Taro T

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being prepared for a crisis (provided the preparations don't end up like a Jonestown revival ). That stated, I just don't see us at the end of days at this time. Primarily because I don't see myself as being important enough to be one of the ones around when the sh*t does finally hit the fan. Throughout history, every generation (in almost every culture) has had its reason to believe a crisis of biblical proportions was imminent. So far they've all been wrong as far as the destruction being species wide, although that's been small consolation to a group that's been exterminated more or less. Eventually someone will be right, I just don't see myself as being fortunate (or more likely unfortunate) enough to be there when it does go down. (Of course, my powers of prognostication aren't exactly top notch, so it probably all goes down on Thursday. ) The most probable reason it all hasn't gone down yet, is He hasn't wanted it to. He's pulled us back from the brink when we've gotten too far. I expect He will do it again, I just don't know how He'll keep us around and I'm quite certain we won't realize that He helped us out again. He's had the whole show running for over 4B years, why get bored now when He's only had us around for 5-10k years? We almost definitely have the technology to wipe ourselves out, I don't think He'll let us do it, at least not now. Besides, Nostradamus says it's not supposed to go down for another 2000.

I've read this thread with interest. It's quite apparent that you have made up your mind that He doesn't. I'm not quite certain why you seem to need to get others to agree with your position. While science and religion are mutually exclusive in their methods, there is no reason that a person cannot believe in scientific principals and God. More specifically, there is no reason a person can't be both a scientist and a Christian. I've seen in this thread, the strawman set up that God is claimed to be omniscient and omnipresent in all ways that we would understand, so therefore he MUST know what is going to happen tomorrow and that freewill somehow doesn't / can't exist. I don't deny that there are some who believe this, but I expect they are vastly in the minority. While that seems to be the God that you want Christians to worship and believe in, apparently to be able to call out / knock down their faith; I doubt that you would have many / any of the Christians and other religious people in this thread even agree amongst themselves to exactly what His powers are and how they are manifested. I consider myself to believe in God (I've seen too much in this world to NOT believe that God does exist) and also a scientist (well, engineer, more precisely). I don't believe the Bible's version of Adam and Eve, but I do believe God created us through some sort of evolutionary process that started w/ something similar to the Big Bang. I see no reason not to try to continue to understand our world as fully as possible, understanding how the world works helps bring us closer to understanding how God set it all up brings us closer to Him as we find out it's all a heck of a lot more complex than any of us could have imagined. My full thoughts on God and science can't be summed up particularily well in a single message board post, but the Reader's Digest version is that God set it all up and lets it run its course. He can see what will happen and on occassion when things are going to get too f*cked up he will step in and make an adjustment. (The German scientists screwing up their calcs on the A-bomb for instance.) But typically he lets it all play out; I think this "freewill" stuff is kind of fun for Him. He created nature and the physical laws that we are bounded by and gets a kick out of our figuring out what they are and how we can make our lives better through an understanding of them. So, I guess, to answer your question: yes, the Christian God exists. Can I prove it to you? No, I can't. That's kind of part of science and religion not overlapping currently. Maybe someday, when our science advances enough there may be an overlapping of the 2 again (but in a good way this time) as science may help us answer some of the questions that it currently can't (why are we here, what is our purpose) at least not on the "metaphysical" level which is where the religious answers are attempted. I actually expect that long before that day arrives, science itself will be treated as religion. In many ways, I already see that playing out (the Gospel of Global Warming, anyone?) and that itself isn't a good thing. And science being a religion is as scary to me as a warping of Islam in this century or a warping of Christianity several hundred years ago.

Molton, After you get banned AGAIN, what will your new screen name be? I'm thinking about setting up a preemptive "ignore". That you get your kicks out of being this willfully ignorant is truly pathetic.

From HIS perspective, I'd be surprised if he considers himself a "bust". But I'd also be surprised to find out he was pleased that he went ~12 years between starts. There is no way the Bills don't consider him a bust. Again, you don't draft a guy in the 2nd round to have him carry a clipboard for another team for a decade. From your perspective, was Mike Williams a bust? He made a few MM. AVP wasn't a bust, but I'm not certain he was even drafted. AVP over the length of his career had to have made a few MM as well. Had he been a 2nd rounder, then he'd have been a bust. For Collins to not be considered a bust, he should be compared to the Bledsoes of the league, not the AVP's and Gale Gilberts.

Absolutely. He was horrible in Buffalo - he had a serious issue w/ that "deer in the headlights" look. 10 or so years as a 3rd stringer got him to the point that he doesn't look AS bad, but I still wouldn't rate him any higher than an average backup at best. 2nd round picks (#45 overall) aren't drafted to be career 3rd stringers.

Interesting thought. It would leave you more time to handle the other job requirements. I doubt though that the US electorate is ready for a President that is unstable enough to try to correct Molton's rantings over dozens of pages in hundreds of threads.

How do you tell which is which? Personally, my preference is the "do nothing" Congresses, because when they aren't passing new legislation they aren't giving my money to somebody else.

I watched a few bouts, but didn't really get into it. Between the Americans looking pretty weak and the scoring system being too screwy, there wasn't much reason to watch.

It is a new offense, but Turk has worked closely w/ both of these guys and should know what he's getting from each. Even if JP looks fantastic, Trent did last week as well. The coaches have said it's Trent's job to lose, and I don't think that he's lost it. If anything he locked it up last week. JP playing well this week would be a good thing. Very few QB's take all their team's snaps, it would be good to know the Bills have a solid backup. (At least for this season.)

I don't see any way a QB controversy starts up after 1 preseason game. Sullivan may want to try to create one, but it just won't be there. Trent may not be the answer, but the coaching staff seems convinced that JP isn't either. JP looking good can only help instill confidence that if they need him for a game or 2, he might be able to get it done. I don't see where JP looking good is a bad thing, nor where him looking bad is a good thing (unless of course, Hamdan starts showing some of that chroise that I keep reading about here ).

What, no love for the Italians? You've gotta have bocce. As long as the games are held on the other side of the Niagara, how about adding Jarts as well? (D*mn Congress, forcing us to make this an international to-do.)

WSJ has been speculating that JL will be McCain's Secretary of State. That seems more likely to me than having the Presidency change parties should McCain win and then become incapacitated.

In my original post, which got merged into this thread, the title line was something to the effect of Ra-cha-cha locals finally in HD on DirecTV. Syracuse is supposed to go HD sometime in September. Linky

They switched over some time this evening. Just in time for the Bills season.

Actually it was more like 7 houses and one closed restaurant along one of the Finger Lakes that were part of Syracuse's TV market when the switch to CBS getting the AFC games occurred. A year later, that sliver of land was redesignated as part of the Ra-cha-cha TV market, but somehow the Bills still got the Syracuse blackout to stand.

Had Cavic been competing against a norrmal mortal he did finish correctly. (Although I'm sure he wishes that his last kick was a smidge stronger.) Too bad for him he was going against Phelps.

I would want to see the draft rule before saying anything definitive about it, but IF it proposes what the Chronicle writer claims then I think someone in HHS REALLY doesn't want McCain to be President. As that might actually spur a few of the "Obama has dreamy eyes" crowd into actually finding out where to vote and when (heck, it might even get a few 20 somethings to register to vote so they might actually vote).

I don't follow your reasoning. If the legislation the dems want really is for what's best for the country and what the citizens want, shouldn't they pass the legislation and find out whether Bush will really veto it? If they are right, shouldn't they fight the battle and let the public create an outcry for the veto to be overridden if the legislation is in fact vetoed? It's very hard to make changes when you decide to not even try. Either the dems know their ideas are bad and think they will fare better in the next election by crying about the mean President preventing them from enacting their ideas rather than letting people see the results of their ideas being enacted, or they have absolutely no stones. (I guess it could be a combination of the 2.) Either way, it isn't very impressive "leadership". Not that I'm complaining about them not doing much, the less Congress does (regardless of party in control of it) the less damage it does.

Primarily to keep from making the Erie County School District stretch from Hamburg to Clarence.

Did you realize that splits on the 1st leg are typically slower than other splits because the racers are going off the sound of the starter's pistol and not the visual of their teammate touching the wall? Which is why individual records can be set on the 1st leg of a relay but no other leg. Phelps beat the French team's expected 2nd best swimmer by 4/10ths of a second. He actually was 6th out of the 8 swimmers you mentioned in that particular race. He beat the French lead man and he beat Jones and he had the handicap of starting 1st. I'd expect the way Bernard trailed off, Phelps would have been very close to Bernard and the 3rd French swimmer if all had had relay starts. If Phelps were expected to be the weakest of the 4 US swimmers he would have raced the 2nd leg. It turned out the weakest link on that day and in that race was Jones who was expected to be the 2nd weakest of the 4. (Random aside: it strikes me very odd that we are discussing "weakest links" regarding men that can swim 100 m in ~47 seconds.)

If Phelps being #5 in the world in the 100 free makes him the US's weakest leg of the relay, wouldn't they have said the US has 4 of the top 5 times, not 4 of the top 8?

If they were saying that I doubt the US coaches would agree. Phelps swam the 1st leg of the race which is typically where the 2nd strongest swimmer races.

Not joking at all. The NHL may be unsuccessful at expanding into Europe at present, but hockey has a huge presence in Europe. Don't confuse a lack of interest in hockey in the south in the US with a lack of interest in the sport in Europe. Where in Europe outside the countries that border the Mediterranian does basketball rank higher than either soccer or hockey? It also lags behind rugby in many countries. In the countries where basketball is popular, there are already existing leagues that won't take kindly to an interloper league trying to set up shop. In the countries where it isn't as popular, what's the point of trying to set up shop? Those have been the primary reasons that the NHL hasn't been able to expand there (there are already well developed leagues in many countries) and why the NFL hasn't been able to successfully expand there (football is only a fringe sport at best in Europe). Where is the market for an American sports league in Europe? I don't see how it drums up support where it doesn't exist and I don't see how it comes across as anything but American "imperialism" (for lack of a better word) in the places that support for the sport does exist.

You, sir, are welcome.

I never said whether I thought you were a better or worse person than I. I simply stated that your posts make you appear to be daft. Your last posts don't sway my opinion.