Skip to main content

napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Can't believe that our resident Orangeman booster watches so much Fox news that he can't see straight, or can use the intellect that God gave him.

Thanks Bman for the comment on secret trips

 

 

You Sir, are a moron.  

Pipe down, snowflake.  Ya boy Putin's Bitch has had an amazing and historical past couple of weeks, and no doubt for all the right reasons!!!  The majority of the country is not blaming him for the partial government shutdown.  No one in his campaign committed any collusion with Russians.  And there's no evidence whatsoever (e.g. through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents) that he committed obstruction of justice.  It's only right that someone who has led such a righteous and clean life (from both a professional as well as family perspective) should be rewarded for his piety, humbleness and willingness to help those in need.  How dare Mueller and the Deep State keep bullying those who worked with Putin's Bitch into falsely admitting to criminal activities?!!?

/sarcasm  

 

Last edited by Insight
ProSys posted:
napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Can't believe that our resident Orangeman booster watches so much Fox news that he can't see straight, or can use the intellect that God gave him.

Thanks Bman for the comment on secret trips

 

 

You Sir, are a moron.  

Pipe down, snowflake.  Ya boy Putin's Bitch has had an amazing and historical past couple of weeks, and no doubt for all the right reasons!!!  The majority of the country is not blaming him for the partial government shutdown.  No one in his campaign committed any collusion with Russians.  And there's no evidence whatsoever (e.g. through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents) that he committed obstruction of justice.  It's only right that someone who has led such a righteous and clean life (from both a professional as well as family perspective) should be rewarded for his piety, humbleness and willingness to help those in need.  How dare Mueller and the Deep State keep bullying those who worked with Putin's Bitch into falsely admitting to criminal activities?!!?

/sarcasm  

 

All excellent points. I would add Putin’s Poodle has also defeated ISIS, eliminated the nuclear threat in North Korea and strengthen our relationships with our allies in Western Europe, Canada and Mexico. I’m also comforted that the self professed god fearing man never misses church services each week. 

/lies 

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napacat, you are nothing but consistent in demonstrating yet again that you are truly dumber than you look.  HRC, despite many years and $100M spent investigating her, was never indicted, AND NEVER WILL BE INDICTED.  That train of trying to draw up equivalency of what she's done versus what Dumb Donald has done left the station a long time ago, and yet you're still enough of a mental midget to keep waiting at the platform for it, all the while trying to convince people much smarter than you that it's bound to arrive any moment now.  

Meanwhile, Putin's Bitch has federal and state indictments in his very near future (unless he miraculously wins reelection, and that would only delay most of those).  His attempts to grift his way out of those predicaments will sadly fail, and the many markers he owes to the Russians, Saudis and his other overseas sources of financing are going to topple the last vestiges of his facade of wealth.  His tenure as POTUS will be viewed as historic, but for all the wrong reasons!

Nah zdrovya!

napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced than you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

Last edited by bman
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced that you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

So. Well. Put. 

winetarelli posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced that you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

So. Well. Put. 

Facts and truth have NOTHING to due with anything that comes out of Napa’s mouth. Reminds me of someone else. 

mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

bman posted:
mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

its a great place for people with TDS to vent

thistlintom posted:
bman posted:
mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

its a great place for people with TDS to vent

Indeed.  We even started a TDS - Winegeek Division!

flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

Why don't you grow up

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

billhike posted:
robsutherland posted:

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera the first 100% of votes entrant into the MLB HOF. 

I’m not a huge baseball fan but how many times in sports have there been as sure-fire a lock on first ballot entrance? 

I never thought I’d see the day the pompous baseball writers would do this. Well deserved. Now if they’d just rightfully put Bonds and Clemens in also.  

vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

Timing actually works great out here and one of the biggest parties of the year among some wine friends up in OC. Well over 50 folks, an embarrassingly high end high volume bottle count and enough food to feed an army with a full lamb this year among others. While it won't come close to bringing me the joy it did last year I'll be able to focus more on the food, wine and great company. Bring it on!

Last edited by bomba503
robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

thistlintom posted:

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

If you saw all of hte videos circulating, not just two of them, you'd see that the boys were antagonizing a native american indian in dc, along with  other young gals minding t heir own business walking around.

you'd also see that the native americans who approached and stood 5 feet away from the steps were surrounded by the teens.

I'd have to ask, they had adult chaperones there.  If you thought  your kids were in trouble, shouldn't you have stepped in and said something?  

I know I would respectfully ask anybody approaching any child under my care to step back.

g-man posted:
robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

What g-man said! But do confess to once in my life liking Brussels sprouts. It was at Richmond Station as part of the Chef's menu. There were as small as my babfingernail, split in half, marinated in something sweet and savoury, and I ate two of them. Or two halves at least. I survived the ordeal, perhaps because they (mercifully) tasted nothing like Brussels sprouts! 

 

wineismylife posted:
jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

What brand?  I'll bring mine and we can open a good wine.  Haven't watched this game in over 20 years

bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

flwino posted:
bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfaavF1R3E

make the quarterbacks win the game =)

napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

Clicky

mangiare posted:
vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

Amen, bro

thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

Last edited by patespo1
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

Last edited by g-man
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

vincentric posted:
csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I gave it, it's 52% chance of winning the game if you win the coin toss

vincentric posted:

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I didn't say there wasn't an advantage.  There clearly is, otherwise some people would pick going on defence if they win the toss.  That is 100% of the time choice to go on offence.

I just don't like people portraying it as both teams not getting a "chance" to have the ball.  They do.  Stop the other team on defense and you get the ball and the advantage flips to you.  It's even better that you are able to win with a FG, not a TD.  The CFL/College rules are a little too gimmicky for me, even if they are exciting. 

Last edited by csm
robsutherland posted:

The escort at the table next to me REALLY knows her wine and just had a five minute conversation with the somm while her "Date" for the night looked on flabbergasted and totally lost. It was really hard not to laugh or join the conversation. 

I'm tempted to ask how you know she's an escort.....

bman posted:
robsutherland posted:

The escort at the table next to me REALLY knows her wine and just had a five minute conversation with the somm while her "Date" for the night looked on flabbergasted and totally lost. It was really hard not to laugh or join the conversation. 

I'm tempted to ask how you know she's an escort.....

I'm eating at Picasso in Vegas bman. It's a guess but certainly not a reach... They don't know each other and she ordered '89 joly, a 5 puttanos for the fois and then a columbo for the venison. Her date (and I) were both drooling after (for I believe different reasons).

g-man posted:
robsutherland posted:

She's also wearing a one piece pants-suit with a halter top and her breasts have fallen out twice so...

#winning =)

Thanks for the morning giggle!

We ate at Picasso a few years back. Reservation was for when they opened, and on the advice of some here, we were there 5 minutes early so we could get the patio table closest to the fountains, and we brought our own bottle: a Mollydooker Carnival of Love, since it was our anniversary and it's one of our faves.  The (French) server acted as if it was nuclear waste but the somm got it and comped us the corkage, if memory serves! 

Don't recall seeing any hookers but then again, we were outside with our backs to the other tables. 

thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

Link to info?

thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

The 95,000 are the numbers on the voter rolls going back to 1996 who were on any voter roll in any election,  and the 58,000 who voted were those who voted in any election over that period.  The 95,000 represents a little more than half a percent of the 16 million registered votes and so the 58,000 represents maybe a third of a percent. 

So, not to say that there is no problem, but in most systems, especially once that involves maybe a million or more officials in thousands of jurisdictions over dozens of elections over 22 years, I think an error rate of a third of a percent is not such a big deal, especially considering there are so many in the US who may think they are entitled to vote because they have been in the country for years.  

More info here: More

 

thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

This report is being shredded across Texas as being far too shallow in its reporting and currently has no value with much, MUCH more in-depth investigation. The Secretary of State also has no ability to take action. Only county officials have such.

Numerous reports even included in this mornings local news are showing how invalid this report is. This report is pulling information from people with a drivers license. Texas has over 50,000 people ever year become naturalized citizens. That is over 50,000, per year! The records pulled for this report was from all ( decades) open records. There is zero correlation between obtaining a drivers license and becoming a naturalized citizen. 

Needless to say, there needs to be much more investigation, plus county officials don’t use a drivers license as proof of citizenship. It is only one of the ways to identify you are the person on the official county roll before voting. 

wineart 2 posted:
thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

This report is being shredded across Texas as being far too shallow in its reporting and currently has no value with much, MUCH more in-depth investigation. The Secretary of State also has no ability to take action. Only county officials have such.

Numerous reports even included in this mornings local news are showing how invalid this report is. This report is pulling information from people with a drivers license. Texas has over 50,000 people ever year become naturalized citizens. That is over 50,000, per year! The records pulled for this report was from all ( decades) open records. There is zero correlation between obtaining a drivers license and becoming a naturalized citizen. 

Needless to say, there needs to be much more investigation, plus county officials don’t use a drivers license as proof of citizenship. It is only one of the ways to identify you are the person on the official county roll before voting. 

P.S. it was also reported today that the so called 58,000 were not all in the last election. This was a number from all current data which includes numerous election data going back to the 1990’s. Trash in, trash out at this point. 

I know that the 58,000 votes are over a couple of decades, but as I read it it was 58,000 different voters, not 58,000 votes in total, which is still significant.

I'd be interested to see more information on this, maybe the number of non-voters are less than the report, but if thousands of votes are invalid, then that is a problem in my mind, especially since there have been some pretty close votes in some races, such as Al Franken's initial victory. 

My concern about this is that Texas is relatively strict in voter laws, and many other states are much more lax.  We should do all we can to ensure that only valid votes are counted.

Last edited by thistlintom
thistlintom posted:

I'd be interested to see more information on this, maybe the number of non-voters are less than the report, but if thousands of votes are invalid, then that is a problem in my mind, especially since there have been some pretty close votes in some races, such as Al Franken's initial victory. 

My concern about this is that Texas is relatively strict in voter laws, and many other states are much more lax.  We should do all we can to ensure that only valid votes are counted.

If you look at the info and the link I provided above, you will see more information on this...

 

Thanks I read the article.  From what Wineart2 has posted, I suspect there are more articles about this issue.  My wife still reads the Houston Chronicle so I might check with her on anything there.

Also of note, California is being forced to remove 1.5 million inactive voters from its roles.  I just don't think enough is being done to manage voter roles and ensure that we do not have invalid votes during elections.

g-man posted:
vincentric posted:
csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I gave it, it's 52% chance of winning the game if you win the coin toss

Agrée.

thistlintom posted:

Thanks I read the article.  From what Wineart2 has posted, I suspect there are more articles about this issue.  My wife still reads the Houston Chronicle so I might check with her on anything there.

Also of note, California is being forced to remove 1.5 million inactive voters from its roles.  I just don't think enough is being done to manage voter roles and ensure that we do not have invalid votes during elections.

I'd be more concerned about the thousands of kids in detention centers, separated from their parents, and have no appropriate legal access.

doubled posted:
thistlintom posted:

Thanks I read the article.  From what Wineart2 has posted, I suspect there are more articles about this issue.  My wife still reads the Houston Chronicle so I might check with her on anything there.

Also of note, California is being forced to remove 1.5 million inactive voters from its roles.  I just don't think enough is being done to manage voter roles and ensure that we do not have invalid votes during elections.

I'd be more concerned about the thousands of kids in detention centers, separated from their parents, and have no appropriate legal access.

Never mind those who have no idea where their parents are, and vice versa. 

flwino posted:

in the NFL  Believe that each team should be a receiver. Once the receiver has scored, or failed to, a new kick off is required.  Continue until a score is accomplished.  If both score, repeat the process.

 

 

I'd simplify it even more.  Put 15:00 on the clock and play a full quarter under normal rules (except that all replay reviews would come from the booth instead of coaches having limited challenges).  Football is not like basketball where players foul out, or like baseball where once a player is removed from the game, he can't come back in.  Extra play in those sports can start to look ugly, with shortstops pitching in the 19th inning.  Not so with football.  There is no reason why OT in football has to be subjected to gimmicks.  Just play the game like normal.

thistlintom posted:

I know that the 58,000 votes are over a couple of decades, but as I read it it was 58,000 different voters, not 58,000 votes in total, which is still significant.

I'd be interested to see more information on this, maybe the number of non-voters are less than the report, but if thousands of votes are invalid, then that is a problem in my mind, especially since there have been some pretty close votes in some races, such as Al Franken's initial victory. 

My concern about this is that Texas is relatively strict in voter laws, and many other states are much more lax.  We should do all we can to ensure that only valid votes are counted.

I agree that no one should vote who is not legally eligible.  That said, this claim of 58,000 illegal votes will not be proven true, because it's not true.  It's a smaller version of trump's claim after the 2016 election that "millions and millions," of illegal votes were cast.  

Credible studies from Loyola Marymount University and Arizona State showed that the number of fraudulent votes cast In US elections are miniscule.  Beyond minuscule, actually.  The ASU study found 10 fraudulent votes in reviewing a decade of votes. The Loyola study found 31 cases of voter impersonation out of over a billion votes.  That's .00000003 of the number of votes cast.  Far, far less than bman's suggested .003 of the vote (which I'd argue would be unacceptably high.)

These types of false claims and unconscionable exaggeration serve only one purpose.  An atmosphere of fear among minority voters and suppression of the legitimate vote.  If what you're selling is worth buying, you'd want to make sure everyone who can vote, does.  

PH

 

Last edited by purplehaze
JimmyV posted:
flwino posted:

in the NFL  Believe that each team should be a receiver. Once the receiver has scored, or failed to, a new kick off is required.  Continue until a score is accomplished.  If both score, repeat the process.

 

 

I'd simplify it even more.  Put 15:00 on the clock and play a full quarter under normal rules (except that all replay reviews would come from the booth instead of coaches having limited challenges).  Football is not like basketball where players foul out, or like baseball where once a player is removed from the game, he can't come back in.  Extra play in those sports can start to look ugly, with shortstops pitching in the 19th inning.  Not so with football.  There is no reason why OT in football has to be subjected to gimmicks.  Just play the game like normal.

And what happens if it is a tie at the end of the 5th quarter?  The players will be very tired and there still is a tie.

thistlintom posted:
JimmyV posted:
flwino posted:

in the NFL  Believe that each team should be a receiver. Once the receiver has scored, or failed to, a new kick off is required.  Continue until a score is accomplished.  If both score, repeat the process.

 

 

I'd simplify it even more.  Put 15:00 on the clock and play a full quarter under normal rules (except that all replay reviews would come from the booth instead of coaches having limited challenges).  Football is not like basketball where players foul out, or like baseball where once a player is removed from the game, he can't come back in.  Extra play in those sports can start to look ugly, with shortstops pitching in the 19th inning.  Not so with football.  There is no reason why OT in football has to be subjected to gimmicks.  Just play the game like normal.

And what happens if it is a tie at the end of the 5th quarter?  The players will be very tired and there still is a tie.

Then there is a dance-off, restricted to back-up Offensive Linemen, judged by a neutral group of high school cheerleaders. 

thistlintom posted:
JimmyV posted:
flwino posted:

in the NFL  Believe that each team should be a receiver. Once the receiver has scored, or failed to, a new kick off is required.  Continue until a score is accomplished.  If both score, repeat the process.

 

 

I'd simplify it even more.  Put 15:00 on the clock and play a full quarter under normal rules (except that all replay reviews would come from the booth instead of coaches having limited challenges).  Football is not like basketball where players foul out, or like baseball where once a player is removed from the game, he can't come back in.  Extra play in those sports can start to look ugly, with shortstops pitching in the 19th inning.  Not so with football.  There is no reason why OT in football has to be subjected to gimmicks.  Just play the game like normal.

And what happens if it is a tie at the end of the 5th quarter?  The players will be very tired and there still is a tie.

give them 1/2 of a trophy

flwino posted:
thistlintom posted:
JimmyV posted:
flwino posted:

in the NFL  Believe that each team should be a receiver. Once the receiver has scored, or failed to, a new kick off is required.  Continue until a score is accomplished.  If both score, repeat the process.

 

 

I'd simplify it even more.  Put 15:00 on the clock and play a full quarter under normal rules (except that all replay reviews would come from the booth instead of coaches having limited challenges).  Football is not like basketball where players foul out, or like baseball where once a player is removed from the game, he can't come back in.  Extra play in those sports can start to look ugly, with shortstops pitching in the 19th inning.  Not so with football.  There is no reason why OT in football has to be subjected to gimmicks.  Just play the game like normal.

And what happens if it is a tie at the end of the 5th quarter?  The players will be very tired and there still is a tie.

give them 1/2 of a trophy

Just like they did in the Pro Bowl.  😄

 

So, according to all the heads of the various spy, law enforcement and security agencies - each appointed by Trump - he is dead wrong on:

-Russia
-ISIS
-Syria
-Afghanistan
-Iran
-climate change

And no, migrants approaching the southern border was NOT mentioned as a threat to security or a national emergency.

I wonder how Fox and the rest of the far right will explain this away. I bet they just ignore it.

bman posted:

So, according to all the heads of the various spy, law enforcement and security agencies - each appointed by Trump - he is dead wrong on:

-Russia
-ISIS
-Syria
-Afghanistan
-Iran
-climate change

And no, migrants approaching the southern border was NOT mentioned as a threat to security or a national emergency.

I wonder how Fox and the rest of the far right will explain this away. I bet they just ignore it.

He can't be wrong. He knows more about those things (as well as drones and trade) than anyone. Believe him.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×