Nighttime in Nigeria
-
Posts
80 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Nighttime in Nigeria
-
-
3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
,,,and why did their lawyers wait until the eve of the statute of limitations expiration to file?......no previous Notice of Claim either......
A Notice of Claim isn't required unless there's a municipality involved.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
I've always enjoyed the Lindys draft guide.
Good airplane or bathroom read.
Agreed. I buy this one every year.
I'd advocate for the draft guides put together by Inside The Pylon, NDT Scouting and Matt Waldman's Rookie Scouting Portfolio.
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?
-
I don't even want to see the heartbreaking part. Just tell me what happens?
A Polar bear ate a different dog from the same pack.
-
I've heard that before ans assume it to be true. Nice coincidence!
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."
-
I award 2 points Ryan. 1 point Jim. -2 Niagara.
And weed is stupid. Legalizing it is stupid for many many reasons. But I am for legalizing it so long as penalties are stiff
Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution.
I'm a successful network engineer and a marijuana user. I don't smoke at or before work, just like I wouldn't drink at or before work. But after work and weekends is my time - neither the government (nor anyone else) has any business in it. The only factor I have ever had to worry about was the legality, and I'm happy (and proud) to say that in my state it is now legal. I hope other states follow suit so others like me who want to enjoy marijuana privately can do so without fear of reprisal. This will be my one and only post on this topic.
According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.
-
So, you're not done here?But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.
Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.
And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.
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.The only issue I took with your characterization is you have no proof that he is. Once again (and after this I'm done) you're the one that said that he (and others) were highly functional while stoned. I'm not here to debate the difference between being highly and marginally functional. I'm here to prove that you have no idea if he is highly functional. That's it. The only reason I've gone round and round with you is to find out how you consider him to be highly functional. So I will ask you one last time:
What are you basing your statement on that he and others are highly functional while stoned?
BTW you say that I allow for no viewpoint other than mine. You don't even know what my viewpoint is. You don't even know what you're arguing here do you. And to take a page out of 4mer's playbook. Are you sure you've never gotten high? Because you sure do debate as if you were.
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.
-
In this case you left the word "were" out of your sentence. It should have read:
The italicized sentence, which is not actually a sentence, should have tipped me off that something was amiss.
I now understand that, even though you did not specify at the time, you were saying that this dude was really smart and that in your clinical opinion his pot use did not rob him of any potential whatsoever. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thanks.
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.He is highly functional even though you lost touch with him after college?
I'm just quoting you dude.
"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.
-
I don't have to distinguish the difference. You said he is HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL I'm just asking for clarification on how you know that and so far you have been unable to do that. And I will leave you with these questions.
How highly functional when he drives after a couple of bong hits?
How highly functional when he pays his bills after a couple fatties?
How highly functional is he when he fills out a loan application after a couple spliffs?
How highly functional is he when he as to decide between the regular or nacho cheese Doritos after a couple of bowls?
If I remember correctly you've never used before so you have no clue as to how goofy it is to do some of these things after you got your buzz on.
But you know he's highly functional. Once again. How do you know this?
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.
-
Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again.
My question was a general one and not specific to your friend who you don't know but know some people who know who used to smoke pot and might still smoke pot who you looked up on Linked In.
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.
Is: present tense
Was : past tense
I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they didn't do a good job teaching their kids the language.
Don't fault me for your misinterpretations where its meaning is patently clear on its face.
-
See now if you had said you knew absolutely nothing about how highly functional he is because you don't even know what the !@#$ he does you would have saved us both a lot of keystrokes.
Ahhhh millenials. Ya gotta love 'em.
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?You did not explain how he's highly functional. Hell you said you've lost touch since college. How long has that been?
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.In what circumstance would you classify a jobless Ph D as highly functioning? I'm not saying there can't be one, I'm just interested in your take on it.
If you heard he had lost his job because he failed a pot test would you say that pot had impaired his function?
I think the difference here is as simple as you saying he is highly functioning and then describing how he was highly functioning. Those are two different things which do not necessarily correlate. For instance, if I said OJ Simpson seems like a really good guy, it would be different than if I said OJ Simpson seemed like a very good guy.
Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who?
Edit: In this scenario, why is this hypothetical person unemployed?
-
No you stated he's highly functional. Please explain.
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?
-
Why am I supposed to define a term (highly functional) you used? I can explain all day long what "just functional" looks like however. Unless you work with him daily, know how successful he is at work, what his managers/bosses think of him you have no idea if he is highly functional. Correct? There are people I've known that have dropped dead from alcohol or drug abuse and was shocked to find out. We don't know what skeletons people have in their closets. So highly functioning is almost impossible to prove in this case. Correct?
What does he do for a living? What are some of his achievements? If he has a PhD (a lot of loser PhD's out there) I would assume his accomplishments are known?
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.
-
1. I thought so too until you refuted that.
2. I'm not really sure because it seems you have odd conversations with friends which is perfectly fine with me.
It seems to me that a conversation along the lines of:
Would be more common than:
All of that is fine with me though. Glad he is high functioning.
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.
No you do not have that right. I've been in the work force in one form or another for about 40 years and drug and alcohol abuse is covered up all the time. There are plenty of ways go just function and still stay employed.
Now I am in no way saying he's not able to function and function at a high level because I don't know that. Just as you don't know if he is which has been my point the whole time. I just have an issue with people saying things as if they are fact when in reality it's 100% conjecture.
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."
-
So theoretically they have no idea how well he functions at work do they?
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.
-
So, no job then?
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.
-
You said you friend "is" high functioning and a physics Ph D.
I asked if he had a job and you didn't answer. I took that as a "no" to which you replied that you don't know because you had lost touch with your friend.
I then questioned your use of the word "is" instead of "was".
Now you appearing to be saying that the dude has a job because you heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.....or something. Fine. Why not say that from the get-go.
For the record I do not begrudge people for their use of pot. i really don't care. It is when they say is does no harm or has magical powers or never gets its hooks into people the I get annoyed because none of that is true. Many people who use pot basically worship it and are extremely defensive about any criticism of pot at all.
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.
So do these people know him or work with him?
The former, yes.
-
Successfully academically means they get good grades right? That translates to zero ability to function in the real world. Wouldn't you agree?
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.
-
So you're also ok with more impaired people on the roads?
I never said it's impossible. Do you also agree that there are lots of people that can function and succeed academically (what does that even mean) while smashed out of their minds?
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.
-
So unless you've just graduated college you actually have no idea how well he's able to function. Am I correct?
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?
He's going round and round on that.
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.
Ex-Bill Shawne Merriman in the news, and not in a good way
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
There's nothing precluding a counterclaim from being made against the suing party after suit is filed.