listen to the doctors, but ask them questions too. They are far from perfect and you need to stay on top of them. Good luck to your mom and your family.

If the Bills left, I'd leave. They are the main reason I went to school in Fredonia and stayed here after graduation. I love going to the games and really look forward to the home opener every year. Our economy is lousy and the taxes are horrid. The Bills are one of the few reasons remaining to love this town/area. I can only imagine what kind of impact the team leaving would have on the economy and psyche of WNY.

A lot of people said that about the Japanese after WW2. They may be the exception (and granted it's not as though under the Emperor it was an entirely totalitarian regieme as we know it) but there was an underlying somewhat racist sentiment that those sandle wearing goldfish tenders wouldn't be able to handle democracy.

Well this does bring up some points. Can a religion be bad? Just because a large number of people practice it, and do so without causing violence, does that make it a "good" religion? One of my longstanding criticisms of Islam in general has been that I think a peaceful religion cannot be based upon the actions of an individual who is violent. I also believe that muslims who practice a peaceful variant are ignoring the violent and expansionist history of their religion (much like Jews and christians ignore the ugly parts of their respective scriptures). Everyone likes to cite the examples of other religions at this point, but this discussion is about one religion in particular. Kepp in mind that I'm not saying "ChristianityGood", but I'm trying to understand why people associate Islam with peace, when the actions of it's founder clearly indicate otherwise.

But that isn't necessarily a response to oppression as much as it is Mohammed being savvy enough to try and attract the disenfranchised to his cause. He'd take anyone who listened, including a bunch of criminals and thugs who helped him to carry out violent actions such as caravan raids, beheadings and assassinations. Heck, he killed poets who were critical of him in their prose. Then if the word of God was in conflict with his actions, Mohammed would luckily have more revelations that would make his actions acceptable again. I guess what I'm getting at is that Islam wasn't so much the result of people being oppressed as it was someone making a power grab for themselves.

No stevestojan. Cultural thing maybe, but the names do get confusing.

Please do, as this type of info is pretty hard to unearth (or at least versions that aren't completely tainted).

Given the history of Islam, I'd have to disagree with your inclusion of it in that assertion. Mohammed claimed to receive messages from Gabriel at a point in his life where he was a modestly successful trader. From what I know, this wasn't a counter action to any injustice percieved or otherwise. I can't begin to say he did or did not speak with an angel, but there is no evidence to support your claim that the religion was founded as a reaction to violence or oppression. The first bit of conflict seems to have come when Mohammed was telling the Meccan's that their god's were false and they apparently didn't care for that. He got scared, fled to Medinia and got together some worshippers. He was pretty pissed at the way he was treated in Mecca and plotted revenge against them while slowly gaing power in Medina. While in Medina he preached tolerance but the proclaimed jews should be killed as they openly began to call him out about his contradictory teachings. So, he had all the jews in medina killed. Swell guy. All the while he was organizing raids on Meccan caravans, of which he supposedly led a great number. Then there were some peace treaties with the Meccans to allow the pilgrimage (which was a pagan tradiotn prior to Mohammed incorporating it into Islam... wow, just like Christmas! Nice!) but then once he was powerful enough, he broke the treaty and was basically in control of most Arab tribe. Then he died.

Why can I think of nothing other than Princess Liea (sp?) when I read that?

I hate multi-quotes so BlueFire you are first: I completely understand the point of your post, but it doesn't address the current problem at had which is that Islam does not only have a disproportionate number of extremists, but that they are generally the ones in control. They control the education and subsequently breed more of their own. Where I'm going with this is: what can be done? I'm not advocating that Islam be eliminated (and I'm pretty sure it could not be done anyway). But the problem still exists. Ignoring it will do very little. Over time, as more extremists represent the religion it will be in a phase of greater conflict with other cultures, nations, and religions and the violence will not only continue, but increase. AD: Islam seems to be growing just fine despite it's not-so-foward thinking approach. Where is the incentive to become more moderate if the current plan is generating "membership"? With regard to the "What you're inferring is not what I meant by the phrase." part, I'm not sure what I was supposed to infer by it. It seemed as though you were stating that the current course of Islam was similar to other belief systems in the past where the religion controlled the population, but now that control has wained. I WOULD consider that reform or at least progress. Perhaps I misunderstood...

It goes well beyond just "one moron" and is indicative of a mentality that values the teachings of a violent criminal over human life and freedom. It may not represent all of Islam and certainly not all Muslims....just as a moderate Christian can choose to ignore the nasty bits of the Bible, a Muslim may do the same. But waaaaay to many of them are not moderate, and that is a genuine problem.

"In the manner Islam does now" is exactly what we are talking about here. Yes I would agree that with that clause in place what you have said is a true statement. Take that qualification out and we could argue semantics for days on end. But again it's off topic. Islam's take on individual and human rights is a problem and something needs to be done. I'm hoping it comes from within, as people tend not to like having their belief trampled on by outsiders.

Jeez dude, get your story straight From BlueFire: "I think one of the points that AD was trying to make, or at least how I interpreted it, is that this struggle has already been played out in Christianity and they don't have the power to do such things anymore. Islam, on the other hand, maintains enough power in the Middle East to do so." To which you replied: "Bingo" So which is it: "Struggle already played out" or "zealots back on top of the food chain?"

You never said anything about religious control. You said "when the Christians or Catholics have complete control of any country again" which does describe a lot of South America. Considering the bulk of the South American populus considers itself Christian (including elected officials) I'd say it's pretty firmly in control of Christians. But once again, a thread pointing out major problems with modern Islam, it's interpretation and practice, has involved an inexplicable comparison to Christianity. The two are very different religions from their roots, with one being prone to inciting violence due to the violent nature of it's founder. It needs to be discussed and I'd like to see some Muslim leaders address this issue in particular. The problem then becomes that any percieved criticism of the prophet seems to get someone killed somewhere. edit:poor grammer