The Dean

Those were great drives. The guy was exciting and could make some plays in crunch time. But often he was only in position to have to make those plays because of his ordinary play earlier in the game. A better QB might not have been playing from behind and needed the "magic" in some of those games. But I really was not a Flutie hater. It's actually the ridiculous Flutie fan-boys (and girls) who are worse. You would think the guy had a sensational NFL career the way some carry on about Skin. I mean he must have won at least two/three Super Bowls, right? All he ever does is win, right? Let's be realistic. He provided some excitement for a team that really needed it. The Bills had a great D at the time, so for awhile it could deal with Flutie's then limited skill set. But the guy was what he was. A below average starter who had the ability to improvise and, at times, make some nice plays.

I'm not really a fan of three/four chord music. Garage bands don't do it for me. I could listen to the Stones in the 60's, but quickly got sick of it. But how embarrassing is it to see Mick strutting around on stage, mugging, while the band is playing this adolescent dreck? At least they have surrounded themselves with some real musicians. (Chuck Leavell for example). With that said, the Replacements don't strike me as being the worst of the lot. The music is somewhat tolerable, if sort of run of the mill for the genre. I would have suggested the lead singer get some vocal training. I mean, one would expect professional musicians to be constantly working on their craft. Improving their musicianship, singing, etc. Maybe they do that, and it takes a lot of work to sound this raw and untrained. If so, they shouldn't be embarrassed about displaying their skills a bit more. Edit: The iTunes/U2 commercial just aired here and I feel compelled to say: Is Bono the most self-absorbed douche in music? See I can also dislike talented musicians who choose to pose on stage, and play "rock anthems". Then, of course, commercialize it as much as possible. I find them reprehensible.

Even if that was the case at your gate, for the Miami game. Fewer entrances are more susceptible to problems. Think of it this way, would you rather have multiple roads to the stadium, or fewer roads with more lanes? And accident can screw up even the largest road. Same with a gate. Problem with scanners, big fight, insert your own congesting inducing disruptions here. It's easier to avoid the trouble spots with more options. Perhaps your gate was smooth because many people were enticed by the Super Gate (after all it is "Super"). Maybe folks who got stuck in the delay will start spreading to the other gates and then you may see a bit more congestion. Or, it might all straighten itself out. I guess time will tell. You have to understand, I'm a guy who avoids the major roads during rush hour. The highway might be faster, when all goes well. But too many times all doesn't go well and the whole thing comes to a standstill. I like to be in position to quickly turn onto another road, if I sense trouble. I'll actually go out of my way, just to keep moving. Or, if all else fails, find somewhere (like a bar) to stop and chill and wait for things to die down.

But had he started the playoff game in Tennessee the Bills definately would have won. Because Flutie "just wins". If RJ would have only make the tackle on the kickoff.

Yes. My position doesn't change though. Two gates, in two different locations, are better than one twice the size, IMO. For several reasons, actually.

Didn't attend the game so have no business commenting. But I will. When I read they were reducing the # of gates, and creating a "Super Gate" that was supposed to make it quicker to get into the game, I shook my head in disbelief. Fewer gates means more people congested into fewer areas. Super Gate suggest a LOT more people forced into a single area. I never bought the advantage. Had I been able to attend, my strategy would have been to avoid the Super Gate.

Pitbulls are not among the dogs who bite most often, from what I've read. But they do more damage when they actually bite. As people believe pitbulls are mean, and really don't know dogs, they often misreport dog attacks and attribute the breed of the biting dog as "pitbull". It can be interesting the dogs some people think are pitbulls. Bad dogs are typically the result of bad owners. Pretty obvious to anyone who knows dogs.

Well, the women I knew in Buffalo weren't completely airbrushed. But I worked with several women far better looking than Ms. Flutie. Nothing against her, she seems like a pretty girl and I wish her well. She might even be very attractive. Kind of hard to tell when there is that much production in the shot. I never quite got the common belief that Buffalo women were wholly unattractive. Buffalo has a lot of Polish and Irish women, who tend to be pretty fantastic, IMO.

Milt Northrop? He still alive? Maybe his son or something?

While I doubt Donald actually sends all of his tweets, I suspect he does send some. Hard to believe a paid caretaker of the account would decide to send something so incredulous. Typically those people send innocuous PR things.

I believe, he will see a nice profit from the Sabres, if/when he decides to sell the team. I find the way you defend Trump interesting. You seem to think successful = good. Or successful = smart. I'm not sure I share those value judgments. There are good rich people and bad rich people. There are stupid successful people and smart rich people. Trump seems to be all about Trump. That doesn't get him much respect in my book. I'm sure he does some charitable work. I expect most very wealthy folks do. Sometimes for tax breaks. Sometimes for positive publicity. Sometimes because they really care. I'm guessing Trump has some of each quality, but mostly because of the PR. Perhaps this will interest you: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/trump-least-charitable-billionaire-109247

That was my original guess, but it got no traction, so I assumed it was wrong. Thanks.

I have no problem with what it represents. It's the music I find offensive. Anyway, why "the Mats"? Where does that come from?

I'm guessing the reference to Urbik being the only C backup meant, by him playing guard he increases his change for injury. That is, if Wood gets injured the backup may also be injured.

Actually nothing like buying, actually. A local affiliate may have a particular interest in a certain team. [When Joe Montana went to the Chiefs, I fought with NBC (they carried the AFC at the time) to let us carry the KC matchup if we had been assigned another out-of-market game. We were compelled by NFL rules to show any SF or Oakland game we were assigned---and of course it would have been moronic to not carry those.] In those cases, they can request to have a different game assigned by the network. In a large market, that could be an issue. The networks sell ad time (as do their owned stations) and attempt to estimate the coverage of every particular game. A large market changing games might disrupt those estimates. Plus there is ego involved. Network execs tend to be fairly arrogant and don't like their decisions questioned. But if a station can make a compelling case (especially if the market is so small the network really doesn't care all that much) they can get an alternative game. With that said, NE/Pats seems like a particularly poor choice for a national game.

Back when they had Jills, you got a little bonus! But unfortunately, now the drumline takes care of those duties. I'd probably pass if I were you.

You help to make my point.

That was my point. I agree with most of this. I think starting at 15 or 16 might be a tad late, though. Thrown them in jail. So perhaps we are in relieve agreement. I'm pretty stoned tonight, so I could be off on that.

Ah, I thought you were suggesting, if they had some discipline in their lives, as they grew up, they might have not turned out to be total pieces of s@it. And to that I agree, but just thought Peterson a troublesome example to pick. Now that I see your talking about beating 15 and 16 years old, I disagree completely. That's why we have police and a justice system.

I do not assume that at all. I know some people who are the very opposite of hillbilly who live in relative wilderness. At times I wish I had the temperament and survival skills to live in semi-seclusion--at times. I just mean it's probably a good place for you to live and be happy. I know this might come as a big shock to you but, you don't seem to have the best "people skills". The wilderness suits your personality apparently, and certainly doesn't expose you to your apparent weaknesses.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I think you just may have picked an unfortunate role model, in one sense. Probably a good father who means well. Might be a better father than many other people. But I don't think we should suggest people inflict that kind of punishment on a small child--or for that matter, any relatively defenseless human being. I'm not of t he belief that Peterson is a bad guy, who is some sort of child abuser--at least the kind we normally think of. I hope the guy gets whatever punishment he is due for what he did. and they can go back to playing football. I seriously doubt he would ever do it again.

In your case, I think that's a good call on your part. Seriously.

Very nice spot. Hard to not like the guy.

The deeper the welts, the better they learn. Right?

Your family lives in the yard?