Tolstoy

All this draft talk is beginning to bother me. Some of us are wishing that the Bills lose so they get the highest draft pick possible. Let me tell you this: that would be the worst thing for the Bills. What they need is a surge now. They need the young players to emerge: JP, Preston, Pennington, Parrish, Whitner, Simpson etc. If the Bills are going anywhere next year--it won't be because of draft picks they get in June. It will be because some of the aforementioned players become stars. So let's all get beind our team to beat the stinking Jets today. No traitors in our midst!

Hey, I have to agree with you. I was very angry when I read this story yesterday. Now, I am a bit more sanguine. In fact, there are a lot of good coaches out there. At this point, a new coach would be an improvement just from a player evaluation standpoint. We need someone who can evaluate our talent objectively. Tactically, I worry a bit that we might get someone unqualified--that is the area I really thought we would be improved with Klinsy. I do wonder whether Sunil is the right man for this job. The US should be making better strides than we have shown over the last 5 years.

Believe it or not, the tenure system makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a university to fire a professor for remarks said in a classroom. What sometimes happens is they fire him (or her), he or she sues, and he or she wins a nice big chunk of money. The college or university doesn't care, because at least they get rid of the bad PR caused by the professor in question. While the tenure system is supposed to preserve a space in our society where the truth can be pursued and taught without concern for what is popular, or for losing one's job, it is often abused by licentious, lazy, and arrogant professors.

As a professor myself, I can say that what she said was completely inappropriate. I would send her a polite e-mail indicating that you found her comments personally offensive. If she doesn't send you an apology or explanation, I would consider a report to her Dean. Professors have complete freedom in their classrooms, and they can sometimes abuse that freedom--for which reason they need people like you to call them on it.

Dude, Tolstoy was Russian, and I am not French. But your statement is a perfect Kirkian response. BTW, my statement above was tongue-in-cheek.

This Kirk/Picard issue is a serious matter for serious-minded people. It is deserving of careful consideration. After pondering the difficulty for some time, I have decided that Picard is by far the better leader, the better captain, and the better man. Why? Well, the very fact that I am giving reasons should show why I chose Picard. First, Picard is a man of reason, not a sentimental fop (Kirk). A true leader, and a true man, is not governed by childish displays of emotion, but rather by careful deliberation (Picard). Second, Picard is man of learning. In his off-hours, Picard reads archeology, literature, history, and philosophy. He thereby fulfills his greatest capacity as a human being--the capacity to think, reason, and know. I don't think there is evidence that Kirk knows how to read (much less to think). In his off-hours, he collapses, exhausted and spent from his outrageous displays of emotion. Third, Picard is a man of self-discipline. Unlike Kirk, he is not governed by his base, lower, animalistic drives (such as the desire for sex). Every action Picard takes is done so because it is the right thing to do (in his mind), and not simply because he "wants to." Kirk beds every woman who comes his way, showing a profound lack of respect for the sacred dimension of the sexual act. In short, Picard is governed by reason, and Kirk by desires and emotions. As a result, Picard is better than Kirk. Finally, if you choose Kirk, you clearly display the same qualities that Kirk posesses, and show a lack of appreciation for the rational faculty. Therefore, you too are a lesser human being.

You and me both. I got through 80 pages and pronounced it a complete waste of time. As for Ambrose, as you know, he is not considered a scholar, and some might turn their noses at him (such as you!). However, his writing (highly anecdotal) is not without value for the layman, and if the bro-in-law in question prefers a good read above all, he might appreciate it over an accurate scholarly account. Lord knows that much scholarship is terrible reading. Also, Ambrose is my father. Just kidding.

He may have already read this author, but John Keegan is excellent. His father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. were soldiers in the British army, but because he was born crippled, he could only write about battle. His writing is superb: accurate (according to other historians) but absorbing. My personal favorite is his account of WWII, but others like his Face of Battle. I can't recommend him highly enough. On a lighter side, but still very good, is Stephen Ambrose. Band of Brothers and Citizen Soldiers are very good reads. Is he interested in any particular wars? All of the above are WWII, except Face of Battle (covers Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Battle of the Somme). Hope this helps.

Every now and then a sports team transcends the interest of its own league's fandom (e.g. the superbowl winner does it every year) and is brought to national attention whereby even people who are not fans of the sport hear about their achievements. I think the Sabres may well reach that level this year, and soon. I think, in fact, that this team could become as famous as the Oilers of the 80's, and as well, utterly shatter some NHL records. We'll see. Please: nobody agree with me because we will jinx them. Everybody needs to say this is utterly stupid and the Sabres will lose many games very soon.

Do sleeping pills slow down your reaction time? I remember reading last year that J.P. Losman has been taking sleeping pills at night. Maybe this is his problem!!! Then again, maybe he just stinks.

Actually, it is that simple. The point of the comparison is this: the Sabres are winning because they have better talent then the teams they are playing. It is readily apparent from watching them play. The Bills are losing...not because of coaching, or injuries, or bad decisions on the part of players, but because they do not have better talent than the teams they are facing. So enough with the hand-wringing--"oh, if only that ball hadn't bounced that way, and if only this player hadn't gone down to injury, and if only the coach hadn't called that play." When you have the talent, winning comes easily. When you don't, it is very difficult. So, all those of you who don't like the reference to the Sabres. Get over it. The point is this: see how easy it is to win when you have enough talent. Watch the Sabres, then you will know what the rest of us are talking about. The Bills need better talent. The coach knows it, the GM knows it, and the owner knows it. How does it escape the rest of us? Each week we need to hope that talent emerges: Losman, Parish, Everett, Whitner, Simpson, etc. If they emerge, they become foundations for the future. If they don't, it makes it that much more difficult to build a winning team next year. Having said that, I hope they crush the Patriots. I live in Patsy country, and I can't stand another week of putrid Patsy patting. Go Bills.

At the start of the season, in an interview, RW (the owner of the Bills, mind you) admitted that the Bills might be a bit short on talent at this point. Folks, we can hope and we can examine things from all sorts of pleasant perspectives, but the fact remains that this team just doesn't have the horses: not on O-line, not on D-line, not at CB, and perhaps not at QB. If you want to see a team with talent, and what the results from that are, check out the Sabres. The best we can hope for this season is that a few players emerge as budding stars. My hope for Losman in this regard is diminishing as the season moves on. At some point, by now, he has to seize the game, and he has not.

On the Glenn Ordway show today, a guy called up and asked: "What do you think Buffalo has to do to make the playoffs?" After they remarked on the strangeness of the question, one of the talking heads responded: "The first thing is they must get a QB, because the guy they got in there ain't gonna get the job done." They all agreed on the intelligence and perspicacity of this remark. So...while I could care less what these idiots think (they did make me angry though), it occurred to me that the nation does not see in Losman what the rest of us appear to see--a developing young QB with all the tools, but still lacking QB savvy. Are we all living in a delusion? Is Losman really that bad? I say no. Screw them. Let's give him a full season and see what emerges.

I really do know what you are going through. I had a very similar experience some 5 years back: a childhood acquaintance who committed suicide, and I can tell you that the wake was one of the worst experiences of my life. It is one thing to die young in an accident, and quite another to die by one's own hand. The poor family members are left wondering about what they could have done, and didn't do. A promising life snuffed out for no good reason. Memories of happy times with that person are immediately followed by the horrible pain of remembering the suicide. I remember struggling very hard to find the dignity in that death, very hard. It was such a horrible thing. I can only say that if you are a praying man, the best thing you can do is say a prayer for that young man's soul, and offer a lot of support for his family. They will need it for a very long time. I am sorry about the previous posts--I was grumpy this morning.

Nice of you to stop in Ronny. And a good post. You guys should be proud of your team thus far. They were picked by many to finish worst in the league, but they beat Tenn., and gave the Patriots a run for their money. I expect the Jets to put up a stiff fight against the Bills, but the Bills to take it in the end.

I appreciate your gentle remonstrance, but I think you suffer from misplaced sensitivity here, and did not read the original post carefully enough. Note that the author says "Since high school, he had apparently "come out of the closet". I am not absolutely sure if this was the reason for this, but it serves mentioning." The author of this post apparently had little, if any, contact with the individual in question since high school, a period of apparently 2 or more years. My assumption (justifiable) was that this was not a close friend at all (especially since he had little or no knowledge of his struggles with his sexual identity). So while the author might certainly be suffering pain upon learning of this tragedy, it was not so much to stop him from publicly airing it on this type of board, nor was it enough to stop him from attaching a moral lesson to it. Again, I offered my condolences to the author, but I gently pointed out that this is an improper manner in which to demonstrate that we must all be accepting of homosexuality.

My condolences to you, and prayers for his family. It is a horrible thing. People who take their own lives have been failed by the rest of us. They needed help and we didn't listen. However, (and you know much more about the situation than me) I take issue with your assumption that that this tragedy happened because the individual was shown a lack of tolerance for his sexuality. He may well have been confused about his identity, including his sexual identity, and may have been uncomfortable with himself. That probably contributed more to this tragedy than any kind of outright injustice others may have shown him. People are badly treated all over the world, every day, but don't destroy themselves: it is our ability to trust our own judgment of ourselves that enables us to push on despite the naysayers. I guess what I am taking issue with is your inference that proceeds as such: (1) One individual committed suicide because he was gay, and no one accepted him. (2) Therefore, we should all accept homosexuality as a healthy alternative sexuality, so that we don't push gay people into killing themselves. I don't think (1) is necessarily true, or that (2) follows from (1).

No, he has actually commented on this as one of the major changes in the game since he was coach. He remarked that because of free agency, teams could no longer afford to let rookies get a year of seasoning on the bench.

Could the difference we have seen thus far in this team (and I know it is far to early to be declaring the team a success) be attributable to Marv's calm, even-keeled, honest demeanor? I say this because most of the players on the field (rookies aside) were here last year. Yet the team seems tougher, more focused, and more disciplined. Even the rookies are able to step on the field and contribute, without excessive jitters and people screaming at them if they make mistakes. How many draft picks fail because the atmosphere is not conducive to the players' development? Sure, Jauron gets a lot of the credit too--he exhibits the same kind of qualities as Marv. But who hired Jauron? In short, is it possible that the head man's personality can filter down through the entire team, and make everyone more comfortable with themselves, more focused, and able to succeed Just a thought.

Excuse me for my ignorance. What is this previous tragedy to which people are referring?

I did not know T80, but I certainly knew his online persona. This is a terrible tragedy for the family--the wife, their children, and all those who love them. If there is anyone here who is close to the family, it would be appropriate to contact SDS and set up a donation fund for the children. I would contribute. What strikes me about all of this is how divorced from reality on-line communication is. We pretend to have communities and friends on-line, but we are deluding ourselves. If this were a real community, and all of us real acquaintances, this would have been less likely to happen. Real communities spend face-to-face time with one another, and support one another when there is trouble, or signs of trouble. We are facing a brave new world of communities where people put their happy face on when posting, but are lonely, depressed, angry, or suicidal at their home. God help us all.

The Patriots. Can't stand them (not as individual persons, of course, but as players). Don't like the team, the coach, the owner, the fans, their fawning newspaper coverage, or the stupid talk show hosts Ordway and Co. on 850. Of course, living in their part of the country doesn't help... I was around for the great Bills-Miami rivalry, but it is gone, gone now. To hate the Dolphins more than the Pats (who have crushed up year in and year out) is misguided. You go ahead and keep hating the Dolphins and kissing the feet of those "really great guys who are the Patriots whom I really admire so, so much": I want superiority and dominance. Crush the Patriots flat. Demoralize them and their fans. And along the way, crush the Dolphins too, and every other team in the league.

I was surprised that we didn't stretch the field more. It seems that Jauron gave a lot of lip service to throwing the long ball now and then, if only to back up the safeties and free up the running game more. However, very few long balls were thrown. Was this because of Patriot's coverage? A conservative game plan? It seems to me that the Bills have a lot of speed at WR, and it would be a shame to waste it... I would expect to see some more long throws against Miami.

While I'm not ready to anoint WM an elite back, I don't think we have seen the best of him yet. Last year was his first full year back from the knee injury (a knee injury which many say takes a full year of play before a back fully recovers), and last year he played behind a below average offensive line, without a passing game. This is not Thurman Thomas's offensive line! This year, the o-line looks better, the passing game looks better, and the coaching looks better. If WM is going to show what he is made of, it will be this year. Just my opinion...

Picard rules.