edmcgon

 

 

but the lid looks so ugly UP!!!!!

Remember the purpose of the toilet. It is not designed for beauty! :lol:

Too funny!

And yet another reason to add: the lengthening seasons of other sports. For around 100 years, baseball owned the summer. Football did not begin until September. Basketball and hockey were over around the time baseball started each year.

With basketball and hockey playoffs stretching into June, and football starting its' preseason in late July/early August, plus the improved attendance for year-round sports like NASCAR, baseball is no longer the only game in town.

One other thing I just thought of: Statistics. Baseball invented the art of sports statistics. Part of its' charm was the millions of statistics with which the game could be analyzed (and over-analyzed). Now, every sport has them.

That's a silly rule.

I would have to go with the "Enterprise" era. In TOS and TNG, they don't do enough exploration (they tend to stay within Federation space). In "Enterprise", it is all exploration. It is venturing into the unknown that intrigues me.

I was always partial to the "planet killer" (I forget the name of the episode). I always thought that was something one of the Trek sequels should have revisited.

"City on the Edge of Forever". It may be the best episode of any tv show ever.

It is one of the few episodes I would say impacted my life. When I hear about bad things happening to good people, I think of this episode and realize that maybe these things are happening for a good reason of which I may not be aware.

Aside from "City", my other favorite would have to be "Balance of Terror".

I went too bed at halftime when the Bucs were up 21-0. I did not expect anyone could come back on the Bucs D when they were down that much!

I get out of bed close to 1 a.m. to take an antihistimine, so I figured I would go online and see who won. I go to NFL.com and the headline says the game is in OT.

So I turn on the tv to catch the last drive of the game.

BTW, the Bucs were robbed. I am no Bucs fan, but that game was stolen by the refs in the end.

Ok, I’m under the gun to play this and I know nothing about hockey, so the first one to laugh gets their jockey shorts BURNED!  :(

:lol:

Sorry hun. I have never been one to walk away from a dare. Especially when it only involves laughing at someone!

And if you burn my shorts, you have to buy me new ones anyhow! :(

I have to pick a Trek-related name? How about the Hockey Borg (I have been assimilated, resistance is futile, yada yada yada).

Here is the team:

Forward Group 1: Markus Naslund and Joe "Billy Bob" Thornton

Forward Group 2: Jarome Iginla and Mats Sundin (gotta like anybody named "Mats")

Forward Group 3: Joe Sakic and Jeremy Roenick

Defensemen: Nicklas Lidstrom, Kim Johnsson, Sergei Gonchar, and Sergei Zubov

Goalies: Martin Brodeur and MARTY TURCO

DISCLAIMER: I will take no responsibility for any mis-spelled names.

Peter Forsberg traded for Markus Naslund effective November 28, 2003.

Jeremy Roenick traded for Steve Sullivan effective February 22, 2004.

Good idea!

And now for the correct picks:

Vikings over Falcons

Titans over Patsies

Bills over Bungles

G-Men over Dolphins

Seabirdies over Pack

over Da Bears

Panthers over Aints

Chefs over Broncos (typo intended)

Boys over Cards

Jags over Bolts

Eagles over Skins

Lions over 9ers

Steelers over Brownies

Bucs over Colts

NFL Players/Coaches Views on the Limbaugh Comment

The above link to an article on some of the NFL players and coaches views shows the people who know the game are against Rush's view.

I do not know whether Rush is racist. I do know his knowledge of pro football is lacking.

Master Q,

Comparing McNabb to Brad Johnson is a poor comparison. Johnson has been playing football much longer than McNabb. In addition, Barra's comment that Johnson was mediocre was just wrong. Johnson may not be one of the all-time greats, but he is a very good quarterback.

To make a true comparison between the two, we need to look at both players' stats at a comparable point in their careers. After 4 seasons in the league (which was as of the end of last season for McNabb), following are the stats for both Johnson and McNabb:

QB ATT COMP COMP % YARDS TD INT TD % INT %

McNabb 1639 932 56.9% 9835 71 38 4.3% 2.3%

Johnson 836 517 61.8% 5716 37 24 4.4% 2.9%

McNabb played a lot more during his first two seasons, so his numbers are larger for the period overall. While Johnson does have a significantly higher completion percentage, his interception percentage is also higher. Both have very close touchdown percentages.

I would also point out that Johnson did NOT win a Super Bowl during his first four years. Neither did Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, John Elway, Steve Young, or Phil Simms. The year Jeff Hostetler won it he had NEVER been a starter at the beginning of any season prior.

Mea culpa. I misread the Indy-NO game. Ok, you got your first win.

grumble grumble sonuva grumble grumble

Well I moved to 2-1 this week, winning 148-80.

VBG, you got lucky. Half my team was out on byes this week. Face me any other week, and you're toast! :devil:

TUH,

When you brought up the laughtrack, it occurred to me: I don't remember if the British version has one. It may, but I don't remember it. I do remember the American version does.

Stardate:213742.9

 

 

 

One thing i have never been able to figure out is why are people turning away from baseball????

Several reasons:

1. Players change teams way too frequently. It is hard to become attached to a team when the roster turns over every few years.

2. New York Yankees. They have a significant competitive advantage because there is no profit sharing in baseball. Since the Yankees tend to dominate MLB most years, there is little drama.

3. A 162-game season. I cannot think of any sport which has this long a season. It is grueling trying to follow this sport in any kind of detail.

4. Ticket costs. I have not priced them lately, but they were about $20+ in the mid-90's (and that was for the cheap seats). That does not include parking, concessions, etc. I would not even think about going to a baseball game unless I got the tickets for free.

VBG,

We were both 10-4. Maybe next week.

I approve.

Cincinnati Over Cleveland

 

While it is possible, I have a general rule which applies here: Pick against Cincinnati and you will rarely be disappointed.

 

I don't know, I think Marvin Lewis is going to turn them around. They are already a much imroved team with him at the helm.

 

New England Over Washington

 

Tough one. Gotta take the Skins after a tough loss to the G-Men. The Pats might be looking past the Skins to the Titans next week.

 

I don't see Spurier being able to pull it off, The Pats have a pretty good defense and a pretty good offense, I just think they will be too much for the Skins. I don't believe the Skins are a true 2-1 (or 3-1) team.

 

Minnesota Over San Francisco if Culpepper is playing and SF over the Vikes if Culpepper doesn't play. I lean more for SF in this one though because even if Culpepper plays he won't be 100%

 

Another tough one. Battle of mediocrity. I will pick the Vikes. They are better at being mediocre. And what is this "if Culpepper plays" crap? Pick a team and get on with your life! I haven't seen this much waffling since Bill Clinton was in office!

 

Bill Clinton? Slick Willie? Do I sense a membership ban coming on??

 

My reasoning is Gus. I don't think he's a good enough QB to get the job done, with Cullpepper hurt though I honestly have doubts that he can either, if he plays healthy the Vikes win. But I'm picking the 49ers because of the QB situation.

 

Green Bay Over Chicago

 

The only no-brainer this week.

 

You would think so, but the way GB is playing right now you never know.

I agree that Lewis can turn the Bungles around, but I still think they are a year away from being truly competitive.

Regarding the Skins, they nearly beat the G-Men, whose defense is comparable to the Pats. The main difference is the Giants have a much better offense than the Pats.

"A membership ban"? Man, you are tough!

Anyway, I think Gus looked pretty good last week. I don't think the Vikes will suffer a large drop-off in talent.

As for Green Bay-Chicago, the Bears have looked FAR worse.

VBG,

Time for your weekly spanking:

St. Louis Over Arizona

Of course. BTW Capt. Freeman, yes, 2 weeks in a row is asking too much!

Cincinnati Over Cleveland

While it is possible, I have a general rule which applies here: Pick against Cincinnati and you will rarely be disappointed.

Jacksonville Over Houston

Neither one of these teams is anything to write home about. I would take Houston only because they recognize they are trying to build a team. I am not sure Jax has recognized it yet. Starting Brunell? Wrong answer.

BTW Capt. Freeman, yes, the Jags could beat the Bears. So could William & Mary.

New England Over Washington

Tough one. Gotta take the Skins after a tough loss to the G-Men. The Pats might be looking past the Skins to the Titans next week.

Philadelphia Over Buffalo

Agreed. With Travis Henry hurting, and this being a gut-check game for Philly, got to love the Birds here. Plus they are coming off a bye week.

Minnesota Over San Francisco if Culpepper is playing and SF over the Vikes if Culpepper doesn't play. I lean more for SF in this one though because even if Culpepper plays he won't be 100%

Another tough one. Battle of mediocrity. I will pick the Vikes. They are better at being mediocre. And what is this "if Culpepper plays" crap? Pick a team and get on with your life! I haven't seen this much waffling since Bill Clinton was in office!

Tennessee Over Pittsburgh

Revenge game for Pitt. Take the Steelers.

Kansas City Over Baltimore 

This game looks like a trap for KC. Gotta take the Ravens.

Oakland Over San Diego

Atlanta Over Carolina

BUZZZZZZZ! Kitties kill Birdies.

Dallas Over N.Y. Jets (The Tuna wins 2 in his old house)

Agreed. The Jets are BAAAAAAAAAAD!

Denver Over Detroit

Detroit is my upset special of the week. Denver is coming off a big victory over the Raiders. Plus they have KC next week. Plus Portis & Anderson are hurting. Big ol' trap game!

Indianapolis Over New Orleans

Here are two teams that thrive on losing the "big game". I'll take the Aints.

Green Bay Over Chicago

The only no-brainer this week.

VBG,

How do you go 10-6 when only 14 games were played?

Just curious if anyone saw the premiere of the American version of "Coupling" on NBC Thursday night. Also curious what you think of it.

I am a fan of the British version, which I have watched on BBC America. People often compare it to "Friends", but it is raunchier and funnier.

To me, the American version of "Coupling" was lame. While the script was virtually the same as the British version, the same jokes were not funny. Mind you, I have watched most of the episodes of the British version multiple times, and they remain just as funny on second and third viewings.

Part of the problem is the cast. The American cast is high on the looks scale, but low on the acting. The British cast is not quite as pretty (they are NOT ugly by any stretch of the imagination), but their acting is FAR superior.

This is all my opinion of course. I am concerned that maybe I have just grown too attached to the original and I am not giving the "remake" a chance.

CJLP, Alterego is right (at least about the original "Re-animator"). Next to "Young Frankenstein", it was the funniest horror movie ever made.

I remember the first time I saw "Re-animator". I took a date to it. She spent the entire movie with her head buried in my shoulder while I laughed my a$$ off! (Of course, after the movie, she got mad at me for laughing, but that is another story)

I give it 4 stars and

3. Jedis vs. The Clones in "Star Wars Episode II".

The Jedi Never Fought The Clones In AOTC

 

Mea culpa. You are correct. They were bad guys, but not "the clones".

I was thinking of that scene in the stadium (plus the scene with Yoda vs. the Count).

Scotty defined the role of engineer.