Taro T

As long as it's not the police blotter they're showing up on, more power to them.

I wouldn't have made that trade either, but my guess is they knew they could not get Luongo to sign long term and felt that IF getting out of Vancouver could get the punk's game back, it was a worthwile trade. If the punk doesn't come around, there is probably somebody else out there (Bobby Clarke?) that thinks he could get the punk's game back. So Florida will likely get something in return in worst case.

He may or may not be losing it, but you did in fact post what he claims you did.

That IS catchy. Surely the other reports of his demise are greatly exaggerated. Too bad it sounds like it will be a long while before you can sneak a keyboard under the door for him.

So they were serious when they started advertising their new XPS systems as the "nemesis"?

God forbid Government do anything efficiently. The law says they can take 45 days. Darn it, I want them drinking coffee for the next 2 weeks and sitting on their hands. How dare they perform a function in only 2/3's the allotted time. Translated: thank you for bothering me, now go f' off.

Of course, after the elections are over, then you can't get anything done because you have a "lame duck" Congress even though 90+% of them are likely coming back. Then in '07, you don't have to get anything done because there is no urgency as the sitting Congress critters have 2 years to get stuff done and you really don't want to rush things. Then in '08, you can't get anything done because it's an election year and no Congress critter wants to take a stand on an issue. I forget, when does the cycle end?

It's already been voted on. It was voted on when the regular season ended. That's how they know who the top 3 vote getters are.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this post, but here goes anyway. As I am certain you are aware, a lot of the "hatred" of the Pats stems from their "fans" not giving a rat's butt about them until 2001 and them now being as obnoxious as any Cowboy or Fish fan could ever hope to be. I won't attempt to speak for other Sabres fans, but my "bitterness" stems from 2 sources. 1. You will never convince me that the Sabres, when healthy, weren't a better team than your "beloved" Canes. To know that the injury depleted Sabres were less than 20 minutes away from being favorites in the Finals is tough to deal with. Had the Oilers won, I could at least have that bit of doubt in my mind as to whether or not the Sabres could have gotten it done. Right now, there is no doubt. 2. The other source of bitterness is dealing with the "Caniacs". Your team just won the Stanley Cup and you are too concerned about what some Sabres fans are venting. Congratulations on seeing your team win the SC. I desperately hope that I get that same opportunity in my lifetime. I can honestly say that I wouldn't be taking pot shots at the fans of one of the teams the Sabres beat along the road that same night. You appear to be one of the "true Caniacs" that was there back in January and back prior to the lockout as well. With that being the case, and finding yourself at the moment in time that I have dreamed about, why in the world are you worried about what Sabres fans are saying? The biggest "shot" I have seen Caniacs take is that they don't "deserve" a championship. (The redneck stuff, to me is the same as all the the WNY economy sucks and the weather stinks stuff - people taking pot shots not worth responding to.) To me, at least until I read your post, that was a bunch of hooey. While I wanted to see Edmonton win (for reason #1 above primarily and for other reasons as well), it wasn't because their fans "deserve" it more. No fan "deserves" a winner any more than a fan "deserves" a loser (well, other than a Phlyers fan, of course ). After reading your post, I'm starting to believe the people that said Carolina fans don't deserve a win might just be right. Like I said at the top of the post, I don't know why I am posting this, as you weren't rude and I don't know why this bothers me.

Grier is on record as saying he won't sign with the Sabres until after he has tested free agency, but I wouldn't say that he is definitely gone. He is not a goal scorer so I will be surprised to see some team giving him a huge raise over what Buffalo paid him this year ($1.364MM). He'll probably get offers in the $1.5-1.6MM range, which I think Buffalo would match. He loves playing with his old college buddy Drury, so if the offers are similar I could see him re-signing with the Sabres. If the Sabres lose out, I'd expect it to be because some other team offered him a 4 year deal and the Sabres were only willing to commit to 2-3 years. (He's 31 and with the physical style he plays, I could see durability issues when he's 34-35.)

No, winning the game that officially kept TO out of the playoffs would help make it as sweet; but in order to beat TO in the playoffs, they have to make the playoffs. Also, this ride (from the day the league annouced it was reopening for business right through to the horrid last 20 minutes) was a blast all season long. For the 1st time I can think of, there wasn't a guy in the "healthy" lineup that I couldn't stand. This team did not have a Smehlik. (Rory and Peters don't count as they were (supposed to be) bit players that attempted to do what they were asked to do with the limited talents they possessed.) The year the team did beat TO wasn't nearly as enjoyable (overall, although it had its moments, like the TO series and Game 4 vs Dallas) because of the Barnaby circus, the 2nd half slump, and the awarding of that big silver cup to Dallas. Even if the Sabres pulled it off in '99 (and I'm still waiting for them to finish Game 6 to this day), the overall journey wouldn't have been more enjoyable. Although I would be able to die a happy man, having seen my Sabres hoist THE Cup.

Assuming the bulk of the team comes back and the few changes in the roster don't adversely affect the magic this team had. I'm sure I will look at it the way you do in a few months, but right now I'm nauseous thinking about what might have been if the Sabres had been able to limit the injury bug to just the top forward and 1/2 of the defense rather than 2/3's of it. The Sabres were ~18 minutes away from being favored in the Finals (for the 1st time ever). They are now ~4 roster changes, 82 games, and who knows what else away from being one of 16 with a dream. They will definitely be back in the playoffs, and if Darcy can keep the team intact may be able to build on this season. But it will be hard for this team to get much closer than they did this time and it will be impossible for the ride to be more fun than this season was. (Even if the final destination is better, the ride cannot be sweeter than this one was.)

Well, that's it. Canes empty netter. Boy does that stink.

Is there any possibility that when an Oiler comes into the Canes zone with the puck that he will take a friggin' shot? You can't win when you don't even try to put the puck on net.

But then JD trumps them all with the crying for a penalty shot. I swear he forgot to take his Midol today.

And then they come back with one that has been called all year. It would be nice if the refs could get on the same page for the 2nd and 3rd.

You've posted 33 posts in this thread and 26 on the one 2 weeks ago about Nance. I fail to see where you are not being allowed to state your opinion.

Because the evidence in question, barring situations where someone flushes evidence down a toilet or burns/shreds it in the 2 minutes or so difference that we are talking about, would have been found LEGALLY and would have been admissible whether the door was opened by the police or opened by the suspect. Why should the evidence which would be perfectly admissible if the police waited another 30 seconds (or some other arbitrary amount of time) to open the door be automatically discarded because the police didn't wait 30 more seconds to open the door? I don't see a reason not to admit the evidence. If the police officer goes overboard, should he be punished? Absolutely. But I truly see these 2 items as being separate issues. As for the "professionalism of police", that was one of several factors cited in making this decision. It was not the only one and to say that it shouldn't be used as a supporting reason is a bit extreme IMHO. The evidence in question would be admissible if the police had waited to open the door. I don't see where them doing something wrong (and deserving punishment for doing that, I might add) should automatically make the evidence invalid. It should be a separate issue and should be treated as such. I don't like the idea of giving people "get out of jail free cards", simply because a police officer was over zealous. ("Yes, he was robbing the orphanage blind for the last 17 years, but we got all the accounting records off his computer after the unlocked door was opened after only a 27 second waiting period. Sorry, all that evidence is non-admissible. Have a nice day.")

But this case IS specific to k&a and SCOTUS is saying that HOW the police enter a residence AFTER a warrant was obtained should not cause all evidence obtained to be inadmissible. I don't interpret this as providing police a blanket right to illegally perform a search and collect any evidence they want. They specifically listed other instances where evidence can't be tossed simply due to the manner in which it was collected and added this specific issue to that short list. This is strictly stating that evidence can't be tossed because the police only waited 1 minute to open a door when clearly decorum would have allowed 2 minutes. Also, are you implying that there is NO personal responsibility for a police officer being a loose cannon and breaking down doors of people for fun (with or without a warrant)? AFAIK, if a police officer does something blatently out of line he or she can be held personally liable for their actions. I would expect that potential personal liability to limit the number of doors that are destroyed while serving warrants to people in most circumstances. And, yes I DO see the potential firestorm of community protest that abuse of this could raise as a deterrent to police abuse of this procedure. If the police start breaking down doors w/out notice as a SOP for "ordinary" criminals, then I will join you in the protests that will be deserved. Breaking down the door of a suspected armed (and dangerous) drug dealer would be a reasonable action under certain circumstances IMHO. Breaking down the door of a guy who failed to pay back child support payments would not be. I don't see where this particular ruling will cause the latter to happen but I do see where it will keep evidence obtained from the former admissible and I see where it may save officer's lives.

But there already are exceptions where k&a isn't required. This is simply stating that you can't throw out evidence because a k&a wasn't given to some arbitrary standard. It doesn't effect any of the conditions necessary to obtain a search warrant. It doesn't preclude civil cases against the police for breaking down the door of the house of someone that turns out to be innocent. (Heck, I didn't see anything prohibiting a criminal with a lot of chutzpah from filing a suit either.) If the cops do break down someone's door, I have to believe there are some pretty talented lawyers out there that will get the victim some serious $'s for his trauma, his girlfriend's trauma, his dog's trauma, his goldfish's trauma, and, oh yes, the door frame's trauma. Few police officers will want to go through the public scrutiny (and potential liability) for doing this in a haphazard manner. If warrants weren't still required, I would probably side more closely with your argument. I simply am not seeing at this time where this particular decision is a horrid thing. In this particular case, the officers DID knock and announce their presence. It's just a matter of them ONLY waiting 5 seconds to open an UNLOCKED door. The bad guy had crack on his person and a gun in the chair he was sitting in. If the police had waited a longer time (and I don't know what would be considered a "reasonable period of time" to wait for the guy to open the door), it is very likely he would have had the gun in his hand and the crack down the toilet. Is that a better or a safer outcome for all involved parties?

If I understand you correctly, you are more concerned that a startled law abiding citizen will end up in a gun fight with police officers than a drug dealer (with ample time to set up) will end up in a gun fight with police officers? That is one warped way of expecting the world to function. I only had time to read the 1st 15 pages of the decision, but nothing in there suggested anything about police having the right to enter a house without following "knock and announce" procedures WITHOUT a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, whether they followed k&a or not, any evidence would be suppressed because they didn't have a warrant and couldn't enter the house anyway.

What are you talking about? He carried DC. OH, you meant the state that he was a Senator for.

That criticism is slightly unfair, in that every season (at least in the dozen or so years I've been a STH) the attendence goes up significantly after the 1st of the year. This is true when the Sabres have a very good season (2001, 2006) and when they have poor seasons (2003, 2004). This is probably due to the Bills season being in full stride during the Fall, people (for whatever reason) not really getting into hockey fully in the Fall, and due to people not really thinking the early season games are as important as late season ones (although had the Sabres beaten the Caps and Panthers in October, the Sabres would have had home ice throughout) due to the length of the season. Yes, the more "casual" fan was probably louder this year than in past years, but attendence picking up in the 2nd half of the season isn't fully indicative of people hopping on the band wagon.

I don't believe that Holcomb will win the starting job, but I expect that he will be the #2. If JP wins the starting job, I'd expect to see Holcomb as the backup and Nall as #3. Should JP end up ineffective or injured in a game, Holcomb would come in, but the following week Nall would be the starter and Holcomb would go back to being #2. If JP does reasonably well this season, then I'd expect Holcomb to be released this off season and Nall would move into the #2 role. Whichever one of the camp fodder arms that wins the practice squad job this season would then have the inside track on the #3 job next year. Considering expectations for this team are extremely low and there are a ton of WR's in camp, nearly all who appear to be reasonable and need to get the ball to show what they can or can't do, I don't see a problem with the team getting an early look at who may be the #3 next year. If JP stinks, then I'd expect to see him gone and depending upon what Nall does this year, either he has the inside track at #1 with Holcomb backing him up or the Bills go to the draft looking (once again) to find their starting quarterback of the future on draft weekend. If Nall wins the competition this preseason, I'd expect to see JP on the trading block or cut outright. Marv and Dick have nothing invested in JP, so if they feel he can't get the job done there is no reason to think that they wouldn't get rid of him. If JP is gone, then they definitely keep Holcomb. Holcomb is a very serviceable backup and is the only experienced quarterback on the roster. IIRC, he's not making a ton of money, so I don't think there would be huge cap savings if he was cut. He was brought in to be the backup, so if he doesn't win the starting role, I don't see him causing problems. I actually like the idea of having the guy coming in off the bench having a different style than the #1 as the D has game planned all week for the #1 and may have a difficult time adjusting to the #2 guy's style.

Gee, if they like Mularkey and really like Bennie, wouldn't Jerman look great in orange and teal.