KRC

I work on placing dogs into families. I am specifically addressing the ignorance if the shepherd comments and how they relate to family environments. I am sorry that was beyond your cognitive abilities. +1 for the post count.

No. No, you didn't. Now, keep spouting ignorance so that you can increase your post count. Yup. It's not the breed. It's the owners that cause the problem.

Just STFU already. I deal with dog evaluations/placements on a daily basis with a GSD rescue. You sit behind a keyboard and Google. Who do you think is more credible? Just stop.

First, if you plan on going to a pet store or breeder to get your dog, don’t waste my time. You are just contributing to the problem. Go to a shelter or rescue organization. Picking a dog is not as easy is just picking the breed you want. Obviously, a lot goes into picking the breed. You have to take into account shedding, size, energy levels, etc. Beyond that, once you have picked the breed, you still need to evaluate the individual dog to make sure that they are a good fit. For example, I work with a German Shepherd Rescue. My job is placing the proper dogs in the proper homes. When an applicant approaches us for adoption of one of our shepherds, I do the reference checks to make sure that they would be good parents to their new dog. That includes talking to their vet, as well as the personal references. Next, you need to evaluate the home to see the environment that the dog will be living in. Do they have a fenced-in yard? How tall is the fence? Any other animals? Kids? How old? How long will the dog be left alone during the day? What is the level of expertise of the owners with dogs? You get the idea. Next, you evaluate the dogs. We go through an extensive process in evaluating the dogs while at the shelter. At that point, the dog goes into a foster home until the dog can be placed into their forever home. Throughout that fostering process, the dog is continuing to be evaluated to determine the proper home for that dog. We would rather keep the dog in a foster home than to place the dog in the wrong home. For example, let’s look at one of our dogs: Hank. A woman came to us because she was interested in Hank. She saw his picture on our website, read the description and fell in love with the dog. She wanted Hank. All the references checked out, but there was a problem. Hank is a very prey-driven dog. This potential adopter thought that she could just dump the dog into her current house (with cats and another dog) and think that she could just work out any issues that arose. We refused to adopt Hank to her because of having the cats in the house. Hank could potentially hurt or kill the cats. Not a good fit. We would be more than happy to adopt the proper dog into her household, but we refuse to put the dog and/or other animals at risk due to the ignorance of the owner. Obviously, I am being overly simplistic. The evaluation and placement process is much more in-depth than can be discussed here. I take the adopter through the entire process and make sure that only the right dogs are presented to the potential adopter and that the right dog is placed. You can PM me with any specific questions and we can get into more detail. Every dog has its own personality. Just because it is a specific breed, does not mean that the personality is going to be the same throughout the breed. Take your time to make sure it is the right dog and it has the right personality for your household. That way, both you and the dog will have many happy years together.

As someone who works with a German Shepherd Rescue and is around dogs on a constant basis, it is amazing the amount of ignorance displayed in this thread. Frankly, it disgusts me.

I doubt it. They will just rename the show from Jon + Kate to Jon-Kate.

A lot of those guys on your list played before 1990. They should promptly be remove as they cannot be considered all-time greats, since they played before 1990. Bigger, stronger, faster and all that. [/tards]

During his divorce trial, his wife had asked the judge to have him undergo drug testing because of "erratic behavior." Whether this was a ploy by the wife to get more money out of him is not known. Whether he underwent testing has been sealed in court documents. Same with any results, if testing took place. Other than that, I have not seen any reports of even alleged drug use, let alone factual information to back it up.

Bush wavered ever-so slightly over the last year or so of his term. Granted, the focus was still the six-party talks, but I think that the other parties needed him to back down slightly from his hard stance in order to get the DPRK to come to an agreement (for what it is worth). The US would take the DPRK off the list of state-sponsors of terror (which was a slight concession to the DPRK). They also added various forms of aid to the DPRK in order to get them to an agreement. They reached the agreement, but it didn't have enough teeth to really be binding. They left too much wiggle room for the DPRK to get out of it by not setting enough in stone. You can pretty much score that one for the DPRK, but Bush overwhelmingly won throughout his terms. Now, Obama is moving slightly toward the Clinton approach, which is not a good thing. He has been trying to open diplomatic ties with the DPRK. I am not sure if that is the right approach at this time. Overall, the Bush approach was working and to see Obama follow most of those policies is a good thing. If he starts to back off, then there will be a problem. Focusing more on the PSI is a good thing and a continuation of Bush's policies. Obama needs to be careful with this, however. One false step and he will not get international support for future actions. He also needs to not back down to these new threats. If he does that, the DPRK will walk all over him. The main problem Obama faces now is that the DPRK is looking for a change in power to Kim Jong Un (KJI's youngest son). That is pretty much what you are seeing at this time (missles, nuclear tests, etc). KJI seems to be as sick as reports are leading us to believe and they need a succession plan in place. In order to do that, you need to start creating a legacy for KJU. The people will not except him as the new leader without it. Some rumors have it that the Party will call the shots and KJU will just be a figurehead, but that till remains to be seen. If KJI passes in short order, that is probably what is going to happen. If KJI can stick it out for a while longer, KJU will obtain the real power. More time is needed to see how much power KJU will really have once daddy passes. I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I have no idea what anyone else has said.

I went to the publisher's website and they are selling it for $89 there, as well. Seems like a pretty steep price for the book, but if you are into that stuff, it would be worth it. This will probably be the only book on the subject you are going to see. Give us a review after you read it.

It's not often when you see clear UFO's (except for the ring on the outside). Looks like a contact lens on the window of a car.

Calling it a "logistical nightmare" is being a little over dramatic. You can take the existing bye week, add one more game and only add one week to the season. More regular season football, same amount of downtime. Get rid of the two weeks between the conference championships and the Super Bowl and the schedule remains the same. I do not favor two additional games, nor do I see players agreeing to two additional games. One is a possibility, but they might reject it on the grounds of increased injury risk. The NFL has added games in the past (multiple times) and everyone has survived. I think that everyone is going to survive if the NFL adds a game or two now.

The players might object on the grounds of more risk of injury. Yes, contracts would go up that year, but over the life of their career, they might see less. The added wear and tear would shorten their careers. Therefore, the added few $100G's in one year could mean less $1MMs over the life of their career. They might not want to take that risk.

Wouldn't he do that anyway?

1 and 2 are the most feasible from a scheduling perspective. The rivalry game may be part of the normal schedule, so what do you do then? Of the first two options, I would rather see number 2. To me, that would make things more interesting from a potential playoff perspective in that you have a better chance to play someone that you might have to fight for a playoff spot. Now, you are going to come back and discuss that we would be playing the 3rd and 4th spots so playoffs might not have an impact, but as we know, the 3rd and 4th can become the 1st or 2nd the following year. The second option would be better, IMO. I would rather see more conference games.

Make the additional game(s) the neutral site game(s). That way, nobody loses a home game and the NFL can still do their international thingy.

They would be adjusted for the additional game(s).

It would have to be negotiated into the new CBA. I can see the union possibly accepting one more game, but I cannot see them accepting two more games. I don't think that you need to add another round to the draft. You already have plenty of players not making the squads with the current setup.

What I find more disturbing is that there are two of them.

Quoted for truth.

Word. If you need to add something to your beer, it wasn't brewed properly to begin with.

I had some pretty good moonshine late last year. Some customers of ours from West Virginia brought it up.

Don't waste your time. Some will just never get it.

...and the Bears were from Decatur and the Lions from Portsmouth and the Redskins from Boston...

Troublemaker. Good for you. Authors should get credit for their work.