eSJayDee

I'm considering re-siding my home (fiber board lap siding) & likely would be doing the work myself. As I understand things, if you have work done on your primary residence, it is Sales Tax exempt if done by a professional, but AFAIK, if you buy the materials & DYI, you're stuck w/ paying it. Since this would be a considerable expenditure (~$5000 for materials alone), if there is a practical way of avoiding it, it would be quite beneficial. Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

WRT his level of compensation: He is a QB that at one time was thought very highly of. QBs make big $$$. Although I can't imagine anyone throwing Manning type money at him, I do believe he could be signed for an incentive laden cnt that if prolific/successful could pay him several million, which I think would make him valuable WRT FA loss compensation. FWIW, I believe playing time is also taken into consideration. You bring up a good point. I did know that FA loss compensation is based on net loss; I wasn't aware that Evans was our only likely premiere FA coming up. If this is indeed the case, it does make it much less likely that Losman will be worth much, if anything for FA loss compensation.

A few things: Do you think there are any substantially better choices out there for a BU? If the consensus was that there were, someone would have already picked them up (likely to compete for starting). The odds of Edwards playing every significant snap this yr are slim. Losman therefore has value for us THIS YR. Contrary to what everyone says, even if Losman walks after this season (probable), we likely WILL rcv something for him. You get compensation for net FAs lost, so that IF Losman signs elsewhere & does well, we WILL get something for him, effectively perhaps as high as a 3rd rounder. So unless someone is offering a decent pick (3rd or better), I think it's prudent to hold onto him.

Just doing the math in my head, I think it's roughly do-able. Assume he's got a 48" vertical (I doubt he does, but it makes the math easy); this means that he's airborne for about 1/2 second (g=32'/sec/sec, v@t0=16'/sec). If the car goes 6000'/minute (roughly 68mph), it'll cover 100' in 1 second, or 50' in 1/2 second. I assume the car is less than 20' long & is low. I certainly wouldn't advocate doing it, but I contend that it's theoretically humanly possible.

"And to tell you how much I've done for MY State, a favorite of New Yorkers everywhere and one who can count me among his biggest fans, former Buffalo Bob great, Joe Kelly!"

Are they perhaps referring to when the C "double clutches". In those instances, they would call a False Start (on the C). I'm guessing now they consider it a live ball so a free for all scrum will likely ensue. If this is true it's weird. This again appears to be a rule change in favor of the Dee.

I don't think too many Americans will get the connection. (I didn't until I read your post.) "bicycle" is British slang for "prostitute".

Yes, we all say that Fowler sucks & gets blown up too often, but I'd be curious to compare his stats/performance to that of other Cs. Bear in mind, he starts the play w/ his hand between his legs. I would imagine that's a considerable handicap, especially in run blocking. As for the OL being responsible for ~10% of running plays "killed", depending on just how you evaluate that, that could be conceivably good. Linemen acct for over 50% of the blockers on a running play and the guys they're blocking get paid, too.

Actually, I wonder if it might not have the opposite effect. As the rule stands, these guys have a substantial advantage over smaller CBs, but if these guys are indeed having to jump for the ball, rather than attempt to outfight him for the ball, all the CB needs do w/ the rule change is once he touches it & is still in midair, shove his "butt" OB. Of course if the WR chooses &/or is able to keep one or both feet on the ground while making a play on the ball, the DB has the option of jumping to knock it down (he likely won't be able to INT as the WR can then shove him OB.) I'd be surprised if this rule passes as it would be counter productive primarily to offenses, therefore less scoring. Most of the rule changes over the last 30 yrs have been to promote offense and point scoring.

Don't really care 1 way or the other about the playoff seeding. I wonder why if they change it to this, they don't make it the 2 best rcds (maybe one is a wildcard) that are exempt from 1st round games. I'd like to see the hair rule implemented. If they fine guys for their socks not rolled up properly... Personally, I find that mess of hair coming out of a helmet unsightly. As for the facemask change, it seems dubious. There used to only be a 15 yarder; they "recently" added the inadvertent variety. Are they just going to eliminate the inadvertent type (i.e. it seems you're allowed to stiff arm someone in the facemask, but not touch during an attempt to tackle. That seems unfair.), which seems to me to have merit, or make any contact 15 yds? The force-out is good as it simplifies things and rewards a good play.

Look at it this way... If each linemen is worth 2 plays a game, & you've got let's just say 3 linemen that are "average" as opposed to "superior". That's 6 plays a game. You only have about 60 plays, so that's 10%. Granted, an individual lineman won't have the same impact as a QB or RB, but you turns 3 sacks into 3 good completions and 3 runs of no gain for 10 yds or so & that's a SIGNIFICANT difference in your offensive output, say 80 yds. That's the difference between a very below avg offense & a very above avg one. & likely equates to about a TD or so a game. How many games are decided by a TD or less? I'd say about 1/2, so conservatively, I'd say 3 good linemen are worth at least 4 victories / season. I'll concede that a linemen might not have the same impact as a CB, RB or QB, but their contribution IS important AND valuable. You've got the cap space, you gotta use it somewhere.

IMO, there are several elements of the theory that have merit. However, WRT the "1988 copy" & Locke & Rose being healthy, I see a flaw (along w/ the 1988 copy conception thing). Why doesn't everybody all revert back to their 1988 copies completely? i.e. I assume Claire is in her (early) 20s. Why doesn't she revert to being like 10? How can you explain Walt's existence at all? (Then again, maybe he's "special " cuz he's younger than 16, or maybe since he's "special" he's an/the exception.) Than again, thinking of Claire, Boone & Leslie Bibb (forget her name) were likely young & they died. Maybe Claire is destined to as it is necessary for the universe to "correct" which means all not alive in '88 must not exist.

I would imagine that if he indeed wants to play, once the season starts, someone will want to sign him either cuz their training camp roster isn't living up to expectations/hopes or due to injury issues.

I have somewhat of an opposite viewpoint. A dog is something that you can wrestle & lose to; anything less is a barking cat.

Ah, the perfect opportunity to verify that my avatar is reloaded properly. Pooch Wilson, (hopefully) on the left, is a 6 yr old Great Dane.

Handling. W/ improved formulas for rubber it allows you to still have an adequately comfortable ride w/ lower profile tires The lower the profile of the tire there's less flex in the sidewalls & thereby superior handling characteristics. There was a time that 78 was the std aspect ratio w/ econoboxes using 80s & "performance" vehicles going w/ 70s. These days I'd guess 60s are more std & performance vehicles have about 35. As for the tire size having an impact on fuel economy, I would imagine it's negligible. Again, superior formulation equate to less rolling resistance and all you need to do is select a different axle and transmission gear ratios to match the engine's performance characteristics. (These days, auto trannies come w/ 5 or 6 fwd speeds; there was a time when they had only 2 or 3. This helps in this regard, too.)

Regular driver is a 2000 Audi A6 bi-turbo 6-speed. Just took the "toy" out for the 1st time in about 3 months this afternoon. '68 Charger w/ 440!

It does when you're referring to Leonard Seriously, I've never heard of the term either but I suppose it is applicable. (i.e. The SS typically plays closer to the LOS therefore is set up "shorter" than the FS.)

Being among the 80% of guys mentioned in a joke thread below (or above, depending on when you read this), I just HAD to see if mixing bleach w/ brake fluid creates smoke. I'm sorry to report that it does not. Note that I used generic bleach as opposed to the Clorox brand mentioned, but I did try DOT 3, 4 and 5 type brake fluids. Just an observation that the DOT 5 like seperates & looks kinda cool like vinegar & oil salad dressing. DISCLAIMER : Please note that I wore protective eyewear & a respirator while performing these experiments.

There goes another kitten.

Ditto. I was wondering if one shou8ld use DOT 3 or DOT 5. Gonna get out the respirator & give both a try. I'll get back to you.

I think w/ the exception of LB & RB, we're in a position to draft the "best available athlete". We entered the offseason w/ the only positions in need of upgrading being DL & OL. We brought in 3 new OL including 1 definite & 1 likely starter. We upgraded the DL by retainly Kelsay & trading for the Eagles guy. We lost 2 starting LBs. I think we need to draft a LB in rounds 1 or 2 and I'd prefer to wait until round 3 to pick up the RB (or at least round 2). That means that we've got the possiblity to choose the BAA w/ 2 day one picks. I'll defer to the braintrust at OBD as to whether those picks are DT, CB, TE, WR or whereever.

An excerpt from an email I just rcv'd : (I asked him if he thought the 9ers were gonna select Willis - he's a 9ers fan) I think they are going to draft Branch or Okoye. One of the DT's. The DE from Nebraska Carriker is also a possibility because I think he's big enough to play 3-4 and Bryant Young will retire next year. Then they will pick a WR in the 2nd round. I really don't think they will pick Willis as they are pretty good at ILB with Derek Smith and Jeff Ulbrich and they took an OLB last year in the 1st round. I've seen Willis play once and I remember him. He seemed mobile and able to get through the traffic to the ball carrier. He seemed to be in on just about every rushing tackle. FWIW, Willis is who I'm rooting for that we pick.

Just a thought - is it possible that the Others were donning gas masks not to PREVENT themselves from being poisoned, but rather to administer a poison, thereby eliminating their trail. (Of course they'd have to evacuate to some hidden mass grave or something.) Not too likely, but hey, who knows.

I think there was a thread w/ a link on Off The Wall about Prince William & his Randy Hand.