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!

As I stated above, we are both in our 20s. We've only recently lost contact. You apparently deduced from my posts what it meant in order to assert a distinction. Is that correct? As I've said, he has succeeded academically at every level, which I would believe matters. According to LinkedIn, he is a lead researcher at a prestigious University in the field of "condensed matter physics," with an accompanying description of details with which I'm not familiar. I cannot comment on the difficulty of this position. Should I try to obtain letters of recommendation to confirm his functionality, as well? Now you now he's jobless? Wow! I thought you already inferred from my posts that he is employed, from a friend I'm apparently unfamiliar with. Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who? Edit: In this scenario, why is this hypothetical person unemployed?

I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct?

Because YOU made the distinction between someone who is highly functioning and someone who is "just functioning." Not me. On what basis did you make that distinction? On what standard are you judging it against? You are taking issue with my characterization of highly functioning, but you fail to state on what basis, or even what you perceive that phrase to mean in opposition to mine. You seem to conclude that behavior within one's employment is the only factor to consider in assessing functionality at this point. Yes, there happen to be PhDs who are losers, just as there are losers with other advanced degrees. But someone who has a PhD shouldn't be presumed to be a loser because he smokes pot consistently. It seems as if you've made a conclusion regarding his maximum functionality based on information provided earlier, and any additional information will be put through the filter you seem to have.

Please find me the exact post where I stated I knew of his employment, and where I received that information. It seems improbable to you that someone can function highly while being a consistent pot user, to the point of doubting that this seemingly magical unicorn of a human being even exists! Your hypothetical conversation presupposes that I was never familiar with him in the first place, and therefore would need to explicitly confirm his functioning abilities. I knew him well during high school and college. I don't know how old you're presuming we are, but we're in our 20s. I'll turn it back to you: what is accurate indicia of a highly functioning person? As opposed to "just functioning?" What are the distinguishing characteristics? My point is that I have known this person, and well. I know his friends well. And again, the "100% conjecture," just like the "no idea" language, is false on its face. Having less than a completely sure idea on an issue does not translate to "no idea" or "100% conjecture."

Again, "no idea" is probably a bit strong. I'm not privy to what they may or may not know about his employment, or what conversations they may have had. It seems to be an improbable feat that an individual can function highly, while employed, as a consistent pot user. Do I have that right? Additionally, you might want to refer this one to the other person posting in this thread. Apparently, he can accurately infer conclusions from my statements that aren't even there.

According to you, I've stated he already has a job, which I heard from a friend I converse with. Which would essentially render any further questions moot. Tell me, what else have I stated that I know that you can't support? Own it.

Correct. I knew him personally, and I converse with those who still do. It's not much of a stretch to conclude what I did. I didn't initially answer the job question because it bears no relatiob to my point that one can succeed while being a consistent pot user. You provided no rationalization or reasoning to complement your question, so I assumed you did not have one. From where do you infer that I stated he has a job, and that I heard it from a friend? Find me the exact post. I never stated anything regarding his employment, or potential lack thereof. Stop making stuff up. Or will you continue to doubt, as you did previously, that this magical unicorn of a person exists? Read above for my views on pot. I don't smoke it. I have no horse in this race. ALL that I have put forth is a piece of anecdotal evidence that it is possible to succeed while being a consistent pot user. Apparently, you see that as improbable, if not impossible. The former, yes.

I'd agree. But because I knew this man personally, and still know of him through mutual friends that do see him often, that characterization does not apply to him.

That's why I asked what you thought. Succeeding generally means performing anywhere from above average to excellent. Academically should speak for himself. As for your hypothetical, I would probably assume that's true. If it is true, is it somehow incongruous with the person I've been discussing? Would you agree it's possible to succeed academically while being a consistent pot user? For what it's worth, I don't have a horse in this race. I've never been high. I've never tried pot, or any other drug. I've never been drunk or otherwise intoxicated. I'm merely stating anecdotal evidence of an individual succeeding academically while being a consistent pot user. He isn't the only person I've known, but he came to mind first.

No idea? Not correct. Are you another one who believes it's impossible to function and succeed academically while being a consistent pot user? Did you read any of my other responses? You've been consistently unable to articulate and defend your viewpoint. Whatever that viewpoint may be. Try taking your own advice and "own it." Just so you're aware, it is possible to submit posts that are longer than two sentences. It might help you in this thread shouls you choose to keep replying while not adding anything of substance.