Sketch Soland

You're getting heat because your logic is flawed. Plain and simple. Don't be so sensitive. Craft a more logical train of thought next time and all this heat will disappear.

Partisans are descended from T-Rex?!

you are supposed to judge when you should quit. Each person has to be their own judge. This is what the rational thought process of a person is supposed to do before it gets bogged down in partisanship. There is a difference between articulating a viewpoint with passion and blindly arguing it with narrow-minded zeal. The former can be done with perspective, whereas the latter forsakes perspective in favor of ego and self-inflation.

Okay fair enough, but you didn't say that in your OP. That's why you're taking heat for it. You said that we are interested in Pittman because we didn't sign Davis. Big difference. I would not be disappointed at all with the Bills drafting Pittman.

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE! We've arrived at the dreaded "Chicken and the Egg of Partisanship" Paradox Loop!!! EGG DAMN YOU EGG!!!!

No, stupid is much more a priori-ish. As in the conditions for the possibility of stupidness manifesting are already kind of hardwired in your DNA. Not knowing when to quit can be a manifestation of stupidity but it doesn't define it. One can be "not stupid" and also not know when to quit, especially when motivated by an excess of righteous zeal that blinds rational sensors from modifying said behavior and examining an issue from multiple perspectives and viewpoints, which is the definition of a partisan. Because all partisans aren't necessarily stupid but all partisans don't know when to quit, imo.

You do realize what your OP says right? And why there's a big in logic?

I thought not knowing when to quit was the definition of a partisan?

:nana:

The Illuminatus Trilogy is without a doubt my favorite book ever.

In terms of originality and influence, yes. Faulkner and Vonnegut both had incomparable, very unique styles of writing that the authors above didn't, imho.

Yes, I would agree with you. I think that's a great way to describe Vonnegut.

Robert Anton Wilson and Kurt Vonnegut have died in the first part of this year and it kind of feels like the end of an era to me. The great 20th century scions of the emancipating mind are falling to old age and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Fortunately Tom Robbins is still around and kicking. My real name is actually Kurt and my mother decided on the name while she was reading "Breakfast of Champions". Then I grew up and Vonnegut became my favorite author. I had no idea that she came up with the name from one of his books until years later. This little coincidence has always meant a lot to me for some reason. Hence my avatar and thus why this is a sad day for me, indeed.

Pretty much spot on. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

In the Cover-2 in our defense from last year. he's knows our defense a lot more than Willis would by opening day. Would you rather have a rookie running the defense or Crowell? Willis has played zero games in the NFL. There is no way he would have as deep a knowledge as Crowell would, at least initially. So what's your point? Crowell has played in our defense and is a veteran. That gives him a definite leg up over Willis, when it comes to the general on the field part. Playing MLB in the Cover-2 is not just about being a superior athlete (which Willis obviously is), but also about being the quarterback of the defense. It's kind of like not throwing a rookie QB in on game one of his rookie season as the starter except that we have the luxury of playing a rookie MLB at SLB and thus giving him on the field experience that a rookie QB wouldn't have. True. But that is neither here or there about now in our defense. Willis is familiar with the reads that our MLB makes in our style NFL cover-2 defense? You're saying that all MLB reads are the same, regardless of style of defense? Perhaps you didn't see that sideline tightrope INT he had last year? Crowell has the range to move in the field. And you know that Willis has experience in the deep zone? It is natural to him as a football player? My point is I can see the logic of starting Willis at SLB and then transferring him to MLB next year after he learns the ropes and gets into the swing of things. Why would they not put their players in the best position to win? It is certainly possible to argue that Willis starting at SLB would make it easier for him to get on the learning curve because initially he can focus on getting accustomed to the NFL game without having to run an NFL defense without any experience. So sayeth the soothsayer. My point is that there are several options and possible scenarios that would result in Willis not starting at MLB initially and starting at SLB until he is ready to assume the multi-faceted position of MLB. I think it is a very plausible scenario that if they draft Willis, this could happen. It might not happen, but there is certainly a very reasonable train of thought that could see it happen.

!@#$, good point.

As George Michael said and Fred Durst knocked out of the park: "You gotta have faith!"

Perhaps your question would be better phrased: "Do you think Marv will draft a player who he doesn't believe will fit on the kind of team that he is trying to build?"

I very much doubt that. Me either!!

I don't blame you. You would have been too young to remember the last Monday Night Football game in Buffalo.

I was referring to the stadium but sure, that sounds like a plan

No. But thanks for asking.

Yes. What a Great Story.

Rush's only flaw is the drumming. Very sub-par, imo. Who the hell is Neil Peart, anyway?