KurtGodel77

This is actually an example of what I'm talking about. I'd written a number of informative posts about WWII, using information put together from a number of sources. In these posts, I described how FDR's pro-Soviet foreign policy led to mass murder in Central Europe. To support the point, I mentioned a quote from Ilya Ehrenberg, published in the Soviet army's official newspaper, in which he demanded Soviet soldiers rape and kill German women, children, even unborn babies. The larger issue is that the Soviet invasion of Germany led to mass murder. You completely ignored this issue to dwell on the fact Ilya Ehrenberg didn't have the title "propaganda minister." So what? Soviet soldiers still read his articles, and many were inspired by his hate. It seemed as though you were trying to distract attention from Soviet crimes--as well as from the Western governments whose policies enabled these crimes--by calling me out on a trivial error. It would be sort of like me saying you know nothing about statistics because you used the phrase "deviation toward the mean" instead of "regression toward the mean."

It means I call him on the junk he tries to pull.

You'd make a good lawyer, because you have the gift of making something out of nothing. The urge to punch someone in the jaw is activated by many circumstances. For instance, if I saw a man that was smaller and weaker than me trying to rape a woman, I'd want to knock him down. Not because I feel physically intimidated by him, but because I want to punish his disgusting behavior. I'm not trying to compare Monkeyface to a rapist, because there are clearly differing degrees to their disgusting behavior.

Perhaps. But you'll recollect that I said I would have paid his point more attention had it been presented more respectfully. In his response, he called himself credible, and me stupid. Why should I dignify that with a lengthy response? He's not listening anyway.

Hey, maybe your natural instinct when confronted by a bully is to run away. I can forgive you for assuming everyone else is the same way. My instinctive response to bullying is to punch the bully in the jaw.

You have a gift for combining pseudo-intellectualism with trying to be macho.

Yes, CTM does his best to use all the bullying tactics available to him. I never said I felt threatened by him, but I appreciate your effort to put words in my mouth. If I felt threatened by CTM, I would have backed down once he started his namecalling.

If you don't like being ignored, I'd suggest adopting a more respectful tone. I'd also suggest a little more honesty: Schroeder earned a B.S., M.S., and PhD. in physics from MIT; yet you make it seem like his only expertise is in drama. I know you like questioning the intellectual potential or competence of anyone who disagrees with you, but in this case doing so compromised your own credibility. Had you begun by showing a little respect for Dr. Schroeder's right to participate in a physics discussion, your subsequent objections to his ideas would have come across as a little more reasonable. Speaking of Dr. Schroeder, the back flap of the book describes how he moved to the Weizmann Institute in Israel, and how he's pursuing a study of Genesis in the original Hebrew. It ends by mentioning he lives in Jerusalem. In other words, he may as well have a big neon sign over him that reads, "I'm Jewish. Really Jewish." Suppose that you're correct in labeling me a Nazi. Shouldn't a Nazi ignore a Jew's writings about a controversial subject such as the intersection between physics and religion? Why should a Nazi put money in the pocket of a Jewish author? Why should a Nazi start a thread promoting ideas he learned from a Jew? And why, on the one hand, are you calling me a Nazi out of one side of your mouth, while complaining that I'm too easily taken in by a Jewish man out of the other?

Like me or hate me, I stand by every word. The world would be better off if Windows was replaced by Linux, if the pro-mixed marriage judicial activism hadn't taken place, and if people paid less attention to narrow minded ideological bullies such as Monkeyface.

You obviously didn't understand my posts. What a surprise. First off, nobody is arguing that the Big Bang lasted 15 billion years. Most scientists feel the age of the universe may be 15 billion years, but the Big Bang itself lasted for a very small amout of time. Secondly, an event that takes 15 billion years from the perspective of someone on earth will take less time from the perspective of someone moving near the speed of light. This isn't some kook's weird idea; it's part of the special theory of relativity. Thirdly, it wasn't an MIT drama professor. The only one creating artificial drama in this situation is you.

If you think the world would be better off without blonde people in it, you either haven't seen pictures of Reese Witherspoon, or else you're gay.

It can get hotter than 120 in deserts in the Southwest, so yes. Nazis believed in some extreme racial views. Communist views about race and genetics were in many ways even more extreme, but in the opposite direction. If the goal is to avoid having the same views as mass murderers, one's #1 priority should be to avoid believing as the communists did. They killed a lot more people than the Nazis did. In any case, I stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority, as well as the communist idea that the world would be better off if all races were melded together. Somewhere between those two extremes is probably best. Someone who respects all races isn't going to engage in racially-based killings, nor will he long for the day when the races he respects and admires have ceased to exist.

I didn't think I'd have to say this, but you've exceeded my expectations. I accused you of trying to win an argument through sheer hate. It would have been hypocritical and dishonest for you to deny the charge, so I respect your decision to let it stand uncontested. It's true you provided a very mild sounding quote from a Nazi official. At least to you, the quote sounded similar to the things I was saying. But your bloodlust was such that you didn't provide the context of the quote. If memory serves, it was made in 1934. At that time, the Nazis had just come into power in Germany. Because Germany's military was weak, they naturally wanted to sound as mild and unthreatening to Western nations as possible. Moreover, they wanted to build national unity, including unity among Germans who strongly disagreed with the Nazis' more extreme views. In this context, it made sense for the Nazis to present their views in as mild and reasonable a tone as possible, and to make them seem similar to what people in the Western democracies believed. Anything a government official said had to be Nazi-like enough to appease the base, mild enough to appease the British and French, and moderate enough that an average German could accept it. If you know a quarter as much about history as you claim, you know about the tightrope the Nazis walked on in those early years. But you presented the quote as though it was an unfettered and complete description of Nazi racial theory. What you did is like calling someone a communist for having advocated land, bread, and peace.

Looks like Monkeyface is at it again. I remember our discussion like it was yesterday. I wrote that people of difference races shouldn't marry, because the world is better off with many races than it would be with one big globalized race. You responded by calling me a Nazi. Beyond your capacity for projecting intense hate at people, nobody would learn anything by going through your posts from that discussion. Well, I take that back. They would learn that Ilya Ehrenburg wasn't really the Soviet propaganda minister, that in German an umlat takes the place of the letter e, and that some Nazi official once said something about mutual racial respect. But beyond these things, you had nothing to write except hate. Please believe me when I say my expectations for you are extremely low. Even so, I was shocked when you insinuated that someone was lazy for failing to research those fact-free, hate-filled posts of yours. Is it really worth two hours of someone's time to find out you're a Nazi-baiter? Is it worth ten seconds? Didn't think so.

I'm with you about Nall.

Thanks for the compliments. In answer to your question, I've wondered why the offensive line's been neglected. Below are some of my thoughts: - Unsettled QB position. The Bills have used six first day picks in an effort to find Jim Kelly's successor; with little to show for it so far. Once someone emerges as a Kelly-like replacement, the QB position could be ignored for the next ten years. This would free up picks for the offensive line. - Failure to hold onto first day picks. Often enough, players like Thomas Smith, Antoine Winfield, or Antowain Smith were allowed to hit free agency too early, creating excessive needs at DB and RB. Holding onto players like that would have let the Bills draft more offensive linemen in the first round. - Too low of a priority placed on offensive linemen by both Butler and TD. - Misaligned coaching/player selection. Back when Johnson was QB, the line featured many big, slow run blocking types. The playcalling was pass-heavy though. Not good. But it's hard to draft players who fit a particular style when there's been so much turnover at both offensive line coach and offensive coordinator. I guess you could sum up most of the above under the umbrella of lack of permanence. The lack of permanence applies to QB, many first-day picks in general, and the coaching staff. Until the Bills get their act together in those areas, it will be that much harder to build a good line.

My list only included players drafted through 2004, because it's too soon to evaluate anyone taken more recently than that. Preston and Geisinger were taken in 2005.

From 1990 - 2004, the Bills chose the following offensive linemen on the second day of the draft: Brent Griffith Tony DeLorenzo Dean Kirkland Mike Devlin Corbin Lacina Chris Luneberg Tom Nutten Dusty Zeigler Jamie Nails Marcus Spriggs Victor Allotey Marques Sullivan Mike Pucillo Ben Sobieski Dylan McFarland This track record doesn't exactly inspire me with hope for the more recent additions. Meanwhile, look at the offensive linemen the Bills drafted on the first day from 1990 - 2004: Glenn Parker John Fina Corey Louchiey Ruben Brown Robert Hicks Jonas Jennings Mike Williams While many offensive linemen chosen on the first day were busts, many others worked out well. On the other hand, the Bills are 0-for-15 on the second day of the draft. 0-for-15! So don't tell me the offensive line is being "addressed" just because one or two second day picks were used on it. Show me first day picks, and then I'll say the offensive line is getting its due.

I can't really fault the Bills for what they did. The players Marv took were at positions of need. But I can fault them for what they didn't do: address the offensive line. Also there's this: if Marv's drafting Youboty, it's a sign Nate might not be here beyond this year. If so, why didn't Marv trade Nate? The Bills are a rebuilding team. The last thing we should be doing is giving up draft day value in exchange for a one-and-done performance such as Nate might be offering. Whatever draft picks Marv got for Nate could have been used on the offensive line. It's been a long time since the Bills have had a GM who could even spell the words "offensive line." I just hope Marv proves to be cut from a different cloth.

You seem to be unaware of the plan to move Big Mike to left tackle. Move him to left tackle? you ask. Yes. But he'd need to gain weight. You see, this particular left tackle strategy is different from normal. Your average left tackle uses speed and athleticism to counter speedy DEs rushing off the edge. You obviously have to protect your quarterback's blindside. But protection can take many forms. Say you built a wall extending from your left guard all the way to the left sideline. Clearly your quarterback's blind side would be safe. Of course, it's against the rules to put a wall on the football field. So what you need instead is a guy big enough to occupy all the space from the left guard to the left sideline. It's too bad Williams wasn't able to add enough weight for this plan to work out.

At least he has the arm strength to throw it downfield, which puts him ahead of Holcomb. If he can at least be accurate at the short to intermediate passes, he'd be better than what Losman was last year. Unfortunately, you don't exactly have to be the next John Elway to win this particular QB competition.

For what it's worth, Cieslak is currently second on the depth chart behind only Royal. Euhus is third, and Everett is #4. Unless this changes between now and final roster cuts, we could be looking at one and done for Everett.

Funny stuff.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Nice to see you too, Monkeyface. Do us all a favor and go sleep with someone or something. Then maybe you'd be a little easier to put up with.