leh-nerd skin-erd

put that globe down for a couple minutes. you must be exhausted.

TO quote Barrack Oshackhennesy..."Now just ho-ho-ho-hold on a second here". You guys aren't using your real names?? i included the phoentic spelling so you all could pronounce it correctly. NOT GARY BUSEY? NOT DERANGED RHINO? NOT NANKER? is Bob even in Michigan?? Jesus is he even named Bob??? i must really be a simple man.

they use the benchmark "the seriousness of the allegation" to justify what follows. you see IF Trump fires Comey, but did it to OBSTRUCT...something or anything, then we have to get to the bottom of it. they quickly move away from the fact that he could have fired him because he didn't like his shoes, but that's not the point. Same outrage applies to Yates, and so on and so on. Comey has revealed himself to be just another political operative posing as a beacon of integrity. it happens, always has and always will.

I've got no dog in this fight, other than hoping against hope for some semblance of honor by our elected leaders, but I'll say this: Tapping out is honorable, be it due to fatigue, joint lock or a rear naked choke. But to engage a guy in debate over an extended period of time, to have read even a quarter of what the Deranged Rhino has offered and resort to "Hannity/warm milk/and bed time" as you go is soft. Call him a conspiracy junkie, call him part of the tin foil crowd, but you seemed better that that.

Ah, I was thinking reefer madness. As for my bread crumbs, I figured reference to garbage time stats when the game went down to the last second really was obvious. Subsequent references to the improbable 2 tds and 2 point conversions last year were obvious as well. Brady is the greatest qb of all time. At 40, he threw for 500+ yards and absent some very rough contact* at the goal line had that ball on the money to score the TD. If he completes the pass, every fan in America who doesn't want to see the pats win (and that's pretty much every fan in America other than a pats fan) knows with certainty that he's going to convert the 2point for OT, and knows with certainty that the pats will win the toss, Brady will complete 3 quick passes to get them in field goal range and win it. I've hated him in the past, hated him for the success he has had against the bills, against the breaks that have gone his way, and have no issues with calling him out on deflategate or anything else. I was glad to see him lose, glad to see him glassy eyed after the game but don't deny his talent. *As for the rough contact, I was glad to see gronkowski go down like a cheap muffin and will never forget the cheap shot he laid on Tre White. To see him flail his arm looking for a the flag that never game was priceless.

I thought I left enough breadcrumbs on that one. I would suggest the bigger problem here is you are in mourning and cannot see things clearly. I've been there, so no hard feelings. However-- it's patently offensive to me that you would imply I am a pothead at this stage of my life. I think YOU'RE the high one.

Sure, Brady had some gaudy stats, mostly in garbage time, but he also missed that trick play catch (success factor should be near 100% as we saw Foles catch a very similar pass only a short time later), allowed himself to be sacked and STRIPPED like fresh fish at Attica, barely completed a 4th and 10 to keep the game alive, and almost didn't drive the Pats to a last ditch Hail Maria pass play for the tie. Last year he allowed his team to be waaaaay behind before barely squeaking out the win with two td's and 2 point conversions after evening the score. I'm surprised he's this high on anyone's list. The good news is, I think he's gonna be ok in life.

have you checked the batteries in your carbon monoxide detectors lately?

The Regularback of Notre Dame? Casting call goes out for an average non-gender-specific person, average height, weight just about average. Works at the post office. Has a pretty good life but suffers from bunions. Anyone can can play that part....anyone. 21st century brilliance.

i have no idea what percentage of casual fans stopped watching due to anthem protests, but I do think when someone says they "venture maybe 20%", it's typically opinion-based. I'll leave the defense of the comments to the original poster, but why are you so hostile on this issue? it's pretty well documented that viewership is down, and it was reported fairly often that attendance was down (i won't cite because i really don't care to look), but let's say the number is 10%, 8% or14% loss if casual fans who dropped out because they don't support the protests. Is that a positive thing for the NFL? Or, is the actual percentage 0?

One of the students said there were fears it was going to be a "bloodbath" over the role. The whole thing shoulda been shutdown before they ever cast it. Now you got some real bad mojo with the cancellation of the play. 10s of people are theatrically f%#ed. Ithaca is really East Compton.

The KB touchdown overturn irks me to this day, and it is symptomatic of one of the reasons I don't go out of my way to watch more games. The maddening thing about is I rationally would have understood a "no TD" call (upon replay any way) and 'not enough to overturn'. I don't get it, won't get it and understand that replay doesn't prove it was a catch. Multiply that by the number of times these things happen and it takes away enjoyment of the game. Same with the fumble TD return, exactly the same reasoning and same process. Add to that the abject failure of the NFL to send a meaningful message on the gronk cheap shot...hard to think the scale isn't tilted toward Massachusetts. Personally speaking, the protests are a factor as well. I don't think protesting at your place of work is wise, I think doing so when people who might give a ----- that you are protesting on their dime is even sillier. Actions have consequences. How significant the consequences are is of course, debatable.

Lacks vision.

I think if you're looking for deeper meaning on society and race in a place where people identify themselves as SlapDickSammy, FdaPatz, and Hugh G. Rection, you may be disappointed in what you find. I'm going to tell you I treat people across the board with respect, and in any given year will encounter virtually every color/creed/gender/sexual orientation there is. I hope you'll take me at my word on that. I can't recall anyone identifying as binary but I'm sure that will happen. I have found that everyone has implicit bias in some way, shape or form, and it's simply part of the human condition. Some are more open than others, some guarded, and some let their hair down more when the door is closed than they do when it's open. I'd bet you find that here. I've learned over the years that things I absolutely knew as fact turned out not to be factual at all, that sometimes the hero is actually not heroic at all and the victim is the perpetrator. I think that while debate on what constitutes racism is as important today as it ever was, that context and a complete understanding of all facts are important to me before I make my own decision in how I feel about something. I'd think a person who has certain views on race that I might disagree with might well have a different set of experiences than I do, and that doesn't make them wrong, only wrong from my perspective. You never know if the person who says "I don't trust ______" had a brother/sister/mother who was the victim of a crime perpetrated by a person who was ________. I've had my own life experiences on that sort of thing that resulted in me opening my mind as opposed to closing it. Anyway, getting back to this. I don't spend a ton of time worrying about incomplete fact patterns and why people do what they do. What we know---you, me, Hapless, Doc, and Mr Weo--- is all the same. I guess my faith in the professional way RI chose to handle this makes me think it's a bit more complicated than "Racism!" V "Not Racism!". And really, at the end of the day its a reflection on them, not me as a fan of a football team.

sure, you can have that standard and if you were GM, you would be empowered to apply the standard of your choosing. As a spectator, it's absolutely fair to apply the "if, then not cool" standard. At the same time, i sleep pretty soundly recognizing that the facts available are limited, and ultimately I have no idea what actually was said or done. I'm not even sure that YN does, either. And personally, I can see a difference between actions & words said and done in an adrenaline and often drug-fueled professional football game and real life. I'd think the "not cool" standard could apply to many, many things that happen during a game. Again, applying the standard "the two involved parties worked it out" seems like a good result to me.

Your real challenge here is you fact-check your own statements based only on your perceptions on how people should act. I understand that you believe EVERYONE should/would behave as you would in a given situation, but the world simply does not work like that. I'l take it one step further....would you consider it possible that Richie Incognito might have acted differently to this type of allegation if he had never gone through the dolphins scandal? Could that experience and the fallout that came from it have caused him to stop, consider the interaction and realized that it made sense to try and address it personally, with the other guy? And and by the way, you did it again. "Have a friend and co-worker say..." implies that you are imploring the friend and coworker to intercede on your behalf for your benefit and as you stated earlier, to keep him in the game. I'd think Dawkins would probably find your comments insulting and presumptuous.

Look, if we're splitting hairs, I never said that you alleged RI forced Dawkins to do anything, so no need to thread that righteous indignation needle. On the other hand, you seem to be implying that the comments Dawkins made were not 100% of his own volition, and were made to give RI needed cover from the comments made by Ngakoue..which can best be summarized as some weak yet unknown racist comment that Ngakoue could not or would not recall when questioned about it? While opining on RI and his character, you've painted a portrait of his teammate as a hapless yet honorable stooge manipulated (but not forced) into defending a person with racist tendencies (often referred to as a "racist") because they are...teammates? To boot, he did it to protect a teammate with racist tendencies in exchange for consideration, said consideration in the form of RI not missing a game or games in some future year? We can agree that the whole man-hug thing is bro-festy. but to suggest that you (or most) would write it all off as a big misunderstanding if RI had just forcefully said "N'uh uh I didn't!" is simply naïve. The two of them worked it out, so assuming the NFL moves on, that's all that really matters.

In my opinion, the approach you're taking is as bad as someone taking the hard-line "There is no way he ever could have said anything" and is based on nothing more than limitations in your own thought process. Of course he could have used the most racially insensitive language for purposes having nothing to do with a football game and everything to do with his personally held convictions. He might have waited until DD was in the lavatory washing his hands to do it. He may have whispered it in Ngakoue's ear. He may have spelled it out in the remnants of rubber on the turf and swept it all clean when his teammates returned. I don't see Dawkin's public support of his teammate as a slam dunk indicator that RI was a victim, but really struggle with the allegation that RI made DD come to his defense. My thought would be he apologized for his 'part'--at a minimum---because it made sense economically for him to do, given his past experiences with the league, and because he's sought out professional help to deal with his image problem. And it's entirely possible to think that he's learned from his past experience, knows fame is fleeting and money can dry up quickly and he wanted to make sure they were both on the same page. Hard to say, since I wasn't there. No idea why Ngakoue is not publically acknowledging the apology, but then again he couldn't recall or wouldn't say what was said, correct? Maybe he's camera shy. Maybe he doesn't like RI. Maybe he doesn't believe him. Maybe he had second thoughts and really misunderstood what RI said. Maybe he hates the humble chicken wing. Who knows?

RI apologized for what he described as 'my part' in the encounter. That implies someone else has a part in it as well, presumably Yannick Ngakoue. I think RI handled it pretty well, all things considered--with the caveat that I have no idea what the heck happened. He reached out to the guy, met with him and tried to sort out any misunderstanding. I'd assume that RI had some guidance from professionals in this regard, he's got millions riding on the outcome. If the NFL comes out and suspends him, the Bills should cross that bridge when they come to it.

well, i would think there would be substantial downside for RI to go to that route. he's not an angel, and in front of professionals who strategize tactical interviews under oath for a living he likely would have a very, very, very, very, very, very bad day. i actually think for him, flying under the radar with the support of his teammates is a pretty good outcome. yeah, if the guy made it all up he gets away with it, but RI in odd turn of events is viewed as the victim by some, though not by the "if there is a shred of evidence he has to be fired" crowd. I always thought a shred was a pretty low threshold for anyone.

look, at least it finally clears up the Incognito misunderstanding. "I'm part of the Bills Mafia, I'm gonna clip ya wings, gonna clip ya wings etc etc". It's all coming together now.

i'm a lovable dolt. and thanks!

I'd think with all the mic'd up players, cameras and coverage of an NFL game there should be ample evidence to review. If RI was wrong he should be fined/suspended consistent with NFL rules, and if he feels he's unfairly targeted he should appeal. At the same time, the same approach should be taken with the other player. If he lied, fine/suspend him accordingly and appeal as necessary. I think it it would be an interesting to release uncensored game/practice day footage of the players to gain context to all this. Let's unpeel this onion. Second edit. I guess unpeeling an onion would mean not peeling it at all. I want the onion peeled. It's a metaphor. Apologies to chefs and onions.

as a society we have to recognize that threatening to n-t in another man's wife's eye is really insensitive and could be misinterpreted. tell your boys fellas, tell your boys.

yup. he had the vision to capitalize when the world was going in a new direction. I always found some of the harsher content hard to listen to, but he played things brilliantly. i would argue at times he actually empowered women, though is ways that were decidedly non-traditional.