Jump to content

eSJayDee

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eSJayDee

  1. Do these owners recognize a special bark for prowlers!!!?

     

    Actually, yes. If you're attentive to your dog(s), (which people ostracizing them to the backyard probably aren't), you will learn that they have distinctive barks for different occasions.

    I'd say my dog (Great Dane) has about 6 distinctive barks which I can recognize. (Who's trained whom, huh?)

    Much like people use the F-word to have several meanings based on inflection.

  2. It's his job to assess the situation and dispatch personnel as appropriate. It is the responding officers responsiblity to determine whether or not the children should be shot. :doh::blink:

     

    I think a better response would have been, "I've put you in the queue for officer reponse; they should be there shortly. I will also contact Child Protective Services and they will likely be contacting you in the morning" 0:)

  3. He got a 14 on the 16th, a par 3. Had he managed to quadruple bogey it, he woulda broke 100!

    Depending on how tough the course is playing, it wouldn't (oops, fixed that) surprise me if I failed to break 100. (On my normal course, I shoot in the 70s more often than in the 90s.)

  4. I seem to recall reading about a study done a while ago, that indicated that the amount of 'genetic damage' caused by this form of inbreeding is actually quite negligible.

    So from a dueling banjos standpoint, there really isn't anything to recommend prohibiting it.

    For that matter, it doesn't get into the breeding issue, just marriage. Perhaps yet another reason our legal concept of marriage is antiquated.

    I personally think that the gov't should not dictate any 'social' implications of a union such as this.

  5. But that doesn't work, for example, when a QB is sacked and fumbles the ball.  If the refs think that his arm was going forward, they have to blow the whistle as an incomplete pass, thus killing the play.  If they don't do that (and instead assume every time the ball isn't in a player's hands, it could be live), it'd then be legal to plaster the QB (or any player) while going for the ball.  It's just not practical.

     

    CW

    278044[/snapback]

     

     

    I think we're both agruing the same thing. In this case, or in the case of a pass that may or may not have been caught, or 'fumble' that may have occurred after a runner was down, the only course of action to be taken by the Refs that will allow this new implementation to work, is to assume the ball is still live until there is evidence that it's not. In the name of protecting players, particularly QBs, I can't imagine them implementing anything like this that can be truly/completely successful.

  6. I think that can only work if the Refs are taught to purposely delay blowing the whistle until they can ascertain that the ball is dead (which requires either seeing it or evidence that it's stationary as are all nearby 'participants').

    Although, I personally REALLY get peeved by the way they currently call it, it is for the protection of the players AND most importantly the QB is the one most frequent involved in these type of plays & we all know how the league treats QBs in their pretty Sunday dresses.

  7. Let's see, you basically exchanged, what, like a couple of '8x10 color glossy pictures' (w/ circles & arrows & a paragraph on the back of each on? :w00t: ) which actual value is, what, maybe $2 each?

    The actual value of what you traded is more determined by the 'sentimental' value it holds for the owner. If you're happy & you're Dad's happy then it's fair. Then again, it being family, wouldn't either of you be willing to give their pic for free up if the other really wanted it?

  8. I'm speculating here, but perhaps it has something to do w/ revenue sharing. W/ some or maybe all of its commercials, ABC has to share the revenue w/ local affiliates (also allocating a certain # of spots for 'local' ads). ESPN doesn't have affiliates.

    I also think that saying ABC loses money running MNF is a difficult thing to quantify. How many ads do they run for their own shows? Do they pay themselves? What about lead-in? & follow-thru to local news. I would also imagine that it's one of the higher rated shows on Monday, so indirectly it makes their franchises/affiliates more valuable.

  9. Actually, I think you can count me among the few(?) who were disappointed (although only moderately) in the movies. I think the problem is that the trilogy is SOOO big/long, that even in a 9+ hour movie, it can't fully cover the story. That said, if you take the movies by themselves, ignoring the fact that they're based on books, I could see how people could say that they're confusing. There's a lot going on.

     

    That said, I personally preferred story of The Hobbit to the LOTR & am looking forward to when/if Jackson makes it/them.

  10. I think the problem is that the easiest solution for legislators is to raise taxes. Their next easiest solution is to cut benefits that are not 'mandatory' but that will have the most people complain.

    Now the question is do the constituency cave & concede the tax hike, or do they push for more difficult spending reform.

×
×
  • Create New...