Taro T

Darwin was not dead-on right. But he got a lot of it right. You don't seem capable of comprehending this, so I see no point in expanding upon that point. Considering the Earth appears to be ~4.5B years old, I see little justification to believe life has only existed on this planet for the last 6,000. But feel free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.

It would take far too much time to elaborate well on this. Suffice it to say, I am NOT anti-Darwin. I think that in general species have evolved, but the mechanics and rates at which the evolution occurs do not necessarily match up with his theory. If you knew what you were talking about, you might realize this.

Well, they did. The problem is, they didn't draft 3 OL in the 1st 2 rounds. Sheesh.

I knew that spelling and grammar weren't your fortes. Apparently you have difficulty with meaning as well. Sorry 'bout that.

In general, yes. Specifically as Darwin laid out, no.

John, I apologize. I stated a couple of days ago that you were getting dull. It might just be the beer talking, but this is gold Jerry. You are back on top of your game. Your incoherent babbling is truly gold. How you manage to troll this hard for this long is truly impressive. Even Crayonz has to take a break every once in a while to recharge the batteries/googlebot/whatever. If you aren't trolling, please remember to wear a helmet when you leave your house.

You're mean. But should he earn a Darwin Award, I think that gets him in line with scientific principles of ~60 years ago. So we'd be killing at least 2 birds w/ 1 stone, so to speak. What, you jumped and you died? How the frig are you still posting? No matrix indeed.

Thank God I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. I'd still be cleaning the monitor when the '16 Games start.

Interesting. No problems at all with forcing people (who may end up having a reaction to the required injection) to inject something into their bodies. All in the name of science. Back about 60 or so years ago, didn't the science say forced sterilizations of retards was the right thing for the population?

Not particularily. Why, does it tell you anything about the motivations of those protesting this? What does it tell you about the motivations of those promoting this?

Squish the f-in' fish I can't stand the f-in' fish Squish 'em squish 'em good

Purely out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of the people that think mandatory flu shots are okie dokie are also pro-choice. I'd expect there to be a fairly high correlation but don't know that for certain.

You sure it's not the POLS that want CONTROL and change?

Cool Tom. Looks like you've got another stalker. Is DJ just HA trolling or is he for real? Either way, he was entertaining for the 1st 100 posts, but is starting to get old now.

Definitely not a flood insurance expert, but doesn't the fed underwrite all flood insurance and also mandates what coverage and premiums are required in high risk flood zones. So while there are private firms offering coverage, it isn't anywhere close to a free market. It sounds like the area was regraded from a low to moderate risk zone up to a high risk zone. Is it possible that the companies that insure in the low risk zones aren't set up to insure in the high risk ones? Either because they don't have enough reserves or realized that there is no way to make any money at the premiums they are allowed to charge or by some combination thereof. If you live in an area that has a 50% chance of flooding over a certain period of time, the insurer is going to get at least 50% of the value of the house/possessions over that time, or it is guaranteed to lose money.

I think we will have to, as neither will convince the other. Which is fine. I will agree that Jauron has a better staff of assistants this year than in the past, but I am not certain how much of that falls into the "blind squirrel / nut" category. When it comes time for a critical non-delegatable decision to be made, I haven't seen any improvements in what DJ is doing this year relative to years past. I think he comes up will reasonable game plans / strategies heading into games. I haven't seen any ability on his part to make changes to his philosophy / strategy on the fly, presumably due to his overly conservative nature which is exhibited in almost every major decision he has to make.

Yes, he did. Do you have anything else he's done better than in the past? I already agreed that getting rid of Shonert was a good thing. How in the world did it take DJ until after all of last year AND FIVE preseason games to figure that one out? The man appears to be unable to make a hard decision in anything resembling a reasonable time frame.

Really? What has HE done that you think was better than in the past? AVP seems to be calling plays much better than Shonert did; it'll be interesting to see if he still looks better when people start to learn his tendencies. I'll agree that getting rid of Shonert was a good move, I won't agree that making that move 10 days before the season was even remotely ideal. Dick still seems to go extremely conservative when the 4th quarter rolls around, and the team doesn't seem to adjust well after the half. I don't expect to see him gone until probably after next season, but I'd love to see him get canned at the bye week. As for the topic of this thread, I think the odds were greater that the team would get stuffed on 4th down than make it (I'd have expected ~40% chance of picking up the 1st), but I still would have preferred to see the Bills go for it there because they needed 2 scores (minimum) at that point and if they punted in a (realistic) best case scenario they'd have the ball back in the same spot 1-2 minutes later. Pick up the 1st down and maybe you get some momentum behind you. Punt it away and you are going for the slow death. Fail to pick up the 1st and it's a quick death, but at that point I'd have risked the 60% chance of the quick death for the near certainty that the punt would end with the same result.

Depends on the exchange rate and denomination.

Please do enlighten us as to WHY u [sic] exist.

It can't be a Democrat organization because it is a "government agency."

Roll Call: 1. Jay Rubeo 2. Rockpile (aka my twin) 3. Psycho Ward 86 4. R. Rich 5. Taro T Maybes: Just Jack hmmmmmmmmm's: taterhill

Of course the players will argue for all the additional money; and the owners will argue that they shouldn't get any of it. If 18 games becomes a reality, they'll split it somewhere in the middle. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the players' %age of total revenues to increase 1-2% to compensate them for the additional wear and tear they'll take. And they currently get ~60% of the total revenues anyhow, so they WILL necessarily get paid more with more games even if their %age of the pie doesn't increase. I'd agree with you that ideally the focus SHOULD be on making the NFL a better product, but it hasn't been about that for at least 20 years.

Why do you assume the season still starts after Labor day and pushes farther into winter? Wouldn't it make more sense to move the start of the season up 2 weeks? Also, I would expect that the owners would do their homework before making a change to the schedule. I'd be surprised if the increase in net revenues to the owners was entirely eaten up by a (potential) increase in the players %age of total revenues. But if that is the case, (player salary increase eats up all the additional revenues) it's pretty simple; the schedule won't increase beyond 16 games.

From increased TV, advertising, and ticket revenues. 2 extra games -> larger TV contracts and more seats sold both of which increase the total amount of advertising during the season.