Taro T

What the janitor's name was.

They remade The Wicker Man? The Edward Woodward version was brutal. Why would ANYONE remake that? And putting Cage in Woodward's role? That could actually be so bad it's entertaining in a trainwreck sort of way.

Well, they might need a little duct tape, but that should do the trick. Would help to keep the overhead and overruns low as well. Throw in the cheap labor, and it seems to be a no-brainer.

Earthquakes, in the Himalayas? Inconceivable. And, as Kashmir's a very stable region polically, man-made calamities shouldn't be an issue either. My only question is: why hasn't this pipeline already happened?

Yeah, but that's only an issue when the pipeline's getting filled. (Or if you ever have degassing in transit w/ liquids or condensation w/ a gas pipeline. The hammer at the bottom of a rise could be quite impressive with any slug flow. But those wouldn't cause any problems either. )

What, landslides are bad for the transport of highly flamable / explosive gasses? And potentially massive flows of water across a pipeline might not be ideal conditions for integrity? What possible problems could those create?

Pretty much. He led w/ the elbow, he got the guy's head. Canadian Juniors have been pretty clear on calling that a suspendable hit this year. Good to see the Sabres are getting some meanness in the system.

Remind me not to ask you for a movie recommendation. (I'll repay the favor, and won't give you any either; as The Princess Bride is probably the only movie ever made that we'd agree upon.)

Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to avoid it. (No idea what it's about and don't think the wife has heard of it, so it shouldn't be too hard to avoid.)

Caddyshack has to be #1 with Airplane and The Princess Bride being high up as well. 1 other which had some great lines but isn't quite in that same class is: History of the World Pt 1. (It's good to be the king.) And if you play hockey, Slapshot ends up very quotable. (Dave's a killer. Dave's a mess. Bleed all over him, let him know you're there. You can't put a bounty on a man's head. I just did.)

Wife dragged me to The Bodyguard back when we were engaged. I walked out of it 20 minutes in. Worst. Movie. Ever.

Uh, didn't Stew Barber draft Kelly and Pat McGroder draft Bell?

Might be influenced by w/ which race the racists in question are.

Big whoop. Mighty's movin' to Ra-cha-cha!

C-I-L-L my land-lord.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. Based on this, I would expect the likelihood of a strike to be minimal. It's that line of thinking from your last paragraph that made me think a strike's possible.

The logic is that the TV contracts are structured such that the big money comes for the playoff games (that's the way it works in other sports, I expect it works that way for the NFL as well). The playoffs are essentially only money for the owners as the players have already been paid their full salaries and are only getting their playoff bonus money at that point. For the most part, the players get (relative to their regular salaries) nearly nothing for them. A strike does not give the owners the same thing as a lockout because they have already paid the players if a strike occurs near the end of the season but they haven't received all their TV (and other playoff related) revenues yet. That is the point in time when they have their greatest leverage. At the beginning of a season is when the owners have their greatest leverage. Let me back up 1 step and ask another question. If the players and league don't come to an agreement on a CBA, just how far off into the future can this injunction against a lockout continue? Only through this season, through another one, indefinitely? If the players can force the league to let them play (provided the league doesn't "shut itself down"), then I'd see the logic in stating the players have nothing to gain by striking. If that isn't the case (and that doesn't seem logical to me on the surface), I could see scenarios where the players might strike (or at minimum threaten to) to gain negotiating leverage w/ the league. I truly doubt either side wants to see this all get decided in court (as the stakes are so high and the outcome is uncertain), so if the players were to believe they could get a better deal by threatening to strike, I could see it happening. I'm not saying a strike WILL happen, I'm just not seeing why it necessarily won't / wouldn't happen.

How sad. For real. My immediate reaction was to laugh and then shake my head. At least it's better than the "We're Lookin' Good" they ran ~90.

Why would it not happen if they've been playing all year without a CBA? The MLB players killed an entire postseason in '94 and the NHL players pulled off a successful strike in the spring of '92. It seems to me that they'd have a 3rd option if they were reformed as a union - continue negotiating w/ the owners. I wouldn't expect to see that happen, but it is an available option. But if they weren't happy w/ the way things were looking in the court system, I'm not seeing why they wouldn't consider a strike an option. I wouldn't be surprised to see the NFL close up shop, at least temporarily in the Spring, if things haven't been resolved by then. At that time the leverage would be shifted back towards the owners, so I don't see why a players strike 'would simply never happen' when they would gain leverage.

No, I'm saying that after the players have received (nearly) all of their paychecks (if it works out that it's legal) they might strike right before the playoffs start. Basically like the MLB players did back in '94. If they were going to strike, it'd probably be in early December, so there would be time to get a contract done before the playoffs had to be pitched. I'd be very surprised if the players ever struck after the playoffs had actually begun as it would be PR suicide. At the beginning of the season, before anybody's received a paycheck, the owners have the bulk of the leverage. The players decertified to take that away. At the end of the season, after the players have been paid and the networks are looking forward to their playoff ratings, the players have the bulk of the leverage. I'm not about to try to learn the minutia of labor law, but was curious as to whether the players could recertify w/out having a contract in place and if so I don't see much stopping them from striking. They could always drop their lawsuit if they think the circumstances are more favorable at the negotiating table. Thanks for the response. If the players can recertify at their own discretion, it seems to me that a strike is still viable if the injunction against the lockout holds. I don't believe the players want to nuke the NFL. (It's a golden goose for them too.) I just think that if an agreement is made when the owners are under the more severe duress (either due to a lawsuit working its way through the courts or a strike/ threatened strike) then the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads will have been the ones to crack and there is a greater likelihood that it'll be tough for the Bills to compete in the new landscape. (Kind of the way the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads cracked last time and carried the bulk of the other owners with them.)

Moorman?

Not claiming that making the playoffs in the NHL is a particularily noteworthy accomplishment, but several of your points disparaging it and the Sabres seem to be of the 'pot meet kettle' variety. While being 1 of 16 in when there are only 14 out isn't impressive, it is far more impressive than being 1 of 8 in when there are only 2 of 10 out. 3 of the Bandits wins came during an era where the entire league was owned by the same individual and the Bandits and Wings had a distinct advantage in how players were distributed between teams. The Bandits had some incredible teams back then, but the deck was kind of stacked. And your fears about resources being diverted from the Bandits to the Sabres seem misplaced. Why would a billionaire take money out of a very low expense entity like the Bandits to improve the Sabres? Especially one that has the following the Bandits have? There aren't enough resources going to the Bandits currently to make a difference w/ the Sabres. If any changes occur w/ the Bandits, I'd expect they'll be positive. Time will tell, but I'd be very surprised to see Pegula being a bad thing for the Bandits.

You'll go 20 miles out of your way (10 out, 10 back) to save $10? So, apparently you aren't exaggerating when you state you don't put much value on your time.

Wow, you can multiply by 60. Who'd've thunk?

So the question then becomes, are 2 minutes out of your life worth the $1.20-$3 you save per fillup?