LastPommerFan

TB, I'm really glad I've been able to recalibrate your QB sensors.

Didn't finish paying his bill?

Yeah Obama, Thanks for letting the baby boomers retire. Jerk. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

McGinn is better than Foligno, right?

I'm saying Bylsma will intentionally put the ROR line against the Sedins because he wants to win. That's why he's not putting Jack on that line. It's all because you made them bring ROR in.

ROR has to be out against the Sedins. We're trying to win now!

And then Jack gets to watch the Sedins play with the puck for 20 minutes.

Zemgus and Samson working together is not a bad idea for both of them, especially with Ennis on the ice. They both have significantly better mates than they did against TB.

Jack isn't the only player he has to develop.

He had better wingers, he wasn't using them? Reinhardt and Ennis need someone who will open up space. Maybe the move isn't about Jack, maybe it's about Zemgus. (I'm out there on this one, just pursuing the thought process)

Because he doesn't need them. There is a reason he doesn't have any assists.

purposefully matching him up against the burrows/horvat line. He'll dominate. I'm guessing here, otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

The Sedins are going to get their 20 minutes, and control the puck. Put ROR's line out there against them, then put Jack out against lesser competition.

Moving Jack away from the 'Nucks big possession line, let him have the puck more, even if he ends up with fewer minutes overall.

11-12 was a heroic run to 9th

I think what I, and possibly others, are getting at is that here, in this place, we tend to want people to avoid, as best as possible, any "duty to mock". Not that we don't lovingly mock each other from time to time, but when that derision comes from a place other than that of respect. I get the sense that your invocations are not coming from that place.

Ayn Rand disagrees. :-P

If David sang it, it counts.

To clarify, I'm saying the DNA would be admissible, and the promiscuity would simply be left to the Jury's Imagination. The odds of that connection being made by a Jury of 12 americans are pretty solid. Not that the Lawyers would be able to make the argument themselves.

I tried as hard as I could to help (PA).

[My comment applies only to effectiveness, not censorship.] It's possible that offering intentional absurdity in an argument against beliefs as closely held as those involving faith shows a level of respect below that which is expected on this forum. Ergo, we may want to chastise those offering that level of disrespect. I don't think we, as a community, would be terribly far out of line in this criticism. At the same time, dropping in while casting the shadow of the law (as SDS did) may have a chilling effect that is even less desirable than the aforementioned maintenance of the proper modicum of respect.

"She is confused, it wasn't Pat, It was someone else, here is the evidence" At this point, I will allow Eleven to clarify, as he is, in fact, a lawsmologist.

I find it difficult to believe that the defense wouldn't be able to present evidence of the possibility that the woman was raped by someone other than the accused.

Best SOS by a mile among the non-SEC teams.

Attacking Creationism by belittling absurdity semantics is great for non-creationists to show of how hilarious they are to each other, it's hardly an effective way to theologically debate the absurdity of Young Earth Creationism.