The Dean

Not necessarily. I can't believe some can't manage to get past this fallacious reasoning.

But unfortunately he didn't get the qualification on whether that was a good thing, or a bad thing, for the receivers who mentioned that. TT also has a canon for an arm. Perhaps EJ has developed a bit more touch over the past couple years--he does have a bit more gameday experience than TT. But I believe TT can develop the touch, if indeed the receivers are complaining about the hard throws. Damn right. It's not a bit surprise to me, despite all of his talent, Iverson was never a member of a championship NBA team. (And if I'm mistaken about that, I'm pretty sure he was never a big part of a championship team.)

Outstanding. No advice since I have no children. But let me say, congrats to you and your son. Best of luck to both of you. I think just the fact you are involved and so concerned, bodes well for his chances.

As some have mentioned, people may gossip about a man/woman who, as an adult, remains unmarried. But I don't think they consider that person immoral or unethical---just odd.

You may be right---and who gives a damn. And I agree it's possible some might judge, because they don't understand it as it is unusual. I'm not sure anyone who truly knows me, has any issue with it. Just this evening over dinner I had a conversation wtih a daughter of a client who I had met, but never really talked with. My relationship status became a topic. She was definately a bit confused why a guy "like me" would still be single, never married or engaged,. not currently in a relationship, etc. When the conversations started. I honestly don't think she was judging as much as she simply didn't understand it. By the end of the conversation, I still don't think she understood completely, but she very clearly was not judging me, if she even was in the beginning. Then again, she is the kind of women who thinks it is odd for men to have female friends and vice-versa. I just assumed most people with those views were dead by now. Funny thing is, she was very pretty, and except for her old-fashioned views on relationships, seemed pretty smart. If she wasn't married I'd ask her out in a minute. Well, maybe one. If you thought your spouse/mate was suicidal and this would be the tipping point, I suppose you could delay telling them until they could better handle the information. Then again, if your spouse/mate was in that situation you really shouldn't be cheating on them. Instead you should be working on getting them healthy or working toward the end of the relationship before you started any extra-relationship affairs.

Third world solution.

Shiv the mofo!

Boom, there it is. I decided to post this here because the thread devoted to his starting EJ Saturday is filled with some of the most ignorant comments I've seen in a while. All the talk about EJ being "clearly #3" and far behind the others, looks to be total BS. My guess, is there really isn't much separation between the three in the minds of the coaches. But it is possible, they are giving EJ some exposure for a possible trade. The truth is, we don't know that is on the minds of the coaches. Just because one guy reported Rex was leaning toward TT and Roman MC (and that report was re-reported by many) doesn't make it so. And even if it was true at some point, it doesn't mean it is true now. The situation is, as they say, fluid. And just because teams typically start their #1 QB in the 3rd preseason game, there is no rule to that effect. What do all of those who claimed we would know who is likely to start the season by who starts this game? They all look like fools now, unless they are convinced EJ is getting the nod come the regular season. As you know, I haven't been the biggest Rex fan, but the guy seems true to his word. He is giving all three a legitimate shot to show what they have. I have to think Roman plays a big part in this, too. This may be the most exciting and interesting preseason I can remember. I'm not sure it will mean much come the second week of September, but what the hell? Bring it on!

Actually, I think you are drawing a false narrative when you suggest monogamy is the "only accepted socially narrative". I've been single my entire life (58 years) and have never felt any pressure to be married, or in some sort of monogamous relationship. None. Sure people might ask why I'm not married, or don't have a serious girlfriend, but I don't feel they are judging me to any extent, once we have a real conversation about it. I think our society expects you to be monogamous when you enter into a traditional relationship where monogamy is expected. And if you in one of those relationships, unless you have an honest agreement to have an open relationship, monogamy should be expected. Many so-called "open relationships" fail because one party isn't really that honest about their acceptance/happiness in that sort of relationship--or they use subterfuge with the party/parties with who they are looking to have sex with outside the relationship. I happen to think there is no difference, ethically, between stealing and cheating on someone with whom you've established a monogamous relationship. If you don't feel monogamy is natural, or that you can totally commit to one person, don't get into that kind of relationship. Honestly, there are legitimate reasons one might steal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to cheat if you are in a monogamous relationship, and lie about it.

Odd indeed. I think some banks charge to do transactions with a live human. At least I remember that from Wells Fargo or BOA in California. I bank at a local credit union now. And while it's very easy to use my mobile app to deposit, and I can use a no-fee ATM at the major local grocery store, I actually like to go to the local branch. Very nice people. They know my name. We joke around. A cute teller or two (yes, women, you freaks). It has a wide open desk where the tellers operate---no glass at all. Very accommodating.

Heavy man. Heavy.

For some reason, I can't stop laughing at this.

I have to disagree with that. Not everyone understands the implications of what they do on the Internet---and I don't think this is an acceptable outcome for that ignorance. Unrelated (but not completely) to that, a couple was on NPR today discussing how the man's email was on the list, but he didn't sign up. As you may already know, AM didn't make you verify your email (send you an email to respond to---unthinkable in any good practice for such a site). They went to AM and did a password reset (then they send you an email) logged in and got the profile for the guy who created the account. Found his Twillter and Facebook accounts. Similar last name, completely different physical description. Claim they actually know who he is and where he lives. They sounded pretty convincing (though I'm sure it could have been the man from the couple who was smart enough to put fake details in his profile). This was an intelligent couple who really know how to work the net. Imagine if the wife wasn't so savvy---how about having to explain to her it wasn't really you who signed up. Good luck with that.

Dead on here, IMO. Not including Eli, Flacco and Stafford is preposterous. I might include a couple others if "good" is the standard. Hell we may find out the Bills actually have a "good" QB. Bad coaching and/or a bad team can make a great QB look good, and a good QB look terrible. But that's why guys make these lists---click bait.

Racist!

Well, let's get rid of the absolute "every" here, and just deal with the typical. I agree most men, and women, have sexual desires that extend to more than one person. So what? We also probably want to grab everything we want and not pay for it---right? Mine Mine Mine!!!!! I like to think you learn things as you age, and one of those things is, you can desire something, but not act on it---and that is fine. Even if your relationship is great, and you really love your partner, you will still be attracted to other people. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the relationship. We evolve---physical, mentally and emotionally. As people, and as a race. A base response for us is to be suspicious of those not like us---hence racism. (Yes, I realize this is a bit over-simplistic, but go with it.) If we are physical imposing, we understand early we can get our way through physical intimidation and violence. I could go on. But as a society we realize it is better to keep these base instincts in check. We can live very happier, and more productive lives (as a group), without giving into our base instincts. With that said, we have plenty of outlets to indulge most of those instincts without being complete dicks. If you are physically imposing, you can play sports and get your fix. You can join a "men's" group, an Italian organization, Augusta National or the NAACP to get your xenophobic freak on. And nobody is forcing you to get into a monogamous relationship. That's a choice you make. Marriage is one step beyond that--usually. I know married couples who have fairly open sexual relationships. But they aren't lying to each other about them. If you want to know one, exclusively human behavior, I think it's lying. I'm not saying there isn't any other animal that engages in that behavior---but I can't think of one at the moment. OK, I'm ranting---where was I going with this? Dunno... But I just typed all that, so maybe it means something. I need another drink...

For what it's worth (I know, not much) I thought the "psycho" remark was clearly in jest. But then again, I tend not to assume people are being dicks.

I love hot peppers, but have no use for pickled hot peppers. Chef is right, they tend to taste the same---and quite frankly that is "not good" at least to me. I've made the mistake of saying yes to "would hot peppers on that?" without first checking to see if the peppers are fresh. Typically ends up poorly for me--meal ruined.

I think you make a good point, GG. I think NFL players, celebrities, well-known politicians, etc, tend to get a pass on some things "regular" people might get pinched for. OTOH when they actually do get caught/arrested, I think they can often get harsher treatment by the press and public (and sometimes even by a prosecutor trying to make a name for his/herself) than a regular person with the same violation.

Understood. And yes, it was an over-statement of sorts. But in your example, don't you find the subject in question a bit "pitiful"? I mean, don't you pity someone in that situation? I purposefully didn't use the word "scum" or "loser" because sometimes they are just in a crappy spot. But I think even if the cases you mention, it's best not to hide what's going on. I also know that is more than a bit utopian--but it might help explain why I've never been married.

I think those in a supposed "committed monogamous relationship" using the site are pitiful humans. Those who make these kind of sites, are money-grubbing scum---they take advantage of the pitiful. For me, a quick way to judge a business is, when questioned about the practices of the company, somewhere in the answer is "what we do isn't illegal" or something along those lines. The hackers in this case, are law-breaking scum. Self-deluded and self-righteous. Huge financial penalties and a long stretch behind bars is what they deserve.

I think you mean, "haven't the majority..." And the answer is "yes". I just really don't see any mixed signals from the staff. Rex would really throw a wrench into that thinking by starting EJ on Saturday.

Nobody else is going to pick that stuff out of that thing.

Shepard porn.