Ramius

Happy Birthday mead! Have a good one!

Agreed. Especially the down and distance arrow. Whatever happend to just listing "3rd and 4" in small text right below the score in the upper corner? If you need a !@#$ing arrow to show you 3rd and 4, because you cant determine that a team on the 32 needs to get to the 36 on 3rd and 4, dont bother watchign football.

you may be on to something... 8th most dangerous - Oakland, CA

This year is an improvement. Getting some from the ex-girl before she kicked you is significantly better than getting some from the mule.

Sorry, i already used the maturity post/insult comment. You cannot use it. nananana poo poo, i used it first!

One quick note about the jets game...on the non-TD pass at the end, did anyone see the cleveland blitzer? He jumped spastically in the air trying to knock down a potential pass, and when pennington sidestepped, the guy was out of the play. It gave him the extra 2 seconds needed to make the pass. Had he just ran at chad, he's sacked, and doesnt have time to even make that pass. What a tard.

Someone is getting cranky and needs a nap. Try to come up with a reasonable non-losman bashing , non-nall/holcomb ballwashing post, or a post that has even the slightest evidence that you know what sound statistical evidence is, and then maybe the adults will talk to you in our grown up voices.

I think that post was wrong too. He posted that right after lunch, but omitted the fact that he had just eaten. Thereby he was hungry.

You do realize that there are exactly 0 of his posts that need to be omitted for this reason.

I'm with you. never even tried cigs. never wanted to. they are gross and disgusting and i hate having to be around people that smell like cig smoke. I will smoke the occasional cigar on the golf course or while playing cards, however.

No, the NFL and Dr. Pellman claim that there are no long term cumulative effects of concussions on players.

I am not arguing about losman. I'm stating the simple FACT that you omitted stats that are contrary to the point you are trying to prove. And that is somehow statistically sound? Hell, i want to be a grad student in your school. If i can throw out all my bad data, and the data that i dont like, i would have my PhD in about 1.5 years instead of 5. You've done this consistently throughout your posts however, so its no surprise. Kind of like how you come up with random statistical "measurements" to prove your point, which somehow always include the stats that make your point, and leave out the ones that dont. Or kind of like your little gem: "If you take away tony romo's 3 INT's, he played great" HA's stats theory: if it doesnt fit, throw it away.

Beware...boondock is drunk...the bartles and james must have went to his head...no mailbox is safe right now...

No, syhuang trashed you because in your attempted arguement against losman, you OMITTED SOME OF LOSMANS STATS that when included, prove your point is completely false. I can prove anything if i am allowed to throw out some data.

in other words...once again you got your asss spanked in an arguement, so you are going to close it before you look like an even bigger moron.

i saw the first 2 installments of saw. good premise but i think they could have been done a lot better. I'd love to see them turn over the rights to Stephen King and let him have a go with the series. He could turn it into a fantastic story.

I'd say the best popcorn is made using the John Madden quick pop popcorn popper.

Did you cook it for an hour?

Once SnR takes care of Mr. Grant, the target is going to be painted directly on the chest of you 2.

you guys are seriously killing me...this morning was shot by the link in the sabres thread, and the planned work this afternoon just got shot to hell after this one...

New Jersey...Gay weddings...TBD poster getting married soon... I'm just sayin...

thanks. i'm done. theres no way work is getting done until after lunch after seeing that.

I read it yesterday! i must say that article was absolutely fantastic. Anyone who has grown up with baseball with love that little piece.

Holcombs arm pwned by statistics AGAIN!

Nope, because both of the above described methods are flawed. Also, both methods are created based on assumptions of what 1 group will choose to do, which is one of the many reason why the experiment is bull sh--. Method 1 will give you a high correlation between offering snacks, and joining the chess club, but as you have shown many times in the past, there is one fact you cannot seem to grasp. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!! All you can say from method 1 is that there's a correlation. You dont know the causation, because you only polled the "interested group". They could be coming due to the snacks, they also could be coming due to their interest in chess. I work in science. We deal with hypotheses. I figure out what i THINK will happen, and test it. If it works, i have results. if not, you test something else. What i dont do is make an assumption, and then base my experiment off treating the assumption like it is the truth. thats what you have done consistently throughout your assinine arguements.