Spiderweb

OK

LMAO....

Well said. Now you better duck....

The cap hit from paying a vet the vet minimum also has a catch in that it counts less only after the player has some set length of NFL tenure. It was more for the 10 year (and plus) vets who were geting cut simply because of $$$ IIRC.

Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day...

Back in the day (SB run), I loved all the Bills players shows. Rigas and sons destroyed a great service. Sad day, even if we all knew it was coming.

The "argument" revolves around the purported violation of the "limit" policy which clearly implies an understanding of what the product may contribute to. Surely, the scumbag is the front runner, but from a legal and ethical perspective, the vendor does share responsibility. What is wrong with this case is the size of the award, nothing more.

Catchy phrase (your close), but the if that employee did violate the "limit" ploicy then shared responsibility does fall back on the vendor as well. That is what place's the company in harm's way. It cannot be exonerated for the actions of any employee, from the CEO to the counter guy selling the beer. Sorry, but this is both reasonable and logical. In fact, had there not been a limit policy, again we could argue against placing the vendor/company at risk in this action, but that wasn't the case. The "limit" policy clearly shows an understanding of what their product can contribute to. Can't pick and chose bits and pieces. You have to look at the whole.

Never mind the loss of life this contibuted to. Who cares anyway...... Hope that something like this never happens to anyone here, but if it did, I'll bet the tune would change quickly.

As I just replied to AD, if their employee broke the "Limit" rules, then it does become their shared responsibility, directly relating to their product and the reasons for an imposed limit thereof. Surely, I do feel the brunt should be borne by the drunken scumbag, but it's quite evident that if the "limit" (to their product) was broken, then they become a part of the shared responsibility with the tragic events that their "product" contributed towards.

The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. That action, in and of itself, does place considerable responsibility with the employee and the vendor, and rightfully so. That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. Be honest, why was a limit established to begin with? Might it have something to do with known problems caused by the over consumption of the product they sell? Had it not be broken, then I could argue that the vendor did not fail in acting with due diligence but alas, that apparently wasn't the case.

While the brunt of the responsibility for this should be borne by the drunk, it's questionable at best that you see no responsibility borne by the vendor. This seems a bit too one sided for any arguments sake. Must be nice that the vendor has none, for their sake, at least in your eyes. Should Ford have shared any responsibility in making Pinto's that were prone to gas tank contents igniting upon a rear end collision? Should the maker's of the Dalkon (spelling?) Shield be responsible for the damage (and deaths) caused by their product? Or do we simply wish to exist in a "buyer beware" society where anything goes? I would hope not. Sorry, but product liability (manufacturer/vendor) exists for very moral, ethical and logical reasons. What simply doesn't make sense is the size of the awards. Can the little girl be replaced, clearly not. Life itself is the most valuable component of our existance, yet to make it a lottery jackpot, actually demeans life itself. I would favor reasonable limits (good God I sound like GW) on punitive damages coupled with actual damages, with fair and equitable computation of them base upon life, lost wages, etc. The problem I see with all this really is the size of the award. That, and my heart goes out to the family of the little girl who's life was tragically taken by that scumbag, who as you said, should be erased from the gene pool.

Congratulations Mike. Give our love to Mom, and especially to the beautiful gift just bestowed upon you. Welcome.

That's exactly what I was thinking....

Nice shots. Thanks for sharing them....

I think there's validity to this as well. I recent changed mine from a 256 to a 512 and it does seem to take a bit longer now to get ready for the next shot. Pisser... Just get a couple more 128's and you'll be happier

Jennings, so long as he signs a reasonable deal (ala - Shobel). or there abouts. We need quality at the OL positions. He and Mike Williams make a fine pair of bookends.

Well, there was a time when Holding was 15 yards !!!!

Hernandez was a very good player, and while I'm a bit biased toward Mattingly since he came up when I was still somewhat a fan of baseball and the Yanks, Mattingly played the last 6-7 with a back that most of us would never have been able to play with. I read where he actually a had a 3 hour stretching ritual he had to go through just to play. Hadn't he suffered from a bad back, he would have been great and a hands down HOF'er. Yet due to his final numbers, I'd have to say he is a marginal HOF candidate at best. Hernandez had longevity and consistency that Mattingly and his back did not. But had Mattingly been healthy, there would have been no comparison, none at all.

Hummm...Seems TD did pay a boatload to keep Moulds, and was able to work out a deal with Shobel.....Can we you have "selective" memory?

Personally, I barely watch 3-4 baseball games a year, then they're usually only in the playoff/WS, Yet, when the Yankees signed Giambi, he had just come off three outstanding offensive years with the A's and his first year with the Yankees was a 41 hr, 122 RBI, and a ".314" season (just researched it). Beltran may be a better defensive player, granted, but his offensive production doesn't even come anywhere near what Giambi's was. Giambi may have turned out to be a "chemical" star, but Beltran was just flat out overpaid, more so than even Giambi. In fact, these salaries are why I no longer follow the game and haven't for years. Baseball has no system in place (NFL) to level the playing field. I much preferred the days of when teams were built thru the quality of their farm systems and a few key trades. FA killed the game for this former die hard baseball fan. That and "chemicals", greedy owners, greedy players, and a system that ensures disparity amongst the teams.

Not me, but I would like to add that while Bledsoe was still a big disappointment, he isn't the one who allowed three 4th down conversions to lose us the Jags game, Sure, we should have scored more than 10 points, but we all remember that finish all too well. It also wasn't directly Bledsoe's fault that we lost the first game to the Jets either. Sure he played like crap for 3 plus quarters, and then helped put together two scores for us to take the lead, only to watch the Jets make a ball control drive for the winning field goal at the end. Our "D" needed just two more stops and the record would have been 11-5 at the end with a Playoff berth in hand going into the Pitt game. Or how about TH's inability to quit tripping himself up? I remember the Raiders game, and also a key run against the Pats (just before the big fumble) where a hole was there only for TH to go turf first..... The "team" came thru for 9 wins, but there were also "team" losses as well. Bledsoe wasn't the only reason. Yet, with the exception possibly being the Miami game, it sure would have been nice to see Bledsoe help pick up the slack a bit more often and make a few more plays himself. Bottom line, it was the "team" that lost their chance for the playoffs....

I heard, read, that with the projected increase in the CAP, we're going to be around 8 to 9 mil under, but that escalator clauses in some current contracts could reduce this number.

Jeez, Kitna isn't an answer, not at all. There's a darn good reason he ended up in Cinci. That's where he belongs. Sounds a lot like the let's get Jeff Blake stuff that went on here before we traded for Bledsoe. Develop Losman, but pass on him unless he's brought in as a backup.

OLD? I guess my memories of John Rauch trying to use Simpson as a receiver and a decoy make me three days older than dirt.....Ouch! !