Soxbadger

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) Leagues without waiver rules are really stupid. /shrugs We put it to a vote and the league voted against waivers. We are all friends and super competitive, we watch the games and part of the competition is getting the next big guy first. To each their own, we have a waiting list so we must be doing something right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) How was he gone before the game? Don't you have waiver rules? Nope, first come first serve on free agents. The reasoning is that these are all players we could have picked up at any time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) Same, after last week's horrible performance I had a chance to pick up Brown but wasn't following anything. Where do you guys watch for the latest up-and-comers to add? My league is ridiculously competitive so basically I am watching rotoworld/fantasy during the games and adding people while the injuries occur. Brown was gone before the game was over, same with Richardson on Rams. The site I like for info/updates is obviously rotoworld. For predictions and forecasts I like Fantasy Sharks/ Fantasy Toolbox. The league is 14 teams, 2 wr, 2, rb, 2 flex wr/te/rb so the only articles that really help are "super sleepers" and half the time Ive already decided on them.

Im kind of mad at myself because in my money league I was going to draft bennett late if I didnt get Gronk. I should have just drafted him too. Also annoyed I didnt immediately pick up brown, but thats life in fantasy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) I'd be pretty confident in winning a summary judgment there. You'd have to have some pretty good facts to plead willful/wanton. Otherwise the school would be sued on a daily basis. My kid has a weak immune system. I tell the school this. They should know to keep my kid isolated so he doesn't get sick! Come on, that's a ludicrous degree of care there. Giving a kid known to have a nut allergy a spoonful of peanut butter is one thing. Simply allowing him to be in a lunch room if you serve peanut butter to other students is another. There is a difference between a kid "getting sick" and a kid dieing. If a kid dies because of a peanut allergy and the school was on notice of the allergy, how exactly are you going to win on summary judgment? All I have to do is allege that the school acted recklessly and its a question of fact. Allowing other children to have peanut butter around a kid who can die from it, could be considered willful and wanton. Its absolutely a question of fact. Why? If my kid wanted to bring a lion to school and the school said okay, would another parent argue that was willful and wanton by the school? Of course. The problem is notice. Once the school is on notice, its hard to argue that preventing a kid from touching a peanut isnt a question of fact over whether the school used "ordinary care." Now if the school didnt know about the allergy, then summary judgment would be very likely.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) School districts are a local public entity under the tort immunity act. So you'd have to allege/prove willful and wanton conduct. Not removing peanut butter from the menu couldn't possibly be such conduct unless they knew of the kid with the allergy and purposefully gave him a peanut butter sandwich, something along those lines. Simply having it available to other children with the knowledge of his allergy wouldn't be enough. The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton. Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:44 AM) We would never pass laws in this country to tamp down lawsuits...it would destroy our last great resource...lawyers! Thats not even close to true. Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not.

Its mainly liability with allergies. If a law could be passed that would make schools not liable for it, I doubt they would have any problems. But the risk of being sued for millions isnt worth having peanuts.

Wite isnt a Bears fan, so where is that post going?

Sounds like someone needs chipotlaway. I eat there when Im at work because its close to my office, outside of work I always eat at random places.

Damn you god, this is worse than that whole Moses debacle.

Youk is surprisingly jewish.

Dear Jewish god smite these bastards.

Find a way to score you bastards, its KC.

Would be unbelievable if NO lost, but I thought NE couldnt lose @ home against AZ.

That white guy in the collared shirt cant rap for s***.

Jewish people cant get tattoos that image is offensive!

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) Going off memory from my college theology classes, around 300 is when the Catholic church prohibited priests from marrying. And Constantine's "In hoc signo vinces" was October 28, 312, so it very likely coincides with the Romanization of Christianity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) A piece of papyrus that links Jesus to having a wife. Amazing stuff. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/histo...ml?pagewanted=1 Im pretty sure there are tens, if not hundreds of non-sanctioned books on Jesus. It never made any sense that Priests could not marry, Rabbi's can marry and most believe that they are supposed to get married (Genesis 1:28 Be fruitful and multiply, the first mitzvah in the Torah.) The likely historical reason is that the Jewish priest class became powerful and helped to promote the insurrections against Rome. When Rome was tailoring Christianity to be their religion of rule, they did not want the Pope/priests to have heirs that would ultimately compete against them for power, so they made it illegal for religious reasons. I cant get any good source material online, but Im pretty sure in the beginning of Christianity priests did marry. It wasnt until between 300-400 CE that marriage was outlawed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) I'm content with that, can we apply the same "No special treatment" line to Christianity as well? Yes but not Jews. According to the Old Testament they are the chosen people so I dont want to f*** with that!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) I agree with everything here except I'm curious about one phrase...what do you mean by "Fight back"? We dont give into fear and we draw cartoons of Mohammad and treat their religion the same way we treat every religion. They get no special treatment because they are trying to scare us.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Like I said, not running on their own record at all. Not really true. Im pretty sure part of their record is health care. And why take the path of most resistance? Romney isnt Presidential material. If the Republican's put out a decent candidate, I could contemplate voting for them. But as long as their platform socially backward, I cant sign up for it. As an example: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219...ctor/interview# - 12/14/06 National Review Online Id literally rather burn my money than vote for a candidate who thought that just because something was okay for 3000 years it should always be okay. Secondly, its not even historically accurate, unless we are only talking about a very specific culture subset. Third, 3000 years ago Christianity wasnt even contemplated, so if we are going by history trumps, shoudlnt we start eradicating Christianity? Because Im pretty sure that I can say "I agree with 6,000 years of recorded history and therefore the Old Testament trumps." It would be nice if we had 2 legitimate candidates, but we dont.

For those unaware Charlie Hebdo a french satirical newspaper published "offensive" images of Mohammad. There are now fears that there will be attacks against french interests due to this. Some newspapers are suggesting that the images were Islamophobic and should not have been printed. Im personally getting pretty annoyed with this, because I strongly believe that everyone has the right to say and believe what they want. We just can not let terror change things. I just do not understand how any media outlet could even remotely tolerate this type of intimidation. Freedom has a cost, and sometimes there will be consequences to allowing people to say whatever they want. Reminds me of the South Park episode where they could not even show Mohammad after 9/11 (people forget Mohammad was at one point part of the Super Friends and was on tv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_E6zoUJzvU). Its not Islamophobia, its freedom. And when another culture, society, country, person, threatens your freedom, you fight back.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 18, 2012 -> 10:14 PM) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international...6LBShGc2uKrGyIM Flags that release poison when burned, that is clever.

I was fine with Revoluton's acting. Plot line reminds me of Flashforward and a bunch of other shows that got killed after the fist year.