1ManRaid

Isn't that...my point...? You can have an endoscopic clean up on a joint or something and be back in a week. Has anyone reported yet what the actual surgery is? All I've seen so far is "having surgery, out for year". The vagueness of it so far is what is making me skeptical.

The surgery doesn't have to be some big scary serious procedure. A minor clean up procedure technically qualifies as a surgery for the headlines. I'm not saying this is the case, but I wouldn't put it past Belicheat to say "Let's get you booked in for an endoscopic tune up so we can say you're injured and having season ending surgery". I mean just look at his injury report shenanigans and the meme of Brady being listed as "questionable" for 15 years straight.

For someone asking about subjectivity, you really seem to get hung up on technical definitions and narrow interpretations when it suits you.

You mean like that stuff we get from trees when you give them CO2 and light and water... It's relative and based on concentration.

The bar for getting listed as a cancer agent in California is notoriously low. They rely heavily on "linked to" pseudoscience to come to the conclusion that almost EVERYTHING is a "cancer causing agent". It's a meme that petting kittens and being kind to the elderly is a cancer causing agent in California. Yet it's a valid one.

"Scary thing is that" people react with knee jerk emotions to things that confirm their biases. It's correlation, not causation. People with addictive personalities just would have started with something else if weed didn't exist. That's like saying we should ban Tylenol because science men say 100% of heroin users have at some point also used Tylenol. Beware the intellectual scams that are the phrases "linked to" and "consistent with". You can find that posting on fan forums is "linked to" puppy murder if you twist some numbers and sprinkle in some weasel words. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug ...These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs52 and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances. It is important to note that other factors besides biological mechanisms, such as a person’s social environment, are also critical in a person’s risk for drug use. An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances such as marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with others who use drugs increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to explore this question.

Except the originally quoted alien gif was from Men in Black, not Paul.

That argument would be false. QB is a protected position and don't suddenly become a blocker just because they don't have the ball anymore. They have to then go out of their way to go ACTUALLY BLOCK for someone to become a blocker. Feel free to look up the actual rules. https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/ https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/roughing-the-passer/ Take note of the parts about "clearly out of the play" and "when in doubt, call roughing", and then tell me again if you think any ref in the game wouldn't call a penalty on someone clotheslining a QB from behind who is out of the play and not attempting to block.

I'm really curious where you "just found out" that false info and why you're so quick to believe things that aren't true.

The headline and article are really misleading. It had nothing to do with surge pricing, or the beers being charged that amount in any fashion. The idiot just straight up stole the money from them under the guise of being the vendor. He swiped their card through a personal card reader (presumably on his phone) rather than the supplied one. The customer got tipped off immediately by their card provider contacting them about the suspicious transaction.

Every time I see one of these threads pop up I imagine someone saying "I'll take Mahomes, your private jet, and a couple of those cheerleaders off your hands, and in return I'll generously offer a conditional 2025 7th round pick. Yes, yes I know I am a saint. You're welcome."

Dunno, OP created their account January 2018, and only just got around to their second post/thread now.

Hot damn, guess I can tell my neighbor he was wrong and he DOES owe me a 12 pack of beer!

REALLY weird seeing this now with the updated title. Took me a minute to figure out the upbeat and celebratory mood in the first page.

Second post ever, both being new threads, and I can see the quality is already going downhill.

4th straight anti-Allen thread within 24 hours and 5th straight negative thread overall. I reported him as well. Clear agenda with this clown.

Bojo didn't make the decision to leave rushers completely unblocked on his blocked punt and shank. It's ridiculous to put those on him. Kept having only 3 blockers on 4 rushers with the 4th just running free untouched. Yeah cut Bojo for that...

Blatant helmet to helmet shots that knock a player out of a game aren't comparable? I'm not saying they are identical (hence why I'm only calling for a short suspension, like 1 or 2 games), but to be a condescending ***** and say they're not even comparable is a bit much.

Yeah and a season long suspension for Burfict would still be way worse than an ejection for Jones and a short suspension.

A game in which you can literally assemble a top 10 list of blown calls that aided the Pats (and we did in another thread), automatically disqualifies it from being a "good game". Non ejection, out of bounds INT not being overturned, blatant grounding, illegally vaulting the line, non call on roughing the passer for Allen getting slapped in the face, phantom holds, ETC ECT ETC get outta here with that pandering good game *****.

The league actually said at least part of the reason Jones wasn't ejected was because Allen "turned into" the hit or some nonsense like that, blaming the victim. I don't think they watched the same play I did. Allen was going straight and had no control over the hit when he was unnecessarily lit the F up.

He actually plans to...now I can't decide if this makes me want to laugh or puke...APPEAL the suspension. Because he's such a good boy and would never do that on purpose, he swears. He's just chronically misunderstood, with terrible luck. I swear there were banana peels he slipped on for all those plays and he didn't mean to hit them like that!

Any attempt to be "hard" and get revenge against the Patriots is going to result in game killing retaliation penalties and maybe even ejections/suspensions. For crying out loud, Pats D-linemen are TAUGHT to throw their hands in the air if they get beat on a run because they know the refs will throw a flag if they do. You don't think they will eject a Bills player for responding against Brady like that or even Jones? Gotta be extra careful when the refs are in the pocket of the team owner who is on the officiating committee, and the league's golden boy QB.

From what I saw it kind of looked like a skidding slap across the face, the flat of his fingers dragging across it without gripping. But yeah, 15 yard penalty either way.

He wasn't out of the pocket or past the line scrimmage, still a passer. Even if he leaves the pocket... "When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the one-step rule provided for in (a) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (e) above, but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket (b, c, d, and f), as well as the regular unnecessary roughness rules applicable to all player positions." ...other special protections i.e. hits to the head. Scrambling to avoid pressure doesn't make him a "runner" unless it is clear he is trying specifically to ADVANCE the ball as a runner. No, it was a clear roughing the passer. Facemask includes actual grabbing of the mask, not just making contact with it. Kind of like illegal hands to the face re: linemen.