Ramius

Again, not to ruin any end of the world doomsday parties, but why is the current time any different from any of these? *Note: i have no idea about any of the biases of these particular websites, but they have good lists of failed "end of the world" predictions: http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm http://www.armageddononline.org/failed_armageddon.php Why is now the "end of the world" when these 50 odd previous "ends of the world" failed? They all saw the "signs" of the end of the world. They all knew what was coming. The problem is, we're still here.

again, good work.

Classic. The guy with the sandwich board claiming "the end is nigh" is accusing someone else of having a personality disorder. Again, how is now different from the dozen or so other times where there have been "direct" signs that we are at the end times? The end times were supposedly nigh back in the first few centuries A.D. when the "beast", Emperor Nero, was in power and persecuting the Jews. That was the "end times." Take your pick. Nero was the anti-christ. Napolean was the anti-christ. Hitler was the anti-christ. Saddam was the anti-christ, etc. There have been a slew of "end times" and "anti-christs." Yet, all of a sudden, NOW is the end times? You want to know a little secret? I KNOW when the end times are. Check back in about 5-7 billion years when our sun fuses all of its hydrogen supply and begins to expand into a red giant, burning Earth to a crisp in the process. In any event, i'll be a good sport to a fwllow Bills fan and help you out, incase the technology or the robots or the aliens come for you. This little website will help you survive. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

IIRC, Bucky Brooks has his full name on his jersey for the Bills back in the mid 90's, when both he and Bill Brooks were on the squad.

Agreed 100%. This is the impact a lot of people were talking about and its not reflected in the numbers. If defenses fear Hardy in the redzone, and thus have to back off coverage, this opens the door for others to be open. In my book, a TD is a TD, no matter who scores it.

Pull your head out of your ass. Everyone was arguing that a PHARMACIST (note: this is different from a pharmacy, the place where drugs are sold) has no right to refuse to fill a prescription on "moral" grounds. You were arguing that they do. See my above post where i quoted you saying these exact things. And since when is it a pharmacist's "right" to decide who they provide service too? To me, "we're not going to fill your prescription with drugs that our store chooses to stock because you are a different religion" sounds an awful lot like "we're not going to fill your prescription with drugs that our store chooses to stock because you are a different race."

C'mon AD. I believe he's swam competitively. He probably holds the WR in the "big cat's backyard pool swim-off." I'm betting he got the gold in the "go to the other side of the pool and back," and the "go to the other side and back twice" events. I'm sure he cleaned up on his cousin who got the silver wth the dog getting the bronze.

Nice. Maybe my grandkids (if they are white) will actually be able to get a scholarship then.

Oh, really? You managed to shove your foot so far down your throat that its coming out your ass, so now you try backtracking? Not gonna work.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT A PHARMACY NOT STOCKING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS. THIS IS ABOUT GIVING A PHARMACIST THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO FILL A PRESCRIPTION OF A DRUG THAT THE STORE CARRIES BASED OFF THEIR MORAL BELIEFS.

First, try to re-read the article again and this time, understand it. Second, look up and learn the definitions of pharmacy and pharmacist, and then maybe you can come back and try to argue with the adults again.

I dont know which one of AKC's arguments is the funniest, his woeful lack of intelligence of even the most simple statistics, the correlation = causation that he's stated, the ignoring of any and all control groups, or the simple fact that he doesnt think that his assignment if values to draft picks is arbitrary.

How about you try some reading comprehension yourself? Or better yet, try reading the actual article posted instead of exposing yourself as a complete fraud. This isn't about CVS refusing to stock birth control as you are so incorrectly making it out to be, this is about Joe Fingon, the self-righteous bible thumper, refusing to fill the prescription of Jane, who stopped by after work to pick up her birth control. Try reading the article, dolt. EDIT: CVS has the right as a business to not supply birth control pills. However, if CVS chooses to stock the pill, then it is the pharmacist's responsibility, as part of their job, to fill the prescription.

You're off your self-righteous bible thumping rocker. If you are hired to do a job, you are expected to do the job you are hired for. If you refuse to do the job outlined in the description, you can and should be fired. When you're working down at jiffy lube, and you decide that you aren't going to change change oil in foreign cars because it's "immoral" to you, they can and will fire your ass for not doing your job. Its simple. If your job is to fill prescriptions, you fill the prescriptions. If you refuse to do your job, you should be fired. If you decide that your job violates your religious beliefs, its up to you to find another job, not up to the government to tell companies that you are exempt from certain parts of your job. If you're jewish, dont go to work at a pork factory and then complain it violates your religious beliefs. Its kind of funny how someone who wants government "hands off" supports something that encourages government interference in the workplace.

Handing someone a box of pills is not "supporting" birth control. Its called doing your fuggin job. Your job is to fill someone's prescription, so do your job. If you have a problem with that, find a new job that doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Dont give me any "freedom of religion" crap either, because someone who isnt bothered by birth control (due to religion) should not be denied their "freedom of religion" of taking the pills. And what about the woman who is on birth control pills because it keeps her endometriosis more manageable and under control? How does the self-righteous bible thumping pharmacist decide which woman really needs it and which one doesn't? If something like this rule were enacted, i believe that anyone who believes in creationism and not evolution should be given the old antibiotics from 20 years ago. Why? Because if you dont believe in evolution, they theres no way you can believe that a bacteria evolved into an antibiotic resistant strain. Ergo, why do you need the newest antibiotic?

A pharmacist does have freedom of religion. A pharmacist does not have the right to impose his/her religious beliefs upon someone else. A pharmacist is there to provide a service for people. So you are saying its ok to deny service to someone based off of religion? Dangerous precedent there. And again, how is handing someone a box of pills infringing on your religious freedoms? EDIT: apparently you missed my line above on the other uses of a birth control pill prescription.

Way to go gubmint! WooHoo! Lets ignore the little fact that the pill can be prescribed for other uses besides contraception, such as treatment of hormone imbalances, severe acne, and endometriosis. Fuggin idiots. As someone said above, i dont care what the hell your moral standards are. If someone comes in to fill their prescription, you give them the little box of pills. Theres nothing immoral and you are not going to hell for handing someone their pills that were prescribed to them. And when it comes to insurance companies, you tell me what makes more sense. Paying for a $300-400 per year prescription, or paying medical costs for a baby?

So this time is different than the dozen or so other times in the past 2000 years when the end times were upon the world? I'm guessing your next line will be that James Hardy is the 4th horseman.

Wow. An absolute thing of beauty.

*the worst teams too

I'm honored that the statistical beat down that i gave you and your "study" was so thorough and so kick-ass that it embarrassed you so much that you now feel the need to ignore me. I'm glad that the complete and utter awesomeness that was displayed in my refute of your "work" has caused you so much anguish that you will now refuse to view my posts, out of fear of being embarrassed again. But, look on the bright side. At least your keyboard is fixed so now you can type the letter R without a W appearing in front of it. And as soon as i finish the pretzel bag thats currently in my desk, i am going to eat that salt as well. I'll probably start another thread about it too.

Arguably the single biggest mistake of the tom donahoe tenure.

He's against the event being held in china, but has no problem using the event held in china to get his message out because he knows millions of people will be watching.

what system are you on? i only have a PS2, and on the old systems, under game play settings, there was an "A.I." tab where you could adjust sliders for both yourself and the CPU. Sometimes they take a game or 2 to take full effect however, so keep that in mind.

You can also adjust the sliders to suit the game to your own tastes. If you can only manage 30 yards per game, bump the CPU sliders down so you get something more realistic, or bump your own sliders up.