TheMadCap

While I agree with nearly everything you have said, I think the part bolded has more to do with legal liability than with gameday experience. Limiting beer sales (IMO) has done little from improving the gameday experience

I'd like to see that plot go back a little further than ~13 years and see what the trend is. Too easy to make your point if you cherry pick data...

Find em, f em and flee ...NWA Gangsta of Love ...Ghetto Boyz

The ONLY problem I have with smoking bans are when private establishment are FORCED by laws to become smokefree. SInce the Bills are making the decision themsleves, I have ZERO problem with thier new policy, although, I agree with others here that it will likely cause some unintended problems. If a private establishment like a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking there, I also have NO problem with that. I can choose not to go there. I choose not to go to many Bills games because of the disgusting things you have to bear witness to regarding drunken idiots. Oh, that and the Bills suck big time...

actually, I have this conversation all the time with friends of mine who are frequent fliers. We have come to the agreement that there would probably be a demand for an airline that gives you premium ammenities like drinks, food, room to move around and cordial flightstaff for a premium pricetag. If they offered that kind of premium service, I think that they would do well. There is a consituent out there that isn't out there looking only for the Walmart of airlines. Personally, I don't fly anymore when I can help it for some of those reasons, and of course, the people. This planet would be much better if not for all the !@#$ing people on it...

I agree, but what causes more problems (IMO) is people bringing thier ridonkulously large carry-ons into the cabin. The airlines don't do a very good job enforcing the size limit policy...

hahaha! This thread is awesome!

Weiner lovers...heheheeh!

I don't get it. What the hell was he supposed to be doing?

Strange we don't have a thread on this topic yet. ACLU may indeed fight it, but on grounds that it reinforces negative sterotypes. Huh? I would see thier point if they were arguing that it might be a waste of funding since druggies may just try and stay clean till the test and then smoke it up, but thier reason is bull ****. Why would anyone think that this is enforcing a sterotype? Almost everyone I know who holds a regular job is subjected to random drug testing, why is this any different? Lets see what the loonies have to say about that...

Never understood this line of logic, from the dumbass kid's point of view anyway. Do they not know about the horror stories coming out of those group homes? Might as well be sent to prison themselves...

Too true. When did they start having special schools for problem elementary school kids? I thought that was only for high schoolers?

I don't give a damn how old that kid was. If he would have taken a swing at me, he would have been picking his teeth up off the ground...

I think this is it exactly. For those fans over ~35 or so, a return to the white helmets brings back the old days. I HATED the red helmets in 1985, got somewhat used to them in the 90's and again, hated them in the 2000's (the era of suck). I am STOKED they are going back to the whites. My guess is that anyone over about 35 or so would prefer the white to red helments. Those younger, for the sames reasons, would prefer the reds...

simple. My son will get to watch my DVDs from the mid-80's laser discs when he comes of age. He will never be told of the abominations that were those other "movies"...

Atlanta's troubles stem from inept management, and an unwillingness (or inability) to pay for and keep thier top talent = fan apathy. No one wants to go see a loser in a city with so much going on like Atlanta...

Sir-Mix-a-Lot "Baby Got Back"

to the original topic: meh, not like they were gonna pay up anyway...

I would like to nominate "Gods and Generals" for your consideration. For those of you who don't know, this is the follow-up prequel to Ted Turner's "Gettysburg", and G&G deals primarily with the rise and fall of General T.J "Stonewall" Jackson. The film covers the war from First Manassas to Chancellorsville, and the death of Jackson. I am quite well versed in the subject matter, and enjoyed both Gettysburg (minus the redonkulous fake beards) and Ken Burns Civil War documentary, which I watch everytime it comes on t.v. I wanted desperately to like this film. But is sucked so hard in the following ways: 1. Running Time: WAAAAAAYYYYY to long! This film was nearly 4 hours long, and even though "Gettysburg" was longer, that film never seemed to drag, and the subject matter warrented the time spent, as it was essentially the most epic battle ever fought in North America. This film could have used a good editor, any editor, as I was finding myself nodding off and paying more attention to my laptop than the movie itself. 2. Dialog: practially nonexistant. You never got the sense that this is what actual soldiers would say to each other on the battlefield. Most of the dialog was either praying or some pompous soliloquy. Now I completely understand that these people, especially Stonewall, were very religious and they pretty much talked like that. But that doesn't translate well to a film setting, especially if that is all the dialog you are going to put in. 3. Pretentious: there were TWO black people in this film. And I S#^# you not, there is a scene where the black folks are out cheering the brave, southern soldiers as they march into battle against the evil hordes of Northerners who would free them from chains. Actually cheering them! 4. One-sided: It was said that "Gettysburg" took a very pro-Southern viewpoint, well, aside from one excellent scene with Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain, you would have thought that the Angels themselves were not as pure as the brave Southerners fighting for thier Independence from the tyranny of the north. It was quite annoying from the standpoint of someone who knows a bit about the history of the war. 5. Boring: the biggest sin of all. How can a movie about one of the most important and epic periods of American history be so damn monontonous and dull? Too many confusing shots of men running through the woods, and while I KNOW this is pretty much what they did, it did not translate well to the screen. Someone who is not as versed in the history of the battles would not know what was going on. The Battle of Fredricksburg was well done, but couldn't save the nearly four hour run time. One good thing, at least they fixed the over-the-top fake beards on this one. But this movie sucked so hard, that Ted Turner wouldn't bankroll the third and final movie in the series. In short, this movie was a bloody mess of a boring film.

also gone but not forgotten: Chief Wahoo McDaniel Big Johnn Studd Gorilla Monsoon Andre the Giant

No doubt. My FIL (major Dem supportor, if he hits a pothole, it's because those black Republicans cut funding for road improvements) asked me not long ago if I thought Obama was going back on his promises. I replied that I never believed his BS lies during the campaign, so therefore, I think he's doing exactly as well as I expected...

The answer is YES, that and gators in some areas...

Ugh. Count me in the minority. I hated it there. Moved from WNY in 1980 the place was a rural as they get. That was ok, but now, it is a bit too big for it's britches if you catch my drift. Just too much traffic and things are too spread out for me, it takes 30 minutes to go ANYWHERE. For the poster that lives in Ballentine: I grew up 1 mile from there, played in the fields where your house and gold course currently sits. That place is SOOOO different now, the roads have all been renamed and rerouted, I literally get lost there now. And I spent 20 years there. Ha! And where the hell were all you Bills fans when I was the only freaking one in the early 1980's. You guys have it easy now!!!!

Seriously? Please tell me you are joking...

awesome!