leh-nerd skin-erd

I agree. You know, in the talkies, Michael Corleone was crooked, everyone knew it, and he didn’t give a crap either. 🤔

Actually I think this explanation makes it worse than a willful stubbornness to overturn a bad but understandable in the moment call. It’s more of a “F it, we’ll do whatever we want” approach, where everyone in the nation can look at the play frame by frame and realize the rules are irrelevant.

I was telling my wife (who came perilously close to being banished from the viewing room when she remarked it appeared over when we had a two score lead in the 4th) that one of the cool things about the NFL is the magical last minute play that determines the outcome. The Allen to Digs TD against Az was an example, alas it was replaced by the Hopkins Hail Mary. The play by Poyer was an incredible, heady play that should be recognized in this category. He was robbed.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the flow of the game is impacted by calls made correctly on the field. It allows the d to reset and slows the game down.

2BD INJURY REPORT: Leh-nerd Skin-erd Arrhythmia Probable House Knee Questionable

This is an excellent point relative to the atrocious review of the fumble. The Bills have two amazing plays to keep a very important drive alive in a playoff game. In both cases, the officials on the field correctly rule the play a completed pass. There most certainly must be a sense of “wtf” on the part of the Colts d, certainly is a sense of excitement and momentum for Buffalo and Indy is on its heels but cannot challenge. So...naturally it makes sense for league officials hundreds of mikes away to pause the game, twice, take several minutes, allow the Colts to take a breath, twice, and regroup because maybe the guys on the field missed it, or perhaps the could see something to change the dynamic of the game. It’s maddening, just as we’re asked to believe that a slow motion replay on a high def camera didn’t reveal the exact moment when the hand made contact with the player.

I was that cute boy in class the girls all gossiped about. I hated being objectified, but I’m here to tell you it all worked out. I peaked in May of my eighth grade. May 11 as I recall.

Correct. Redundant, but correct.

It happens here as well, and I didn’t support a ban at either location, so there’s that. I think history is clear that those lobbying for suppression of information are generally not the most truthworthy of souls, but everybody has their supporters. Let Twitter screen out all that sh$t you don’t need to know. So you say.

I think it’s pretty commonly accepted practice in civilized society that when you disagree with someone, you tell them to shut the &$&@ up and silence them. It’s not discriminatory if you don’t like them. -Twitter 2020

It doesn't matter here, Deek. The pitchforks are paid for, they can't return the tar, and somebody has to answer.

Seriously. My bad on the Biden race speech, I missed that part. My apologies. All I can say in response to your thoughts on Biden's comments are 'sheesh'. We live in different worlds, I'm not sure how much deader you can get then dead. Anyway, I appreciate the reply.

You were emphasizing something I had addressed and imo was pretty clear on. Yes, of course there is room for differing opinions on that tweet. It's not even close, especially sine your 'framing' (interesting word play) is in direct contrast to other things he said the same day. I asked about Biden's comments and you didn't offer an opinion. I assume that's a no fly zone? Dude-send me the address of the igloo just in case I survive the initial purge. You can trust me.

I addressed that. You didn't send a tweet, you sent me text in the body of your reply. You said that it was deleted, I expressed concern about the format (it's not a Tweet, for God's sake I assume we can agree on that), and pushed forward with the assumption that it was accurate. I provided the context important to share. Why are you yelling? 🙄

No, but I think they lop off a limb or two. It's a conversion thing, I think. Honestly I'd say burn it all down just based on the metric system alone. 12's are so much easier to work with than 10s. Don't forget , in the US, we get 12 donuts in a dozen while you poor bastards are out ordering a Decible of Timmy Hos. Just imagine 4 people , 12 donuts, 3 each. In Toronto, 4 people, 10 donuts, well that's Thunderdome man.

You're asking a lot--you're asking me to take what you wrote as gospel and that's not normally my thing. “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” That said, this doesn't strike me as celebrating violence, death or destruction in the least as suggested in the anonymous sourcing. It strikes me as resignation that the vote was rigged, that people were extremely frustrated by that fact. Before you all go jumping on me for that--it's the same sort of rhetoric used when other leaders spoke about violence and rioting and looked the other way for political gain. At the same time, Trump has been widely criticized and excoriated for being exceptionally blunt in his manner and tone (often fairly, and one of the things I didn't particularly care for during his presidency), I'm quite certain he was capable of being direct and candid if he wanted to celebrate violence. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, if this tweet was beyond question we don't need double secret sourcing, do we? I asked our boy @transplantbillsfan to be so gracious as to provide the top 3 or 4 reasons that R voters were 95% behind DJT (his numbers, not mine) at one point in the thread about finding common ground. I'm actually pretty interested in his response based on some of the comments he shared there and the way a whole boatload of you folks think you think we think. Stepping away from this for an issue, having answered as honestly as I can: Do you think Biden's comments that BLM protestors would have been treated differently by law enforcement had they stormed the Capitol? I see an armed response, physical interaction, acts of bravery against anarchists, lines drawn and a reportedly unarmed women shot in the neck and killed. No shots to the leg, no silly rubber bullets, no allowing the ragers to rage, just some really special folks sworn to uphold the law doing the best they can to uphold the law against poor odds. So far, no calls to defund the Capitol police from lawmakers or soon-to-be President Biden, just the insinuation that the response was racially disproportionate because the dead folks are white. What say you?

I may need to be eliminated in the great cleanse many of those on the left and MSM is calling for, but I know a winner when I see one. You sir are a winner.

Don't take things out of context DocDawk, it makes you look shallow. I'm happy to look at the tweet that Daz referenced that supports what he said it did. Following the logic, I complained about anonymous sources, he referenced a DJT tweet that he indicated clearly backed up the anonymous source. He asked if I saw the tweet, I replied that I had not. His next reply was moved to Don Jr. I've replied to that. Now you jump in, referencing the horses mouth. How hard is it for you brave and noble souls to send the tweet?

Look, I try to keep this civil, but at risk of being labelled a douche why the %$#@ are you asking me about Don Jr on NYT article citing anonymous sources about his father? I know that Hunter banged his deceased brother's wife but does that mean Joe did to? I wouldn't think so, but I have to be honest--I think you guys would buy it if the right publication quoted a local Starbucks barista saying she saw it happen. Send the tweet or move on. I understand how you feel, it really should be as simple as sending a copy of the tweet.

Before we try again, let's establish some ground rules. I made no comments about "Don Jr", and I'm assuming the anonymous sourcing issue I have long taken issue with wasn't about Don Jr speaking to his aides. If it was, feel free to share. If not, was "Don Jr" the issue you wanted to discuss? As for Trump's "own tweet", feel free to share. It's your argument, not mine.

Your willingness to accept commercialized rumor mongering because it catches you in the emotional bread basket is your burden, not mine. I don't read Trump's tweets, I don't really read anyone's tweets, but it seems to me we would not need a left-leaning newspaper to write a National Enquirer type story citing mysterious anonymous sources highly placed in the WH if his tweets revealed exactly the same thing. But you go ahead and be outraged because Kimmi said that she overheard Jenni say that Ronnie had a side hustle with Nikki. That sort of thing is always true, everyone knows that. That's why it works.

Maybe, but on the other hand, you're a case study in accepting a rumor based in a riddle wrapped in speculation as absolute, unquestionable fact. I've never understood why people would accept as fact something this incendiary without question, blindly loyal (ironically) to a commercial endeavor with a widely acknowledged slant toward reporting stories a certain way. I rarely see it in any other walk of life, blind loyalty to the rumor and grist mill. We learned all of this by about 5th grade, yet, here you are. Far be it from me to suggest that in everyday life, you would be rightly accused of being lead around by the nose without a shred of evidence backing up the claim. But, tarry on, you can trust everything you read.

Let me guess--and I haven't read it yet. Anonymous sources? Sources deep within?

Nah--you're on to something here. The challenge is the format. I engage often with folks that are left/far left, and nary a cross word between us. Admittedly I haven't spoken to any this week, but I imagine it will go the same as it always does. It's very easy to take swipes at another and dig your heels in when someone is not sitting across from you responding.