The Big Cat

Agreed, but I think this ARTICLE is the pimple and it's a cancerous lump for everyone to see. Detection is the first step in recovery.

I used to work in PR/PA...that's pretty much how it works. I've had reporters of MAJOR dailies print things nearly verbatim as they came from our shop. Sports reporting is like that on steroids.

And I agree, SID is the least of their worries, but for HIM to get revealed by a major local reporter is indicative of some level of mutiny. You best believe Timmah called him before this story printed Yes!

Yes, he does. And he tells the reporters what to ask. I'm not trying to persuade you here, I'm just flat out telling you how it is. I know the guy who does his job for the Bears.

But do they have the clout to affect it?

I deleted the post after the second installment. As much as I hate Timmah, I'm hoping against hope these conveniently times "leaks" (one against the media guy no less) are the smoke before the fire.

Which of those 61.3% were catchable?

Skinny guy who can't catch or run routes!!

It's 1996 Woody yelling "you don't mow another guy's lawn!" I thought it was fairly obvious.

Except that's the one clutch play used to counter the multiple boneheaded ones he's made under similar circumstances. Then I guess it's worth drudging back up: the biggest difference between Stevie and Chandler's fumbles was how they reacted to them afterward. Our self-proclaimed leader who's done things to screw up games in the past couldn't bring himself to simply say "my bad." The next time he does will be his first. And for me, that's why his multiple bonehead plays aren't negated by his one clutch play against Carolina, because he's done the opposite of demonstrating maturity, that he's learned from his mistakes. And as far as I can tell, that's why he keeps making dumb mistakes when it matters.

That's my hope. He went from not suiting up as a rookie to losing time under a coach our HC deemed not up to muster. I haven't decided he's incapable of playing himself back in.

You're probably right about that. But if you have a carefully formatted word doc (tables and what not) and try and open/edit it in a google doc, you're going to have a bad time. If you start from scratch in a google doc, yes. You can pretty much (I'd say within 80-90%) do everything you'd want to do with a word doc. Good example: small caps. Tried to edit a doc with google, had to do some formatting yoga to get it right. If you're going to have to make edits to a work document at home using google docs on a word file, it just aint gonna work right.

Gee. Thanks. And no.

Ray Bucknell, Bro http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/carcosa-or-bust-the-satisfyingly-weird-mysteries-of-true-detective/ Also, re: episode 3 PLEEEEEEEEEAASE tell me someone else caught this: (NSFWish)

I hoping everyone to this point in the thread is caught up. Wife and I caught up tonight. That six minute shot to end episode four was just !@#$ing awesome and downright TERRIFYING!! It's tough to binge watch up through episode five since the goods are REALLY starting to unravel. I recommend the AV Club recaps, and I'm waiting until seasons end to read this little diddly that's making the rounds: http://io9.com/the-one-literary-reference-you-must-know-to-appreciate-1523076497 I worry that too much insight will start playing spoiler!

Google Docs are most definitely limited, but limited to the bare essentials. They work, they work very well, but formatting for word processing and heavy computations for spreadsheets will come up short of the real thing. Don't need any of that? Don't run industry software? Don't game? Chrome book.

Well, as NoSaint writes, don't hold your breath and hope on ye olde googles to find out why. I'm not trying to be condescending or sarcastic: have you ever done anything creative? Have you ever written or performed anything? I only ask because you seem to keep coming back to this perspective wherein the writer is either a.) !@#$ing with you by pulling the plug on these characters you like b.) not reaching his creative potential by not exhausting the universe, or c.) is incapable of working to fulfill a very specific vision regardless of whether you, or any audience member for that matter, gives a ****.

well, and therein lies the industry rub. for the most part, TV is season to season. any deadwood fans here? granted it was a COMPLETELY different format, but since it was at the mercy of continuance, the faithful audience was left with a heaping pile of nothing to show for. also, about halfway through the third season of LOST, i decreed that anyone left on that bandwagon was a fool. that was the epitome of "let's throw a bunch of crazy **** at the wall then re-write the rules as we go to figure this **** out." IMO, that was a disservice, nay, practically an insult to its audience.

Because the writer and director (both singular in this case, both a rarity in television of any kind) don't want it to? I mean, why didn't the Beatles add six more tracks to Revolver? Why didn't DaVinci paint Mona Lisa with her relatives? And why oh why, after countless examples to the contrary, would we assume that more would be better?

I'm not sure what we're debating here. I've said there are definite benefits of having a predetermined length. Sure, things can evolve, I guess. To your point about LOTR, sure. This is Forty follows different characters from Knocked Up, just like Tolkien explored different stories and characters that existed in the universe he created for the Ring trilogy...which had a beginning middle and end. He didn't keep inventing reasons for the ring to not go destroyed, that's something totally different, and what happens with shows like LOST. They're like beavers placed at the top of the Sears Tower: they find an excuse to build a damn. Just have your story and tell it. Now, if we want to see a show that has the same, ever-evolving characters placed in new situations every week, fine. Then you've just described every cop/hospital drama that ever existed, and rarely are those shows about anything other than the week-to-week or season to season situations. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the makers of True Detective set out not to do.

Whenever Bills fans make excuses for players by blaming coaches and/or other players, they're rarely (if ever) proven right.

I can't separate my personal bias from this: Stephen King is a story teller, not a writer. His most remarkable achievement has been his prolificness.

I'm more of a John Cheever guy. I started off behind the Sopranos 8 ball and haven't yet taken the plunge. But, generally speaking, I much prefer to know that what I'm watching has a pre-determined beginning, middle, end, like watching an 8-12 hr long movie, or as Buftex rightly suggested: like watching a novel. I prefer the patience, very much. More so, as already mentioned, I like to know that the show exists to tell ITS story, not to find reasons to keep itself alive, to eek out one last season. See: Michael Jordan, Wizards See also: LOST

Every summer my buddies and me do a lake house trip to a house named Valer Engen. I've already challenged my mates to the 2014 Valer Engen Challenge: A shot and two beers on the hour, every hour, beginning with the first hour you're awake.