eSJayDee

Curious, I found a story on 'WorldNewsNet' or someplace similar (Dateline 7-apr, IIRC) & they sited the Baltimore Sun for the story. I couldn't find any mention of it on the Baltimore Sun site.

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.)

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.

Was you inability to sit caused by the punishment or the fact you were still successful in sneaking out ?

I believe someone stated that the isolated French woman's name is Rousseau (sp?).

Congrats John!!! Hope you enjoy it. I'm a Mopar guy myself; I own a '68 Charger, so don't bring up that Bullitt thing

I remember a very funny poster from way back when. It was a pic of a Delorean (from the rear, slightly angled), covered w/ snow. The license plate said 'DEALER' & just to the left of it, was a bumper sticker w/ a Logo'd 'Coke'

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.

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.

Okay, I didn't actually count the # of buttons, but w/ a cursory walk around the house & some estimates, (& I didn't count anything integrated into the house, just seperate appliances), but I'd estimate I've probably got about 500.

I don't think it'd be that slow.

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? ) 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?

1) Leno 2) Jimmy Buffett 3a) Bruce Willis 3b) Harrison Ford (he's been w/ some young'ens relatively speaking, too)

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.

What about good old Happy Feller from the Saints.

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.

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.

Old joke alert - "Dude! You're getting a cell."

I think that rivals the (in)famous Christie Kerr w/ her Long dildo!

I think a more important question is how well will/could Mr. Anderson replace PW. In our current scheme as you allude to, PW is in on early downs, one can assume primarily due to his superior run dee skills, where as RE is often in on passing situations (& seems to be adept at providing pressure). The way we currently play Dee, seems we don't let our DL play too many plays. I think that means that you must rely on at least 3, ideally 4 people to be able to contribute at DT. We have SA & RE. IMO, Bannan is adequate but certainly hasn't shown anything stellar. The question is how good is Anderson & since we've seen so little of him in games, I don't think any of us fans know. I think the general consensus, to which I agree, is if we can get PW back for ~$3m, he's worth it; if he's looking for $5m - see ya. Also, let me add that I think a more pressing issue w/ regards to our cap allocation is making sure our OL doesn't deteriorate & ideally try to improve it. I don't think you can depend on a rookie coming in & being a solid contributor on OL. Therefore, JJ &/or another FA signing I think takes precedence over what, if anything, we do w/ PW.

You have a valid point, however, I think that it's a least partially offset by another aspect of him accepting less to stay, which is that it takes him off the market. Salaries are determined by supply & demand. IF PW was on the market, if all other factors being equal, teams would be foolish to pay a playing of inferior ability more than a better player. However, since he is off the market, that removes one more player of the supply of quality DTs. This means that the remaining teams that are interested in DTs, will have to pay more for what is out there.

Actually, for me personally, I'd say just the opposite is more desirable. I fall between the TiVo corwd & those dolts that actually sit mindlessly in front of the TV actually watching the commericals. I flick. Now w/ flicking, there's 2 obstacles - 1) the inevitable inefficiency that you either are stuck watching a few seconds of commercials &/or miss a few seconds of the show. The more breaks one encounters, the less one 'gets' out of the show (more commercial viewed and more show missed ) and 2) that longer breaks from your primary viewing allow you to enjoy more of your 2ndary viewing (i.e. 25 seconds are a waste but 4 minutes allows you to get a fair amount of quality viewing in.) Further, although I'll admit to having a short attention span, I can usually manage to concentrate on a tv show for the standard 15 minutes between commercial breaks.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'offended', but the term "Afro-American" bothers me. (I'm white, American & of English descent, FWIW.) I believe the term A-A is exclusively used to refer to the race of Negro, much like the term 'black', whereas 'white' is used to describe Caucasians. Africa is a continent. African of course refers to things of that continent. It doesn't correlate w/ the characteristics of any particular race. I suspect that most people that refer to themselves, or are referred to as A-A have to go far back in their family tree to find native Africans. What about someone like Charlize Theron (yum, BTW)? Born & raised in S.Africa & AFAIK if not naturalized, certianly seems to spend a fair amount of time in the US. For that matter, if that same A-A moved to Europe, what would they be referred to then? Same person, it just doesn't make since for a different appellation.

Couldn't the 'bible' essentially say something like, "make the appearance that Walt controls the world, only to see that in actuality ..." ?

Hey bud, what's your problem.