Nighttime in Nigeria

There's nothing precluding a counterclaim from being made against the suing party after suit is filed.

A Notice of Claim isn't required unless there's a municipality involved.

I have mixed feelings on it. For big plays - a crucial 3rd down stop, game-clinching touchdown, or game-ending interception - I'm fine with celebrations. Anything else, I prefer to see the players act like they've done it before, and have the confidence to know they will do it again.

Agreed. I buy this one every year. I'll check these out, too. Thanks!

Good thread. Love hearing about draft guides that I haven't read previously. Another great draft guide service is Ourlads. Their motto is "All Steak, No Sizzle." Judging by their first newsletter reviewing the Senior Bowl and its practices, that statement holds true. It's pure football. No pictures, gimmicks, or anything else besides information on players. I'm really looking forward to getting their official draft guide in early April. Here is their website for anyone interested: http://www.ourlads.com/ Anyone else have draft guides or services they recommend?

A Polar bear ate a different dog from the same pack.

http://buffalonews.com/2016/11/01/downtown-steakhouse-sear-sets-opening/ "The restaurants backers include former Buffalo Bills Fred Jackson, Brian Moorman and Terrence McGee, and businessmen David Anderson of HealthNow, LoVullo Associates David Pietrowski, and Ron Raccuia of AdPro Sports."

Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution. According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.

So, you're not done here? When I do restate and refute the argument you're attempting to make, at some point, try to resist the temptation to tweak and alter aspects of it. Again.

Saying I have "no idea" and "no proof" after telling you what I know and have known of him is, once again, foolish on your part. But you continue to do it. And I never said he was highly functional while stoned. Where do you get this from? I said he is a consistent pot user, which doesn't mean he has to do important tasks while stoned. You continually refuse to state on what basis you're stating your distinctions, even though you attempted to call me out for not defining them. Apparently you knew enough earlier, but not now. As for you, with over 35,000 posts on this board, I would think you'd know how to defend your previous statements, instead of pretending you never made them. Maybe you're just used to ignoring them, or maybe you need a new hobby that doesn't involve active debate on a web forum? They say practice makes perfect, but with as many as you have, you're still pretty far behind. Edit: correction, 35,000 posts. If ever there was a highly functioning message board member, you'd be it.

Your post might be valid if I had lost all contact with those who communicated with him, often. But I didn't, so it's not. Here's where you're becoming confused. I am not saying he WAS smart. I am saying I DID know him, and converse with those who do know him. The past v. present tense distinction I made had nothing to do with his intelligence, so I don't know why you're trying to make it.

You make this too easy. "Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!" Here's the quote. Many people I know, as in know currently, are both highly functional human beings and pot smokers. That would not, of course, include this guy. However, in that quote, it states "have known," which indicates past tense. Past tense applies to this man, since we have lost touch. I knew him personally, before, and as I've said numerous times before, every indication is that he highly functioning. And employed. I knew employment was big for you, and that's been established, so you've chosen to inaccurately decipher and parse my posts for unwarranted conclusions.

You took issue with my characterization of highly functional, but you didn't know what it meant in the first place? And you're not sure what it means yourself? Seems prudent. Also convenient you don't provide your own standard by which it can be judged. How can you say you don't have to distinguish when you already have earlier?! You noted the difference between just functional and highly functional already, did you not? Your point-of-view is a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows no room for a viewpoint that opposes yours.

Did you miss my posts above stating I've never been drunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated? I don't think I'm the one who people would presume is high in this thread. I think it's the person pulling information from where it doesn't exist. Like you. Don't fault me for your misinterpretations where its meaning is patently clear on its face.

Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat. Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em!