Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Welcome to TestFunda

Buzz It
TESTfunda
17-Nov-10

TestFunda.com - LEARN with THE LEADER in Online MBA Test Prep

Demo Lessons   |   Take a Free Test   |   Buy Courses   |   Fun Learning Games   |   100-Percentilers

     

Dear loajsg nums,


Welcome to TestFunda.com - The leader in online MBA test prep. Given below is a list of services offered by TestFunda.com to all its registered users. We are here to help you in every aspect of your MBA preparation. We hope that your experience with us will pave the way to your dream B-school.


All the best,
TestFunda Team


 
 
GD & PI Prep
Find and ask all you wanted to know about MBA preparation.
Free Online Content  
The Content is prepared by the experienced TestFunda faculty and IIM alumni.
MBA Exam Information and Updates
Here, you will find information on State Level and National Level exams. News updates, eligibility, test info, paper pattern, duration and important dates and much more details are available.
Compete!
Play, win and learn with TestFunda contests & events.
MBA Preparation Courseware (Online-CD-Print)
TestFunda offers study material in Online and Offline (CD, Print) format. This allows students to prepare in the environment they are comfortable.
For more options click here.
About TestFunda.com
- TestFunda an initiative by Enabilon Learning Pvt Ltd., is backed by www.ZeusLearning.com. 5 IIT-IIM graduates form the Management Team.
- The 85+ member content and technology team has vast experience in MBA Coaching and Computer-Based Training and Testing.
- For 9 years Zeus has created award-winning courseware for companies like Discovery Channel, Reader's Digest, Texas Instruments, Pearson Education.
- The TestFunda Advisory Board comprises CEOs and MDs of international educational companies.
     
ABOUT | WHY TESTFUNDA | FAQ | PRIVACY | SUPPORT | CONTACT | DISCUSS
© Enabilon Learning Private Limited. All rights reserved

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 6 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Vick... - 15 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/27d9e692bca936e8?hl=en
* "Mark Sanchez is a series of contradictory statements" - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/fc90c13faa8f7545?hl=en
* Nice knowing you peeps - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f4b078ea7252f97d?hl=en
* To the Schott Haters - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/b9f1a4d20e6b445b?hl=en
* You know, I just thought of somthing... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/9708005bbb7a9096?hl=en
* Skins extend McNabb - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8477987642707996?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vick...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/27d9e692bca936e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 6:48 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 5:48 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have never been known for my compassion for my fellow
> man.

Honest and straight up question please . . . then why in the hell did
you become a cop??

== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 6:50 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>  >I have never ever
>
> > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > this fact.
>
> I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> dangerous one for law enforcement.

I and the majority of law enforcement personnel in the US agrees with
that sentiment.


== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 6:53 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> >  >I have never ever
>
> > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > this fact.
>
> > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> is no good answer for it.

It may not stop the crimes associated with getting the money to buy
the drugs, but those same crimes are being commited by people to get
other things besides drugs. And they always will, and we'll always
need police, legal drugs or not.

The premise behind legalizing and regulating is to prevent the
violence associated with *providing* the drugs, not getting them.

== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 6:55 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <SNIP>
>
> > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > this fact.
>
> > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> crimes you speak of.  

Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
will steal.

> the same way it has done in other countries that
> have legalize and controlled drugs.

It has not.

> along with taking the criminal
> element out of drug sales,

Correct.

> you also use the tax money you earn and
> "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.

Also correct.


== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 7:19 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > crimes you speak of.  
>
> Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> will steal.
>
> > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> It has not.

Guess what. I'm not talking about the Netherlands. Do a bit of
checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
success in some areas but not in others. Meaning, some have lowered
the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
criminal element or lowered the amount of users. The Netherlands
still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
offenses. The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
sales that they could put back into drug programs. Portugal on the
other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas. It is not an
ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.

> > along with taking the criminal
> > element out of drug sales,
>
> Correct.
>
> > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 7:33 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > will steal.
>
> > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > It has not.
>
> Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>

My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
of the product being illegal and will continue even with
legalization. I agree with most of the rest of your position
regarding legalization . . .

>
>
> > > along with taking the criminal
> > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > Correct.
>
> > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 7:39 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 10:33 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > > will steal.
>
> > > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > > It has not.
>
> > Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> > checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> > of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> > success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> > the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> > criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> > still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> > offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> > sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> > other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> > ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> > can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> > qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>
> My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
> some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
> they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
> money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
> of the product being illegal and will continue even with
> legalization.  I agree with most of the rest of your position
> regarding legalization . . .
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > along with taking the criminal
> > > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > > Correct.
>
> > > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
radio or candy bar. im talking about drug related crime.


== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 7:55 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:33 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > > > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > > > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > > > will steal.
>
> > > > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > > > It has not.
>
> > > Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> > > checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> > > of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> > > success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> > > the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> > > criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> > > still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> > > offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> > > sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> > > other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> > > ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> > > can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> > > qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>
> > My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
> > some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
> > they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
> > money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
> > of the product being illegal and will continue even with
> > legalization.  I agree with most of the rest of your position
> > regarding legalization . . .
>
> > > > > along with taking the criminal
> > > > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > > > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
> radio or candy bar.  im talking about drug related crime.

As am I.

Legalizing drugs will not stop people from stealing car radios to sell
in order to use the money to buy legal drugs, or candy bars. It will
however, at least in theory as well as in practice in countries that
have gone this route, put a serious dent in the crimes associated with
providing the drugs. It will also free up the police from wasting
their time and resources busting pot smokers so that they can use
their resources more effectively against serious crime. It will also
alleviate the crowding in our jails and prisons. It will also unclog
to a degree our over taxed court system. But it won't stop people that
are predisposed to stealing to get what they want, from stealing to
get what they want.

== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:15 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 10:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:33 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > > > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > > > > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > > > > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > > > > will steal.
>
> > > > > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > > > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > > > > It has not.
>
> > > > Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> > > > checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> > > > of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> > > > success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> > > > the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> > > > criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> > > > still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> > > > offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> > > > sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> > > > other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> > > > ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> > > > can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> > > > qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>
> > > My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
> > > some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
> > > they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
> > > money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
> > > of the product being illegal and will continue even with
> > > legalization.  I agree with most of the rest of your position
> > > regarding legalization . . .
>
> > > > > > along with taking the criminal
> > > > > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > > > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > > > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > > > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > > > > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
> > radio or candy bar.  im talking about drug related crime.
>
> As am I.
>
> Legalizing drugs will not stop people from stealing car radios to sell
> in order to use the money to buy legal drugs, or candy bars.  It will
> however, at least in theory as well as in practice in countries that
> have gone this route, put a serious dent in the crimes associated with
> providing the drugs. It will also free up the police from wasting
> their time and resources busting pot smokers so that they can use
> their resources more effectively against serious crime. It will also
> alleviate the crowding in our jails and prisons. It will also unclog
> to a degree our over taxed court system. But it won't stop people that
> are predisposed to stealing to get what they want, from stealing to
> get what they want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i agree... it wont stop kleptos but i was not talking about kleptos...
anyway... at least we agree that decriminalizing drugs would better
than our current "war on drugs" so long as the plan is well thought
out. i also think whores should be legal in all of the states too.


== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:19 pm
From: marcman


On Nov 16, 11:15 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 10:33 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > > > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > > > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > > > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > > > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > > > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > > > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > > > > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > > > > > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > > > > > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > > > > > will steal.
>
> > > > > > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > > > > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > > > > > It has not.
>
> > > > > Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> > > > > checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> > > > > of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> > > > > success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> > > > > the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> > > > > criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> > > > > still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> > > > > offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> > > > > sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> > > > > other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> > > > > ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> > > > > can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> > > > > qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>
> > > > My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
> > > > some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
> > > > they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
> > > > money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
> > > > of the product being illegal and will continue even with
> > > > legalization.  I agree with most of the rest of your position
> > > > regarding legalization . . .
>
> > > > > > > along with taking the criminal
> > > > > > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > > > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > > > > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > > > > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > > > > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > > > > > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
> > > radio or candy bar.  im talking about drug related crime.
>
> > As am I.
>
> > Legalizing drugs will not stop people from stealing car radios to sell
> > in order to use the money to buy legal drugs, or candy bars.  It will
> > however, at least in theory as well as in practice in countries that
> > have gone this route, put a serious dent in the crimes associated with
> > providing the drugs. It will also free up the police from wasting
> > their time and resources busting pot smokers so that they can use
> > their resources more effectively against serious crime. It will also
> > alleviate the crowding in our jails and prisons. It will also unclog
> > to a degree our over taxed court system. But it won't stop people that
> > are predisposed to stealing to get what they want, from stealing to
> > get what they want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i agree... it wont stop kleptos but i was not talking about kleptos...
> anyway... at least we agree that decriminalizing drugs would better
> than our current "war on drugs"  so long as the plan is well thought
> out.  i also think whores should be legal in all of the states too.

What an incredible coincidence, I too am in favor of legalizing
whoring.

Say, you by chance wouldn't happen to also be a Jets fan?

== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:42 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 11:19 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:15 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 10:33 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 10:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:33 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > > > > > > >  >I have never ever
>
> > > > > > > > > > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > > > > > > > > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > > > > > > > > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > > > > > > > > > this fact.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > > > > > > > > > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > > > > > > > > > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > > > > > > > > > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > > > > > > > > > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > > > > > > > > > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > > > > > > > > > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > > > > > > > > > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> > > > > > > > > I agree with your statements on the war on drugs and yes make drugs
> > > > > > > > > legal and controlled does sound like a decent answer. Unfortunately
> > > > > > > > > that wont stop the crimes of robbery, assault and murder committed by
> > > > > > > > > the addicts so they can get the money to buy the drugs. There really
> > > > > > > > > is no good answer for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Legalizing drugs will just about completely snuff out the related
> > > > > > > > crimes you speak of.  
>
> > > > > > > Not correct. Some poor people that want stuff badly enough that don't
> > > > > > > have the money to pay for the stuff, regardless of what the stuff is,
> > > > > > > will steal.
>
> > > > > > > > the same way it has done in other countries that
> > > > > > > > have legalize and controlled drugs.
>
> > > > > > > It has not.
>
> > > > > > Guess what.  I'm not talking about the Netherlands.  Do a bit of
> > > > > > checking into what the government of Portugal has done. Thus far, most
> > > > > > of the countries that have tried to decriminalize drugs have had
> > > > > > success in some areas but not in others.  Meaning, some have lowered
> > > > > > the amount of drug related crime but have still not gotten rid of the
> > > > > > criminal element or lowered the amount of users.  The Netherlands
> > > > > > still has about 50 % of their penal system tied up with drug related
> > > > > > offenses.  The Netherlands has also not made any money off of drug
> > > > > > sales that they could put back into drug programs.   Portugal on the
> > > > > > other hand has had a good deal of success in all areas.  It is not an
> > > > > > ideal or perfect system, but the best so far and real proof that it
> > > > > > can be done. If you are interested in the subject there is plenty of
> > > > > > qualified info on Portugal's program on the net.
>
> > > > > My point is that legalization, regulation and control will not stop
> > > > > some people that do not "have" from "taking" what they want. Whether
> > > > > they steal what they want directly, or rob a third party to get the
> > > > > money to buy what they want, crimes of this nature are not the result
> > > > > of the product being illegal and will continue even with
> > > > > legalization.  I agree with most of the rest of your position
> > > > > regarding legalization . . .
>
> > > > > > > > along with taking the criminal
> > > > > > > > element out of drug sales,
>
> > > > > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > > > > you also use the tax money you earn and
> > > > > > > > "drug war" money you are no longer spending on treatment and awareness
> > > > > > > > programs.  that would include... and no im not kidding... free drugs
> > > > > > > > for the dead enders that cant or wont be helped.
>
> > > > > > > Also correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > i am not suggesting a solution to some jack ass that steals a car
> > > > radio or candy bar.  im talking about drug related crime.
>
> > > As am I.
>
> > > Legalizing drugs will not stop people from stealing car radios to sell
> > > in order to use the money to buy legal drugs, or candy bars.  It will
> > > however, at least in theory as well as in practice in countries that
> > > have gone this route, put a serious dent in the crimes associated with
> > > providing the drugs. It will also free up the police from wasting
> > > their time and resources busting pot smokers so that they can use
> > > their resources more effectively against serious crime. It will also
> > > alleviate the crowding in our jails and prisons. It will also unclog
> > > to a degree our over taxed court system. But it won't stop people that
> > > are predisposed to stealing to get what they want, from stealing to
> > > get what they want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > i agree... it wont stop kleptos but i was not talking about kleptos...
> > anyway... at least we agree that decriminalizing drugs would better
> > than our current "war on drugs"  so long as the plan is well thought
> > out.  i also think whores should be legal in all of the states too.
>
> What an incredible coincidence, I too am in favor of legalizing
> whoring.
>
> Say, you by chance wouldn't happen to also be a Jets fan?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

yes im a jet fan and no, i'm not on drugs :-) and i suspect many of
us educated and reasonable northeasterners have the same practical and
wordly view of how to deal with vice.


== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 10:09 pm
From: Ritchie


On Nov 16, 9:37 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 7:35 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nobody deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they get" under *any*
> circumstances.

They don't deserve sympathy either.

> In the example you cite, we're talking about a woman being beaten/
> abused by her boyfriend/husband. That's the most obvious and easiest
> example of this position to get and should be apparent.

She can leave and decides to stay, my sympathy only goes so far.

> A more difficult example to wrap one's head around would be that even
> a violent criminal doesn't deserve "every bit of pain and anguish they
> get" even after being arrested and convicted.

Yes, they do deserve every bit of it.

> Yeah, that's right, even criminals have rights.  And despite some of
> our emotional responses to horrid events, when you later (not self
> defense) beat somebody to within an inch of their life, in retaliation
> for them beating you or a loved one within an inch of your/their life,
> you'd be just as guilty as the instigator.

True, even in the law there comes a point where the defender after
overcoming the assault becomes the aggressor.

> That's as applied to a civilian. As it applies to police, or prison
> quards, etc., are there not rules against excessive use of force?
>
> As it applies to our courts, are there not rules against cruel and
> unusual punishment?  Even when we execute a killer, we are *supposed*
> to do so in as humane a manner as possible.

I don't agree with this at all. I believe that the person executed
should face the same type of situation the victim did.

> Despite what our government did in Iraq, our country and its
> constitution doesn't sanction torture or cruel and unusual punishment
> - because we are supposed to be civilized people.

I don't have a problem with what we did in Iraq. The only problem is
that we didnt finish it because we have rules we must obey.

> Like I said, *nobody* deserves "every bit of pain and anguish they
> get" under *any* circumstances.-

That's your opinion and I have mine and we are both entitled to it.


== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 10:17 pm
From: Ritchie


On Nov 16, 9:45 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Listen you fucking NE idiot, I am NOT justifing the abuse of people!
>
> You are aware, officer, that this very statement of yours is abusive,
> yes?

No longer an officer but I see that you are one of those that words
can be abusive. Are you the sensitive, caring and cry at sad movies
also type?
>
> > I
> > am stating that if they stay in an abusive relationship then they
> > deserve what they get!
>
> No, they don't *ever* deserve being abused.

Yes they do. They deserve it for being stupid enough to stay

> > As a police officer I would gladly arrest those
> > abusing others but the idiots almost always dropped the charges.
>
> Maybe you should have been arresting thugs with higher caliber
> victims?

Maybe the victims should stand on their own 2 feet and realize that
they need to make it stop by testifying and not dropping the charges.

> > I
> > cant have sympathy for anyone who creates their own misery.
>
> The person being beaten isn't creating the beating, the person doing
> the beating is.

They are adding to it and allowing it by staying.

>
> > I dont
> > expect people from NE to understand given their very low intelligence
> > levels so read into this what you will.
>
> Your original statement was *obviously* abusive. *This* statement is
> bigoted.
>
> > I'm done responding to
> > something that was created because a moron forgot to pull out, or
> > better yet not fuck an ugly woman in the first place!

Sorry it was meant to be insulting

> It would seem from the way you express yourself that you could be the
> poster child for why people hate the police.

Only stupid people. Actually I was very well liked in my patrol
neighborhood because I kept things somewhat safer. Because sometimes
to enforce the law, you have to break the law. And anyone that doesnt
realize this is living on fantasy Island.

> And before you lash out at me with abusive and bigoted remarks, let me
> notify you that I'm not one of the "police haters," I support the men
> and women in law enforcement in general.

Everyone says this but never really means it.

> It's abuse and bigotry I have a problem with ya see, because *nobody*
> deserves that . . .

It depends.

== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 10:24 pm
From: Ritchie


On Nov 16, 9:48 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:48 pm, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never been known for my compassion for my fellow
> > man.
>
> Honest and straight up question please . . . then why in the hell did
> you become a cop??

Family tradition and I looked up to them and wanted to be one. When on
patrol and the victims needed compassion I would have my partner speak
to them. In most police partner relationships you have the one that
does the talking while the other observes the scene and watches
reactions of those involved and is ready to intervene on a moments
notice. Sometimes he or she gets involved because for some reason the
victim can relate to him or her better than the other officer and it's
understandable, that's where what was learned in social science comes
into play It would surprise you to know that most people out there
that become police officers don't want to be one. They do it for the
retirement and medical benefits.


== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 10:26 pm
From: Ritchie


On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 8:57 am, Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> >  >I have never ever
>
> > > used any illegal drug or smoked pot in my life so I have a higher
> > > standard to judge people by. I always wanted to be in law enforcement
> > > when I grew up so I held myself to a higher standard and I am proud of
> > > this fact.
>
> > I  have never done any illegal drugs either including pot.  Still.. My
> > problem with pot is that it is illegal and not so much that it will
> > cause people health or social problems if they smoke it.  I think it
> > is stupid that pot is against the law.  Tobacco and booze are more
> > damaging than pot.  IMHO, legalizing drugs and controlling them is the
> > only way to deal with the drug problem.  The "war on drugs" is a
> > joke.  A very wasteful one for the tax payer and a needlessly
> > dangerous one for law enforcement.
>
> I and the majority of law enforcement personnel in the US agrees with
> that sentiment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Really, you know that for a fact? I know of many, from several
different departments that do not.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Mark Sanchez is a series of contradictory statements"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/fc90c13faa8f7545?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 6:57 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 1:57 pm, Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> FOers rates the QB performances of the week.
>
> http://www.footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2010/quick-reads-week-10
> ~~~~~
>
> 1. Tom Brady ...
>
> 2. Kyle Orton ...
>
> 3. Michael Vick
> .....
>
> 10. Mark Sanchez
>
> Mark Sanchez is a series of contradictory statements.
>
> Sanchez is lucky because the Browns dropped two interceptions in the
> red zone, including an Abram Elam pick that the Browns safety treated
> like a hand grenade.
>
> Sanchez is unlucky because Nick Folk turned three of his drives into
> zero points.
>
> Sanchez is clutch because he hit Santonio Holmes for a game-winning
> touchdown with 24 seconds left; he isn't clutch because it took him
> four drives to get there.
>
> The one interception he actually did end up throwing was a good
> matchup (Braylon Edwards vs. Joe Haden) well downfield on third-and-
> long. If you compare that throw to his near-picks, it was by far the
> best decision of the three.
>
> He also did an excellent Ben Roethlisberger impression late in the
> game, working his way out of two sure sacks to pick up a pair of first
> downs, and he picked up a rushing touchdown in the second quarter.
>
> It was a good performance that could have been much better or much
> worse.
> ~~~~
>
> FWIW

I was thinking about what well known QB's that Sanchez is most like.
Vick is not the one IMHO. Sanchez has passing in mind. Vick was a
guy that had running gains in mind.

Here is who I think Sanchez is like...

First, I think a bit about Steve Young. Both Young and Sanchez could
move and had a feel for the pocket. But then again... Not alike.
Thus far, Steve Young's passing appears to be more consistent while
Sanchez does not look perfect all the time. He throws an amazing pass
and he can also throw some bad ones that you probably would not see
Young throw. I have a feeling that Sanchez will continue to play that
way. Occasional stinkekers. BUT... I see Sanchez and doing the right
things when he has to. Almost in an uncanny manner. Also.... His
escape ability and the way he gets a pass off just after he gets out
of what looks to be a sure sack. Does not look so much like Young or
Vick. Almost like there is more instinct and if you will, fools luck
to Sanchez. IMHO, the guy that Sanchez reminds me most of is
Stabler. Sanchez is a more athletic and graceful Stabler without the
booze.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nice knowing you peeps
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f4b078ea7252f97d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:25 pm
From: John McSorley


On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:43:17 -0800 (PST), John McSorley <tutesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 8:01 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >wrote:
> >> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ><snip>
>
> >You guys crack me up...The Jets are doing as well as they have been in
> >the last 12 years or so, and you're here
> >arguing about who is responsible for why the Jets aren't winning
> >"better". So you guys resort to ad hominem attacks, whining, and
> >threats to leave a.s.f.p.nyj. Just stop for a day, take a deep breath,
> >and look at what you are writing...very silly. I expect
> >more from you guys :)
>
> >JM
>
> There ya go, John!
> Do you lurk, often?
> How 'bout adding your football insights, too.
> The more the merrier  ;)

Insights? I'm just a Pats homer...but that group went south, so I lurk
here during the season.
I've been doing it since the Border War started, so I know how long
some of you guys have
been hanging here...I do miss Jensen, he was a master troll....Mr.
Dude should Google
some of his posts and take notes.

Here's my insight (or foresight): Pats will lose the Gillette game to
the Jets, 34-28, but the Jets will
lose to *Oakland* after the bye. Listen Up! I played Left Tackle and
Defensive Line in 8th Grade....
you guys just watch TV! :D

JM

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:29 pm
From: buRford


On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:25:09 -0800 (PST), John McSorley <tutescrew@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 2:05�pm, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:43:17 -0800 (PST), John McSorley <tutesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 15, 8:01 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >You guys crack me up...The Jets are doing as well as they have been in
>> >the last 12 years or so, and you're here
>> >arguing about who is responsible for why the Jets aren't winning
>> >"better". So you guys resort to ad hominem attacks, whining, and
>> >threats to leave a.s.f.p.nyj. Just stop for a day, take a deep breath,
>> >and look at what you are writing...very silly. I expect
>> >more from you guys :)
>>
>> >JM
>>
>> There ya go, John!
>> Do you lurk, often?
>> How 'bout adding your football insights, too.
>> The more the merrier �;)
>
>Insights? I'm just a Pats homer...but that group went south, so I lurk
>here during the season.
>I've been doing it since the Border War started, so I know how long
>some of you guys have
>been hanging here...I do miss Jensen, he was a master troll....Mr.
>Dude should Google
>some of his posts and take notes.
>
>Here's my insight (or foresight): Pats will lose the Gillette game to
>the Jets, 34-28, but the Jets will
>lose to *Oakland* after the bye. Listen Up! I played Left Tackle and
>Defensive Line in 8th Grade....
>you guys just watch TV! :D
>
>JM

Yeah, I thought your name was familiar... jeepers another Pats troll... mon dieu.
I think we're going to have to start busing Jets fans in here, from disadvantaged web
chats ;)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To the Schott Haters
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/b9f1a4d20e6b445b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:47 pm
From: MZ


On 11/16/2010 5:56 PM, JetsLife wrote:
> (and I'm undecided if I still am one - I used to be BIG TIME - this
> year I've been trying to focusing on actual results):
>
> I think what many of you are reacting to is the downright conservatism
> of the Jets offense. It's a run-heavy, run-based offense. So it's
> going to be SLOW going much of the time, seemingly plodding, grind it
> out. It ain't sexy, and it ain't always going to light up the
> scoreboard. It's going to do what it's going to do, and that's grind
> out yardage matriculating the ball down the field.

That, already, is a bad strategy. The gameplan should reflect (at least
in part) the opponent. The square peg round hole stuff was Mangini's
achilles heel, and Schott might have the same weakness.

Although I still think his weakness is situational stuff moreso than big
picture stuff. As you point out, big picture stuff may not be his
responsibility anyway.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 9:06 pm
From: Michael


On Nov 16, 8:56 pm, JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> (and I'm undecided if I still am one - I used to be BIG TIME - this
> year I've been trying to focusing on actual results):
>
> I think what many of you are reacting to is the downright conservatism
> of the Jets offense. It's a run-heavy, run-based offense. So it's
> going to be SLOW going much of the time, seemingly plodding, grind it
> out. It ain't sexy, and it ain't always going to light up the
> scoreboard. It's going to do what it's going to do, and that's grind
> out yardage matriculating the ball down the field.
>
> And we all know one rotund Jets head coach who loves nothing more than
> that. Rex wants to impose his team's will on the other team on both
> sides of the ball. Physical smashmouth football.
>
> I totally feel you on the seeming lack of rhythm, Schott pulling plays
> out of his ass, going away from something that's consistently working.
> I mean I do feel that sometimes.
>
> But methinks you'd be much happier if the Jets moved the ball down the
> field in *larger chunks* and *more importantly* were more lethal in
> the red zone. To me that's our glaring offensive weakness: we're not
> punching it in enough inside the red zone. Plus all the freaking
> penalties offensively - many of which have occurred in opposing
> territory and the red zone - have been hurting us.
>
> My other smaller gripe is I want more of Shonn Greene: early and
> throughout. Not that LT hasn't been very good - and what a receiving
> weapon out of the back field - but I'm just a huge Greene fan. What he
> did last season - particularly late when were 7-7 thru his injury in
> the AFC Championship Game - was awesome. He's just a bull.

i dont hate him. i think he sucks at his job


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 9:11 pm
From: "JKConey"

"JetsLife" <JetsLife@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00675d45-b455-482b-85ed-fa6b7cd113d2@j9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> (and I'm undecided if I still am one - I used to be BIG TIME - this
> year I've been trying to focusing on actual results):
>
> I think what many of you are reacting to is the downright conservatism
> of the Jets offense. It's a run-heavy, run-based offense.


What games are you watching? I see a young inaccurate QB called on to
throw it 40 times. Maybe he can't read, maybe he doesn't give them enough
time, or maybe these guys just can't get open.


www.myconeyislandmemories.com


==============================================================================
TOPIC: You know, I just thought of somthing...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/9708005bbb7a9096?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 8:50 pm
From: Michael


The Jets have the best record in football

The Jets are undefeated in the division

The Jets are ranked number one on many of the power rankings

The commentators are calling the Jets a super bowl favorite

The Jets QB is proving out to be a talent.

The Jets have a new and most expensive stadium in the NFL

The Jets are fun to watch and to follow

And still... We are still in here squeezing each other's plums...
LOL.

What the hell do those psych guys call that shit ??? "learned
helplessness" or somthing like that.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 9:49 pm
From: Grinch


On Nov 16, 11:50 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The Jets have the best record in football
>
> The Jets are undefeated in the division
>
> The Jets are ranked number one on many of the power rankings
>
> The commentators are calling the Jets a super bowl favorite
>
> The Jets QB is proving out to be a talent.
>
> The Jets have a new and most expensive stadium in the NFL
>
> The Jets are fun to watch and to follow
>
> And still... We are still in here squeezing each other's plums...
> LOL.
>
> What the hell do those psych guys call that shit ??? "learned
> helplessness" or somthing like that.

Exactly.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Skins extend McNabb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8477987642707996?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 9:08 pm
From: "JKConey"

"Harlan Lachman" <harlan@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-339950.17050616112010@news60.forteinc.com...
> In article <DNydnXR1WtQvGH_RnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> cloud dreamer <Save@Resources.now> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2010 3:41 AM, JKConey wrote:
>> >
>> > "Harlan Lachman" <harlan@eeivt.com> wrote in message
>> > news:harlan-BEB455.20500815112010@news60.forteinc.com...
>> >> In article <ibsb0d$k7i$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> "JKConey" <jkconey@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:ibs5n9$3lq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >>> > 5 years $78 million.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > damn!.
>> >>> > 5 years? no way he'll be viable then.
>> >>> > he's close to done now. 2 years more at best
>> >>> >
>> >>> > the Skins are crazed if you ask me.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm sure it's not guaranteed, so he can get cut tomorrow and get
>> >>> zilch.
>> >>
>> >> JK, reports indicate $40 million is guaranteed. That is three years at
>> >> top dollar for a guaranteed for a 33 or 34 year Qb without a single
>> >> year
>> >> of getting his new team to the playoffs. Dumbest.
>> >>
>> >> h
>> >
>> >
>> > If true that's gotta be insane, especially after him getting "insulted"
>> > and benched.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> After last night's performance, they should ask for their money back.
>>
>> ..
>
> This might be an agent's report of his own wet dream. Mort on Mike and
> Mike reported only $10 mil is guaranteed for one year. Given there is no
> chance of their getting the top two Qbs in the draft, no one on the
> roster worth starting, this ensures they have someone if there is or is
> not a season at a reasonable rate.
>
> However, if the guarantee is $40 mil or locks in with his first game in
> 2011, Snyder should be institutionalized.
>
> harlan


I just heard the guarantee may be as little as $3.5.... who knows?


--

www.myconeyislandmemories.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 16 2010 9:59 pm
From: Ritchie

>      I just heard the guarantee may be as little as $3.5.... who knows?

In the contract the Redskins have an out at the end of this season. If
they (really Shanahan) don't feel it is working out they can cancel
it. I think Shanahan will most likely do that cause its obvious that
its not working out.


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC