Bungee Jumper

Yeah, there's the right one, and there's yours. There's no "different definition of science". There's science. And then there's stuff that's not science. And there's nothing wrong with stuff that's not science. It's okay for stuff to not be science. It is NOT, however, okay for stuff that is not science to pretend to BE science.

There's people that don't know about Tunguska?

Actually, we'd be lynching Losman because of the incomplete pass. Damn, Losman sucks! We should have lost the game because of him!

http://www.singingfool.com/default.asp?fra...edid%3D00205093 Brilliant music video, though. It has ninjas.

Dave Chappelle's skit about him is great. "I'm James Buchanan, B word!"

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Thrice...a trend. Let's see him do it again, and again.

Oh, I will...just to be a dick...

Like I said...you obviously don't have a clue what "science" or a "theory" is. Quite honestly...I don't particularly care what you "believe", any more than you care what I "believe". My only particular bone of contention in the whole evolution vs. creation/intelligent design debate is the people who are trying to redefine "science" to include fundamentally unscientific beliefs. Creationism and intelligent design are not and can never be science in that their fundamental basis is unknowable, untestable, and inexplicable. To put it another way: "science" as a discipline is a body of rational thought intended to describe and explain the universe. Creation and/or intelligent design ultimately require something extra-universal to explain things. By definition, nothing requiring something outside the empirical body of observable evidence constituting the universe can be scientific. Which does not speak to right vs. wrong...just to "scientific" vs. "non-scientific". You want to believe creationism, fine by me...just don't try to sell me on it being science. In return, I won't try to sell you on evolution being religious. No, I got it. You're still an idiot.

Vocabulary.

Please explain.

Well, there you go. The fix was in.

"Intentionally".

What if Tedy Buschi were to hit Tom Brady? Would the universe implode on itself or something? Probably why they're on the same team...

It honestly didn't look to me like he caught it. But the camera angle sucked... Still...even if the officials made the right call, they completely ignored that they are required to screw over the Bills at every turn. If that had been Walt Coleman or Dick Hantak making the call, no way that's ruled a catch...

Unfortunately, fewer than there are NFL teams. Lo, I am struck down! Stellar retort, Shakespeare.

And I, for one, would like to congratulate you on being only the second-biggest retard on the board.

Perhaps. Though I think you're giving people too much credit. And hell, people still argue about whether or not the Bills came back or the Oilers collapsed. Could be both. Even if the Texans shoot themselves in the foot...Price still has to catch (or pay off the officials into calling it a catch) the dart Losman throws to him. Still doesn't mean Robinson's wrong. There was NO reason to expect the Bills to come from behind and win.

Because, in general, the world does NOT run smoothly when it has to stop and explain the blisteringly self-evident to morons like yourself.

So I'm the only one who was honestly surprised that he led a game-winning drive? He had some proven fourth-quarter comeback ability that should have led Robinson to fear him like a DB might Manning? There's something in the past nine games of film that should lead Robinson to say "When Losman took the field with 1:40 left and no time outs, I was shaking in my cleats. Dude is scary-ass good coming from behind..."? Guess what? The Bills this season have come from behind to win a game - have come from behind to take a lead, period - only one other time this season: the first quarter of the Vikings game, when they were down 3-0. That's it. Other than that, in nine games, once a Bills' opponent established a lead they never trailed. So again...how is Robinson so wrong?

Sounds more like a "dangnabbit!" moment, actually.

Is he wrong?

Personally...I don't. But since it's here, why not use it?

Nineteen. Don't you want to win a Superbowl?

Easy. Blame the official that called Price in. Texans were robbed today...