Bungee Jumper

McNabb will never lead his team to a Superbowl! Cut him!

Harrison isn't a QB. What part of this are you having trouble with? If the QB goes down, he's down. At most, you touch him with two hands to ensure he's down. Clocking him like it's an open-field tackle is a personal foul.

That must be why, when a team's running out the clock in the final 2 minutes and the QB's kneeling down after the snap, everyone's trying to tackle him.

Lots of stuff isn't in there. It's the "fans" rulebook, not the "official" rule book or the "Patriots" rule book. Let me know what the official rules say. When you find them. Good luck with that.

Uh, yeah, actually they were. The Madrid bombings three days before their elections managed to knock the poll-leading incumbent out of office. I don't know if you noticed...but al Qaeda did. "Hey, we can commit an attack and throw western elections!"

It is. He was down, you can touch him, but not plow into him head-first. My wife was amused that I, for once, was yelling at the Bills instead of the officials...

Let me just reiterate...

No, "sick" is focusing on your bread and circuses, pretending that it gives you some sort of insight into the world. The "next 9/11" is simply "just desserts".

What is this horseshit? "[A] person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so"? So your contention now is that intelligence can be determined by counting genes? No, I know that's not your contention...but it's what makes your examples absolute nonsense; they're not even remotely grounded in reality. Use an example that at least makes it look like you understand how genetics works...

I didn't say they couldn't speak their mind. I just suggested that being martyrs doesn't give them any insight. Just America. Unquestionably we deserve it, and I will celebrate the next attack, presuming I survive it. Feel free to report me as an enemy combattant, if it makes you feel better.

Yeah, because that's what I said. My original question was never answered: why should I care what he has to say? Or Cindy Sheehan? The reason our foreign policy is sh-- and we get attacked is because morons like you believe it's more important to idolize victims than it is to understand.

I disagree. So shut up. Friggin' Cyber-nazis...

Trying...desperately...to...care... People like you, and TPS, and Cindy Sheehan, and Kevin Tillman are the reason this country deserves to be attacked by terrorists.

As someone you'd no doubt consider a "W sycophant", I'll explain it as soon as you tell me why I should give a sh-- what Kevin Tillman or Cindy Sheehan think anyway...

No, it hasn't gotten off track. Your main point is what's in question. A phenotype is some observable characteristic of an organism, such as eye color, height, etc. A genotype is the underlying genetic code which affects the phenotype. Maybe a baby is born with the genes to grow to 6'2" (genotype), but due to poor nutrition, actually grew to only 5'11". The actual height is what gets measured, and is the phenotype. The group's statement that "heritability estimates range from 0.4 - 0.8" therefore means that between 40% and 80% of the observed variation in intelligence from one person to the next is driven by genetics. In this case, what's true for people is true for their parents. If your parents are, say, two standard deviations above the normal intelligence level, then (according to this group), the expectation is that between 40% - 80% of that extra intelligence has been driven by genetics. By observing the phenotype (measured intelligence) we gain insight into the genotype (genetic disposition toward intelligence). 811640[/snapback] No, no, no, no, no. You're confusing "heritability" with "inheritability" again. Heritability is about the expression of genes, inheritability is about how they're passed from generation to generation. Just because "40-80%" of the genotype affects the phenotype, it does not mean that "40-80%" of the parent's genotype affects the child's phenotype. Which is above and beyond precisely how intelligence is inherited. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? How many genes are involved? How many of those genes are dominant or recessive? Which is above and beyond the fact that "40-80%" is a hell of a wide margin...and if heritability falls at the low end of that range, it means that genetics is not the determining factor. And if inheritability falls at the low end of that range...your eugenics program will do nothing more than diverge towards the mean, rather than converge towards a defined goal, as you could easily see yourself if you had any idea what you're talking about.

I still like the theory that no one masquerades as crayonz...but crayonz is crayonz, and masquerades as someone else.

I'm sorry...was the discussion about something other than the source? Yet another reason I'm contemptuous of you...you seem to believe that discussing a topic and quoting someone else's opinion on said topic are the same thing. They're not. One actually involves understanding, the other's just parroting. And I don't "discuss" with parrots.

And the American Cult of Victimhood marches on...

Agreed. I'd always rather hear from people that do the actual work than management. But then there's those rare times when the people doing the work are management. The work is usually called "setting policy"...which is where things become REALLY obtuse and !@#$ed.

It proves it's not BF. No way he's smart enough to do that. On the other hand, I knew it was a secret code...so maybe it's me.

Ajzepp knows. He's got pictures.

So that makes two of us who've read it. I don't know about you, but I don't see that many people walking around saying "Buck the St Bernard is a big influence in my life..."

So does that make him more or less knowledgable than a commanding general in Iraq?

Oh my God...he must be right! His brother died, so he's an expert!

It's a secret code. It's actually pretty creative. But ignorance is probably a better use of time in this case, frankly...