Soxbadger

People make bad decisions. I wasnt talking about 35 year old retreads. I was talking about finding quality recently graduated guys who were overlooked do to mediocre offensive skills. Nazt averaged 11 minutes last year at 34, Im not sure who thought hed be better this year at 35.

Havent heard his name in a while. The reality is the Bulls can find a defensive big man somewhere. The really need a guy who can stretch the floor. Ive always been partial to Jon Leuer

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 05:08 PM) I'm finally looking at getting a PS3. How much gaming do you need to do to need the 500GB system? A ton. I have a first generation PS3 with 60gb. Ive never even come close to needing memory. If you wanted to save videos, music on the PS3 that size would make sense. PS3s are a great value. Had mine forever, used it for netflix, games, blu rays. Just a good value product.

The Bulls need a big guy who can hit some outside shots.

That would be horrific. Im not sure that after the combine/ pro-days that Teo is even going to grade out as a first round pick. So the Bears would be significantly overreaching on a player that doesnt even make a lot of sense.

Vote early and often!

With Valetine's day next week, I pity your wallet.

lol Its going to be 4 straight losses to Iowa. Play like clowns and you lose what a joke.

No idea why Wisconsin sucks against Iowa.

Most of the guys who left with Chryst were offensive guys who really had no connection to Bielema. Bielema took the defensive guys and strength/etc with him. Kind of just bad timing because Wisconsin lost a lot of their old coordinators/assistants the years before when Chryst and Doeren left.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 07:17 PM) Been meaning to ask you... did Bielema take many assistants with him to Arkansas? Bielema took a good amount from Wisconsin. Only 2 coaches remain from his staff. For the most part it only hurt because it was late in the game, Andersen did really well and picked up a few interesting guys that werent even on Wisconsin's radar. Wisconsin probably lost 1-3 upper level recruits over this. But that isnt to bad given the fact that Andersen was only coach from late December.

I have a case for my sg3. First time Ive ever bought one. If you can, Id probably wait to see the sg4 at this point. If only because the sg3 will be a lot cheaper when it comes out.

Yeah coveting is the exception, although I believe the actual intent was to stop actions, not to stop thoughts. Its actually interesting because that is one of the commandments that is interpreted differently. Not every faith has the same 10 commandments.

Id have to see some textual support to really suggest that thoughts and actions are the same. My general recollection of the Old Testament is that God was worried about actions, not thought crime.

I dont even look at star numbers anymore. As long as Wisconsin gets reasonable talent, they will have a shot. Supposedly Andersen was able to keep most recruits from switching so Wisconsin should be fine again, even if they dont have the gaudy star numbers.

When you say the Bible is fact do you mean Old Testament and New Testament, or just New?

I liked that episode. Jagged Little Pill haha And of course the Full House references. Its been so long I kind of forgot Danny Tanner was the narrator.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 06:56 PM) if maher also signed that letter, sure. if he only ever made his TV joke offer? A common misconception is that contracts need to be signed. You can have a verbal agreement, they are just harder to enforce (you have to prove all the elements of a contract without a writing) and generally have a shorter statute of limitations (Il its 5 years compared to 10 for written). "A joke" is just saying "there was no meeting of the minds". The more I think about it, the more I believe there is a chance that a Cali court sends a message. No one in Hollywood etc is going to want the door even opened a little for random people to sue tv shows over "contracts".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) It's Trump's burden to establish a contract, yes, but for Maher to get out of this he's going to have to use, as a defense, that it was a joke and he didn't mean it. Trump doesn't have to show that Maher was serious. At least that's what I would argue without doing any research into it. I would argue the following: 1. There was no contract (and then list out every reason why the 4 elements were not met.) In the alternative: 2. There was a contract but no performance by Trump. 3. It was a unilateral contract and revoked prior to performance. etc. I would never say "It was a joke, he didnt mean it." I would use the exact quote: "suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump." And argue that in no universe that can be interpreted as a contract. There is no clear offer, there is no way to accept, there is no meeting of the minds and there is no consideration. Its a hypothetical. I dont see why "joke" has to be involved. the only reason hed have to go down the "joke" route was if he had actually made a legitimate offer that could be accepted. As he did not, it would stupid to argue its a joke, because that lends credence to the idea that in some world that may have been an offer. But there is just no way a 3rd party can look at Maher's statement and come to the conclusion it was an offer. That is why Trump's attorney put in the nonsense about Trump's Obama bet, to try and argue that it was somehow prior course of dealing and therefore the terms were implied. Once again, it just shows how nonsensical this complaint is, because the course of dealing was between Obama and Trump. This lawsuit is a joke, but unfortunately its not funny and is a waste of court time and resources. I really hope that they sanction Trump, just to send a message. Courts arent for play time.

And also as I said before, Trump has not performed. A birth certificate does not prove anything. A different father can be put on a birth certificate. As Trump has failed to perform, he cant even sue. That is actually the best argument for sanctions, that the only way to prove the father would be a DNA test, and Trump hasnt done that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) That he made it about an orangutan is why it's so clearly a joke. No that isnt true. if Bill Maher had said: "I will give trump $5mil if he can prove he is not the son of an oraguntan by January 1, 2013, and if he can not prove that he owes me $5mil." If trump wrote a letter accepting that offer, it would be binding and maher would be on the hook. But when you start a comment as a hypothetical its completely different. Words have meaning "suppose" means something. You cant parse the comment.

This case isnt getting to trial, its going to be a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. The only question is whether or not the California judge wants to stick Trump for being a douche.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 04:37 PM) There's no way this would be considered frivolous. First, there's a good argument to be made there, even if he ultimately loses and it's more likely than not that he will lose. Frivolous is filing a case you know has 0% chance of winning. You can be pretty certain you will lose and still file the case without being sanctioned. Second, i'm not aware of any "joke" defense to contracts. Yes, this will come down to a reasonable person standard, i.e. would a reasonable person believe that Maher intended to create a unilateral contract. But that's Maher's burden now, not Trumps. I doubt the lawsuit would be frivolous, but that is going to depend on how quickly Trump loses in summary judgment. Motion for sanctions generally has to be after the defendant has been found not liabile. As for your second part, I am confused as to why there would be any shift of burden. It will be up to Trump to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Maher and Trump had a contract. In order to prove a contract Trump has to allege elements and prove those elements. Some of the problems that Trump will have is 1) offer, what were the exact terms, when did it expire, does a "joke" constitute an offer, 2) acceptance, did Trump actually ever accept the "offer" that Maher made, 3) meeting of the minds were Maher and Trump on the same page when Trump accepted the offer and 4) consideration, what was Maher going to get. It also appears they are not arguing unilateral contract, as the pleadings state specifically that Trump accepted Maher's offer. In a unilateral contract acceptance is irrelevant. All that matters is that there was an offer and completion. If I put up: "$1,000 reward to first person to find my dog" you dont write me a letter stating you are going to find my dog, you find my dog, you get the money. So it seems that Trump's attorneys are trying to play both sides, yet didnt plead it in the alternative. This should be summary judgment. Trump's attorneys cant even formulate what the offer is in the pleadings. Its just a mismashed jumble quote "suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump." The brief bolded 1 part, I am going to bold a different part. That is called a hypothetical. The more I read their pleadings, the more I would go for sanctions. Even their lawyers cant keep this joke straight.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) I'd love if they could trade down, but are there enough teams willing to part with picks just to trade up in this draft? I still want KC to have a top 10 pick. Teams will always trade up, its just a question of how much will KC ask for. If they are reasonable, they probably have a bunch of potential suitors. For a team like KC, Id even suggest trading down if the pick values dont match exactly. Moving down 5 spots, and getting some extra 2/3s is invaluable in my opinion. Its unlikely theyll get anything close to the RGIII package.

I think the Chiefs are going to try and trade down. Not a great year for it but with rookie salary cap, trading up for #1 isnt so cost prohibitive anymore.