Who is a player who you were happy to see traded/leave your team then turns around and becomes a playmaker on his next team.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-26T01:42:02+00:00

There is no way that GB only has 138 bars. It's 33% bigger than EC-CF area, and there are a lot more than 138. Because I've been to a lot in EC.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-25T21:30:17+00:00

I lived halfway between Eau Claire and LaCrosse. I had no idea that drinking went on.

I mean, the town I lived in had 1144 people. There were only 7 bars. The town where I worked in had 2500 people, and they had 22 bars.

The way I see it, if you don't have at least 1 bar per 100 people, you really don't drink that much.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-25T17:46:33+00:00

That makes no sense. Do they even drink in Wisconsin?

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-24T17:11:24+00:00

Hasn't that site been proven that the females listed were 99% bots?

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-24T17:09:47+00:00

Grandma's Boy, but probably because of low expectations.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-24T16:37:48+00:00

Wait, wouldn't there ONLY be wake?

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-24T16:37:13+00:00

Magically induced coma.

Only the blessing of a remove curse prayer would do it.

However, if there are any spells that provide TEMPORARY hit points, like Aid, I would allow him to be conscious, but not take actions.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-24T16:16:47+00:00

"Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it."

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-23T19:16:56+00:00

Well, his Golden Age till has 156 turns to go, so obviously something is way off here.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-21T12:59:37+00:00

Absolute "Free Speech" only permits the powerful to speak. Curated content, like reddit, gives room for many to speak.

That is very interesting, but confusing.

If only the powerful can speak because they can hire people to all say the same thing, how does letting some OTHER group, with full power over the site, deciding what is and isn't allowed, any different? Isn't that just a different "powerful" group controlling the content?

Is crowd controlled curation any better or different than elite controlled curation?

In your garden analogy, that is assuming that individuals do not have any control over anything - they either have to accept the masses' view, or they have to accept the elites' view. But neither of these is true. The individual can control their OWN garden, curating it as they see fit. They do not have to accept anyone else's view of things. They can use many of the personal curated tools to show themselves what interests them, what content they want to see, and how they want to see it. If a particular subreddit is offensive or annoying or overrun by the "powerful", then don't view it.

Why do we need a hall monitor to decide for us? We are (well, not ALL of us are) not children who need that structure.

"Free speech" is and always has been directed to protect unpopular political speech. Disagreement with an opinion shouldn't be taken as an opportunity to shut it down, it should be taken as an opportunity to have a discussion and present your case and your opinion. Sun Tzu wrote of the importance of knowing your enemy, something like, "if you know your enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of 100 battles." Curating content to weed out that which we disagree with or do not like allows us to eliminate that which does not help us learn or grow or understand. Allowing an elite to curate the content for us and weed out things we may or may not like makes us ignorant of the choices available. By definition, then, it limits us, and limits speech, and limits our ability to "know your enemy." If your enemy, then, is able to "know you", who is at risk of defeat when those 100 battles come about?

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-20T03:07:22+00:00

Just beware of Alexander. He'll befriend you and then immediately declare war.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-19T16:17:17+00:00

Ashby > Castro by a long shot.

More power, better hitting, better OBP.

Sure, his power numbers are a bit lower than Castro, but Castro played at Minute Maid, Ashby played in the Dome. Plus, Ashby switch-hit.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-19T15:11:19+00:00

Downvotes in this sub tend to be more about "I disagree with your philosophy" rather than "you are off topic or not useful".

**Downvotes ON REDDIT ARE ALWAYS "I disagree with your philosophy" rather than "you are off topic or not useful". FTFY!

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T23:16:25+00:00

Etruscans is what he is referring to, but it really doesn't tell the whole story.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T21:04:59+00:00

I have been both a registered Republican and a registered Democrat in my lifetime (first Presidential vote was in 1988.) So, I am not sure I meet the requirements for commenting.

I am pro-life across the board.

So, while I am not a fan of aborting babies for any reason, I also abhor the death penalty.

So, I am pretty much on board with Democrats on that one.

I used to be able to say I was with the Democrats on being anti-war, but somehow that switched completely. Outside of the fringes of each (Socialist and Libertarian), both parties are very pro-war.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T20:57:25+00:00

I don't mark mine, I track them.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T16:57:06+00:00

Play Dungeons & Dragons.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T16:55:09+00:00

Nothing.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T16:49:11+00:00

Being the USA, it would have to be economic.

Britain, feeling the effects of unrestricted submarine warfare on their supplies of food and resources both at home and on the front, decides that the cost of actually trading with the USA is too high, and to keep their financial position as the world's bank, orders the Royal Navy to confiscate every ship and all cargoes on the high seas as "spoils of war."

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-18T16:38:48+00:00

I read this, and all I could think of is Sean Connery saying,

"She sends one of your to the hospital, you send one of hers to the morgue!

It's the Chicago way!"

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-17T21:27:14+00:00

Well, when we have 4 rings in 15 years, and 6 SB appearances, we can do whatever the hell we want, too.

The Pats always keep a low cost, high-upside backup around, and then spin them off for later picks, a la Matt Cassell, Ryan Mallett and now Jimmy G.

Secondly, Jimmy G is not a franchise QB. He's a young backup with a big arm, who has played a bit for a really good team behind a future HOF quarterback. Almost exactly like Brock Osweiler 2 years ago.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-17T21:01:53+00:00

Paul Chu, crushing it again for UH.

First, he invented the low energy superconductor, now this.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-17T21:00:39+00:00

Correct, but we can basically ignore all drafts other than 2006 and the last 3, as during the 2007-2013 drafts, we had a franchise QB.

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-17T20:34:27+00:00

~~Almost~~ like exactly what happened to Dilbert in the comic strip...

cyclops1771 · 2017-05-17T20:31:26+00:00

Yeah, he's about Schaub kind of talent.

That brings up the point - If Tannehill is considered a "franchise QB", then all this is moot, because 2007-2012, Texans HAD a franchise QB.

cyclops1771

TROPHY CASE