Claude_Verret

600 pages and not one mind changed!

Yep, they were on their man for the most part, but then got McKelvin-itis.

They even had a contest over at TSW for about 10 years where you had to predict the outcome of every Bills game when the schedule came out in April. I think the closest anyone ever got was week 8 or 9.

Sure, but not a single person raised their hand and said..uh, Larry not good, really it's a clusterfukc of epic proportions and you'll be turned into a greater laughing stock than you are already? Edit: or what inkman said.

I can get behind Bernie here on Trump. Trump is a bigot His bigotry is attempting to appeal to the "extreme, extreme, extreme, extremes" That's reasonable..no baskets... But I'm not behind him on 3rd party. I think about a Trump or Hillary presidency and I'm equally repulsed. I cannot and will not give my vote to either of the deplorable candidates.

It still boggles the mind as to how collectively out of touch with the city and fans the team of Sabres execs had to be...

I was talking to my Jets fan neighbor after the game last night, he's a little younger than me but we started discussing our fandom through the years. He says he's just as passionate about the Jets as he was as a kid. I told him that I've been a detached observer for almost almost a decade. Twenty five years ago a game like last night would have ruined my week. Last night...nothing. It makes me wonder if that faucet can ever get turned back on when the Bills are somehow relevant again.

So big deal, the bills aren't good again. It's what we know.

Classic Bills.

This is the NFL.

Yes, in fact a friend of mine wanted me to go in big on the Bills tonight. I told him that I like the bet, but no can do with betting on the Bills.

I think so too. A win tonight fits the Bills modus operandi.

Having worked in R&D on new food pathogen detection technologies and thus being very familiar with the FSIS / BAM protocols that are the standard currently in use I have absolutely zero problem with this part of the article. As one might expect from our government, the current regulations are burdensome and many do absolutely nothing to make our food safer.

Copy paste the suggested search terms into google. No paywall. Worked for me anyway.

FB is an absolute cesspool of uber partisan bomb throwing and it's pretty evenly split between the sides on my feed. It's DeLuca vs. bobis every day. Brutal.

If he's voting for Trump you can go from having no idea to assuming with 50% certainty that your grandfather is a racist. :P

This one? I thought the snow game was in Cleveland? http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/270428-worst-game-ever-buffalo-vs-cleveland-review Edit: I see the two awful Cleveland vs. Buffalo games have been cleared up.

An post I linked to weeks ago deserves a re-link in light of today's discussion. http://www.civilpolitics.org/content/how-to-make-real-progress-against-trumps-incivility/ I guess I need to post the disclaimer as well for the benefit of Drunkard that I loathe Trump and find him to be an awful candidate and yes a bigot. OK?. Read on...

to the bolded..absolutely, that's how scientific research works and how we incrementally push our understanding in various disciplines forward. To the rest I'll just say that Haidt has some solid data to support MFT, but yes not everyone in his field necessarily agrees with him, and again that's how scientific research gets pushed forward. His theories will continue to be tested by himself and others with the unforgiving rigor of the scientific method..

When you conduct scientific research and you want to publish in a journal you go through a peer review or refereeing process by other experts in your field. Redundant research is something that will very rarely survive this process.

Ummm not exactly. But carry on....

It's not, but it's certainly a model that can lead to more productive discourse than what we have now..... You're wrong. I'm right. You don't understand the facts and I do. You're an idiot because you believe that You're morally bankrupt if you believe this You're a racist bigot. Now granted the discourse doesn't generally get that base around here, but it is the underlying tone of most of the back and forth. The above certainly is a good example of what my Facebook feed looks like though.. When in reality both sides on just about any issue have sound, logical reasons to support their stance. It's not black and white. Both sides usually do have a strong argument on any issue. Both sides can be right. That's the crux of Haidt, to understand why people side where they do and as a result hopefully leading to more productive debate. So it's not universal dogma, but it's sure as a million miles ahead of just thinking the other side has something wrong with them and that they couldn't possibly have a point, but if folks want to keep wallowing in the partisan mire then here we are I guess. Really, if you're going to continue attacking Haidt, you've got to attack on his methodology, experimental design etc. and that's going to require some reading on your part. Otherwise you're just attacking a guy who is truly non-partisan and trying to improve the gaping divide in this country.

Keep wallowing my friend. Until you manage to read even a blog or article or heaven forbid the actual book then you'll never have a clue as to where I'm coming from on Haidt, and you'll just be spewing more of this all too predictable nonsense.

Oh really? I've been very consistent saying that both teams do it, and both teams are hypocrites when they only get offended or worked up when the other side does it. I have a good understanding as to why ALL of us are hypocrites on some level when it comes to these moral arguments (cough...Haidt..cough), but we ALL can strive to be less hypocritical if we gain a better understanding of the root causes.

It has nothing to do with justifying the banning, otherwise I'd be advocating for DeLuca and bobis getting banned already for similar posts, which I've never done. Honestly I never saw the post originally and only read it when PA drew attention to it so I took the opportunity to comment on the post content. Here's my overall problem with this rise in popularity of branding individuals or large swaths of people as racists, bigots, homophobes etc. in such a cavalier manner. I see trying to brand any individual with such labels as a very serious charge, a charge that you better have rock solid irrefutable evidence to present before making such a claim. To even imply that 1%, 5% or 50% of any group fit any of those awful labels is ridiculous and should be called out as such. Yet we see it done everyday by our candidates for President and people in our everyday lives as a way to shut down those we disagree with. It's a disturbing trend.