Wednesday Open Thread

I'll be working all day (and probably tomorrow as well.) Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexico : U.S. Can Have El Chapo in About 300 Years
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From our "Patriot Games" file: (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:24:51 AM EST
    Let the flamethrowing commence again. Analyst Warren Sharp continues to press his increasingly compelling case that the deflated football controversy currently enveloping the New England Patriots on the eve of their appearance in Super Bowl XLIX was likely not just a one-time occurrence in last week's AFC championship game, but rather has been an ongoing issue with the team since 2007.

    Specifically, he further examines in detail the precipitous and suspicious decline in the overall number of fumbles committed per season by the Patriots versus the rest of the league's teams, after Tom Brady and Peyton Manning successfully lobbied the NFL in 2006 to allow teams to supply their own footballs both at home and on the road:

    "Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you'd expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5842 instances.

    "Which in layman's terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it's very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game."

    If all this is indeed true -- and the statistics provided by Sharp strongly suggest that his findings are not merely a matter of coincidence -- then the Patriots are clearly undermining the integrity of the NFL's product with their chicanery, and league officials need to act.


    And what I found interesting is that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    when he looked beyond just the Patriots' performance, and included the other teams in the league, the anomaly didn't go away.

    Watched Inside the NFL last night, and they showed how little time it takes to take a football from 12.5 psi to 10.5 psi - and that the difference can be felt.

    Wonder if there's any pre-game/equipment guy videotape from the other Patriots' games...???


    Trial by Bombast & Innuendo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    When Errorbars Hit Mainstream News

    The NFL recently hired physicists at Columbia to help make the case for science with the football fiasco, but I think that's unnecessary: a few good experiments with temperature and friction and lots of measurements by lots of different pressure gauges will empirically demonstrate how much of a range we might expect from such things. In other words, understanding errorbars.

    In fact, I heard quite a few people call in to ESPN radio over the past week trying to explain to the sports radio hosts what might be going on scientifically, only to be hung up on. The truth is, it's not as interesting a story to think about it just happening outside our control. It messes with our sense of omnipotence and control.

    This is bad news for society, as more and more things become "datafied" and as we assume that will translate into perfect information.

    I've been reading MathBabe's blog for a number of years and, as an old engineer, recommend her writing, especially re statistics.


    Maybe I'm always thinking too much like a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    and not like a scientist, but isn't the issue here whether the footballs were deflated in violation of the rules (i.e., whether one team was cheating) and not whether deflating the footballs would give one team an actual advantage over the other? I mean, the latter question is interesting, but it should be of no moment in an investigation of whether a team is due to be sanctioned for cheating.  (It's not like there's a plagiarism defense that goes, "Sure I copied from that other kid's paper, but her paper turned out not to be as good as I thought it would be.")

    You're correct. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    Yes, purposely deflating a football below regulation pressure is against the rules. And that's what is at issue here, not any supposed advantaged derived by the Patriots when playing with them.

    That said, Warren Sharp is seeking an explanation as to why the Patriots -- and only the Patriots -- have been consistently fumbling well below the league's average since 2007, when teams were first allowed to bring and play with their own footballs while on offense during game time.

    Regarding your other point, it's been further noted that New England only scored 17 points on offense during the first half when the balls were underinflated, but then rang up 28 points in the second half once the officials had re-inflated them to regulation pressure.

    Therefore, one could also argue -- and it has been argued -- that for the AFC championship game at least, whatever "advantage" an underinflated football might have offered the Patriots that day was due more to that team's own psychological perceptions, than any actual reality.



    Sharp also cautioned us about (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    small data sets.

    He considers a single season to be too small, I wonder what he would say about 1/2 of one game.


    It's very strange, Peter, watching (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    people rush to judgement, especially here, where we are constantly reminded by Jeralyn to wait for the evidence, and even more important, since this is a blog and we are unlikely to ever see, hear, smell, or touch the evidence, to refrain from judging, period.

    Anybody who wants to prove the Patriots cheated is free to build a case.  So far, we've had plenty of hypotheses but none proven.  Even the few facts we're given are fuzzy.  First reports were that 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under at halftime.  Then we're told that only one ball was maybe 2 psi under and the other ten, only 1 psi under.  And for comparison?  Nothing.  According to the Google cached copy of the previous story, no measurement of the Colt's balls was taken synchronously with the halftime measurements of the Patriot footballs.

    Although the case is about air, it cannot be proven with hot air.


    You are Misrepresenting People... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    ...and policy.  It is not 'rush to judgement policy' it's an 'innocent until proven guilty' policy.  For anything non-defendant related, that policy does not apply.

    For a game you dislike, don't seem to know much about, you sure have an opinion about it how infractions should be processed by fans.  It's the NFL, there will be no court date, no proof is needed to pass judgement or punishment and most importantly, no one will be imprisoned.

    Which is precisely why anyone can make any judgement here about the NFL.  I would also add that the proof that has been represented may not meet the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but it does meet the NFL's burden of proof, which is 'no proof needed', so please stop implying that they are one in the same.

    If you are going to keep insisting on no 'rush to judgement' then at least have the decency to abide by your own ridiculous notions and stop rushing to judgement of others and the game you dislike.


    The Argument... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    ...originally made was yes there were low pressure balls, but the atmosphere was responsible, not a human being.  Like car tires, the argument was it was scientifically possible for a football to lose 2lbs of air at the temperatures they played, or so many Boston fans claimed.

    It lasted a day, maybe, because they tested both teams balls, only one's pressure decreased for 11 of 12 balls.  But seems like they are still pushing it, which to me is what the NFL wants, an excuse to take the investigation beyond Sunday.

    At this point, as you mentioned, they have determined rules were broken, that link was more in tune with the information available 9 days ago.  Now they have guy on video taking the balls into the equipment room for 90 seconds.

    Plus of course, it's the NFL, not court, they don't have to actually prove anything to discipline.

    If the argument was advantage, surely the score proved the Pats scored more points with properly inflated balls, well over double.  The under-inflated balls were removed at halftime, Pats had 17, at game end they had 45.


    But MathBabe's post says nothing about ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    ... the controversy, and is mostly a lament about how nobody is paying attention to science anymore. While I'd agree with her about that, her reference to the NFL is merely tangential.

    Perhaps all these people who are pointing so frantically to the science of air pressure and temperature in their quest to exonerate the Patriots, might want to also explain how the cold weather only managed to affect the footballs on the Patriots' sideline in Foxboro, while simultaneously leaving unaffected the Colts' footballs on the other side of the field.

    Or maybe we're to then assume that some sort of mysterious and divine provenance was somehow at work against Bill Belichick and Tom Brady on that day, not unlike how the Angel of Death passed over the houses of the Israelites in the Book of Exodus while on its way to kill the firstborn sons of their Egyptian captors.

    Sorry, but given their past behavior, New England does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here.



    You haven't proven any of that, Donald. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    So far you haven't provided anything but bombast and innuendo to make your case, enhancing it by smearing the motives of anybody, like me, who dares question your great outgassing of hot air by asking for the methods and empirical data supporting your suppositions.

    I've forwarded a couple of pieces of explanation.  In response, you've offered little but rote appeals to authority, the classic logical fallacy.

    I don't have any skin in this game.  I don't give a damn about either team.  American style football is a stupid brutal sport.


    If you "have no skin in the game" ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    ... and you don't care about football, then why comment about it?

    All I've done is link to some statistical information from Sharp that I found compelling. People can read it and decide for themselves regarding its veracity.

    I'm not an engineer like you, but I'm also not stupid, either. I was a biology dual major (with history) as an undergraduate, and I think I know enough about science to realize when someone's not making a convincing case. The basic facts of the case are roughly as follows:

    • Because both the Patriots and the Colts were playing outside at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA that day, both teams and their respective equipment were simultaneously exposed to the same temperatures and weather elements.

    • Per league rules, NFL officials first examined all 24 footballs from both teams prior to kickoff, and then did so again at halftime, after suspicions about ball deflation had been conveyed to them during the first half of play.

    • Upon that second examination, those officials determined that 11 of the Patriots' 12 footballs were significantly underinflated by as much as 15% below regulation, while every single one of the Colts' dozen footballs had remained at the required regulation pressure.

    Therefore, those persons who are seeking to offer a scientific rationale for what happened to the Patriots' footballs that day need to also explain how only the footballs on the Patriots' side of the field were affected thusly by the outside air temperature, while the Colts' footballs were not.

    I happen to think that's a very fair question to ask of those who are insisting that there's a valid and logical scientific explanation here. And if neither you nor any other person can answer it to my satisfaction, then all of your huffing and puffing and threatening to blow my house down is hardly going to convince me otherwise.

    I'm not the only one here or elsewhere who thinks that somebody tampered with those footballs. The evidence that we've seen thus far strongly suggests that it was human intervention, rather than atmospheric phenomena, which caused the Patriots' footballs to become significantly underinflated after their first examination by officials prior to kickoff.

    But as of this moment, we just don't yet know who did it, because nobody is thus far willing to step forward and take responsibility for the deed.



    If you tell me that any of the footballs (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    used by the Colts that day were registering lower than the mandated 12.5 psi, I'm happy to put this all off on air temps and contraction/expansion, etc.  Or if you can tell me that the Colts kept their footballs next to the heater on the sidelines, and the Patriots didn't, then there may be a case for why the pressure in one team's footballs differed significantly from the other team's.

    Since these are explanations that are eminently obvious even to the non-scientists who still remember from their elementary school science - or Seinfeld - that heat expands things and cold contracts them, I have to believe these were the first possibilities considered as an explanation.  In other words, if you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse.  I think they looked for the horse, and failing to identify it as the source of the hoofbeats, are now considering it could be a zebra - and not the kind wearing a referee uniform.

    Is there an explanation for the Pats' startlingly good - low - stats on fumbling as a percentage of plays?  Is it possible that, in the years since teams were allowed to provide their own balls, that there's an explanation that doesn't involve playing with a tampered ball?  Is there an explanation for these numbers to be so consistently low regardless of when and where and under what conditions the games were being played - indoors, outside, cold, heat, rain?

    I don't know that anyone has any answers, other than those who may have been involved, if this was a case of equipment tampering.  But what we do know doesn't lend itself to accepting the Pats' denials as the last word.


    I'm not a scientist (none / 0) (#46)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:35:54 PM EST
     and don't have the data necessary to analyze if I was.

      One thing that would be interesting to test is how long it would take footballs that had stored in a relatively hot environment, prior to the inspection, to cool internally sufficiently to have the pressure drop below the acceptable minimum limit.

      For example, I inflate a football so it is below  the acceptable limit at "room temperature." I then put the balls in a very hot environment long enough that the internal temperature of the football increases enough that the pressure is within the acceptable limits.

      If I then removed the balls from the hot environment shortly prior to the inspection, could I "fool them?" You could do the math to an extent based on gas laws but without knowing the insulating properties of a football and the times involved  you don't have enough information for a complete answer. I also have no idea whether a quick cold rub of the balls would make the outer surface not feel suspiciously warm without reducing the inner temperature, etc.

       In short, is it possible the Pats could be both telling the truth (we didn't tamper with balls after they were inspected) and within the letter, if not spirit, of the rules (if there is no rule regulating the manner in which balls are to be stored prior to inspection?



    NASA - Day of Remembrance is Today (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    NASA will pay will tribute to the crews of Apollo 1 and space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, as well as other NASA colleagues, during the agency's annual Day of Remembrance Wednesday, Jan. 28.

    NASA's Day of Remembrance honors members of the NASA family who lost their lives while furthering the cause of exploration and discovery. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and other agency senior officials will hold an observance and wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.


    I had no idea they did this every year, but very grateful there are people willing to risk their lives to better humanity.

    Parachute failure 1967
    - Vladimir Komarov

    Decompression 1971

    • Georgi Dobrovolski
    • Viktor Patsayev
    • Vladislav Volkov

    Vehicle disintegration during launch 1986
    • Greg Jarvis
    • Christa McAuliffe
    • Ronald McNair
    • Ellison Onizuka
    • Judith Resnik
    • Michael J. Smith

    Vehicle disintegration on re-entry 2003
    • Rick D. Husband
    • William McCool
    • Michael P. Anderson
    • David M. Brown
    • Kalpana Chawla
    • Laurel B. Clark
    • Ilan Ramon
    • Dick Scobee

    Training/Test Related can be found HERE.

    In 1986 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    I was in my senior year of high school, sitting in Mrs. Sogge's 5th hour speech class when the principal came over the PA and made an announcement about the Challenger.

    Wow - can't believe it's been so long.

    And how old that makes me!


    You feel old? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    You're not old, I'm old.
    I was a Girl Scout leader back then.  We had a meeting that day, and naturally enough, the girls knew about the disaster and wanted to talk about it, so we did.
    Then I had them stand in a circle as we sang "Taps" ("Day is Done, Gone the Sun").

    I was playing cards (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    with some friends when another friend dropped by and casually said that the Challenger had exploded. I was engrossed in the game and it took me a second before I thought, "wait, what?"

    I'm no fan of Reagan and never have been, but I thought his speech that day was fine, moving and honorable.

    Wait.. there are words to Taps?


    Yes, there are (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    Although the lyrics were created later.  

    Day is done, gone the sun
    From the lakes, from the hills, from the sky
    All is well, safely rest
    God is nigh.

    Fading light dims the sight
    And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
    From afar, drawing near
    Falls the night.

    Thanks and praise for our days
    Neath the sun, neath the stars, neath the sky
    As we go, this we know
    God is nigh.

    Lyrics written by Horace Lorenzo Trim

    It was often sung at Girl Scout (and Boy Scout, too, I think) meetings and encampments.
    I don't know if the Girl Scouts still sing this, but they did 30 years ago.


    I can confirm the BS still sing it today. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    We held our meetings (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    in the local elementary school.  
    That day, as the girls were singing "Taps," some of the teachers going by in the hallway stopped to listen to us, and those who knew the words sang along.
    By the time we were done, everyone was crying.

    I had a 2 1/2 yr old on my hip and was (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    about to find out I was pregnant with our second child - who turned 28 in October.

    Where does the time go?


    Thought you were a decade younger than me (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    But I was only a sophomore in college in 1986. You learn something new every day.

    Just turned 46 (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    Almost 3 weeks ago.

    I'm old enough (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    to be your mother.
    Told you that you weren't old.  I'm the old one.   ;-)

    Nah (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    An older sister, maybe.  :)

    I Was in 10th Grade... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    ...and my locker mate told me between classes.  I don't remember an announcement or anything at school.

    I could point to that spot, almost 30 years later, to where I was standing when he told me.  Which is odd considering I don't remember thinking it was a huge deal until I got home and saw my parents, they were never home when I got home.


    Also, we should remember ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    ... astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chafee of NASA's never-completed Apollo 1 mission,, who were killed in January 1967 when their command module caught fire and burned during a routine launch pad exercise, only 25 days before they were to actually launch into orbit.

    Thank you for posting this, Scott. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:17:43 AM EST
    Just one minor correction. Dick Scobee was not a crewmember on Columbia in 2003. Rather, he served as commander of the Challenger in January 1986.

    Dang... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    ...sorry about that.

    From our "Only in L.A." file: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:33:47 AM EST
    So, where was Batman when she needed him? Likely, he was drinking a pitcher of margaritas with Robin at The Abbey in West Hollywood:

    Los Angeles Times | January 28, 2015
    Mr. Incredible convicted in Hollywood Boulevard brawl with Batgirl - "A man who wears a Mr. Incredible costume to entertain tourists on Hollywood Boulevard was convicted Tuesday of punching and body-slamming a Batgirl during a fight last year. Muhammet Bilik, 35, was convicted of battery and sentenced to a day in jail, three years probation, 20 days of Caltrans work and 36 anger-management classes in connection with the Oct. 22 attack in front of TCL Chinese Theatre that was caught on camera and uploaded to YouTube."

    And sadly, this isn't the first instance of superheroes and lovable children's cartoon characters going astray in the City of the Angels.

    Please join us next time on "Sesame Street After Hours," boys and girls, as Bert and Ernie take us to visit Miss Helena Hanbasquette on the set of her latest video shoot at the Manhole Productions Studios in Reseda, while Kermit and Miss Piggy teach us the importance of knowing how to hold our liquor, as they roll drunks on Santa Monica Blvd.


    I Went to Find the Video... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:16:03 AM EST
    ...for laughs.  Not really funny when you realize a guy assaulted a woman, so I am not posting.  It's hard to tell if the guy is really big, or if it's the costume muscles, but seeing a big dude go after a woman is bothersome.

    Yes, it is disturbing. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:39:27 AM EST
    And to get serious about it for the moment, I think that L.A. city officials have been painfully slow to recognize that the sidewalk solicitations of tourists in Hollywood by individuals seeking to capitalize on the popularity of these characters have become evermore competitive and aggressive. Further, it's been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. They really need to draft and promulgate rules  to regulate this sort of activity, and enforce applicable ordinances to curb disreputable and potentially dangerous behavior.

    How Do You Regulate... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    ...the activity of superheros, the keep trying in Xmen with little luck.

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:42:48 AM EST
    I've lost track over the years as to the overall number of superheroes there actually are in this country.

    Congress and state legislatures need to address the compelling issue of superhero standards because honestly, we can't have just anybody don a cape, mask and set of tights on a whim, and then claim that he or she is a crimefighter worthy of superhero status.

    Otherwise, what happens when someone who's truly in distress puts out an urgent call for a superhero's assistance, only to have this schmuck show up?

    There really oughta be a law, I tell ya.


    "the overall number of superheroes" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    is ZERO.

    Jeez, dude. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    Did the dog eat your sense of humor this morning, along with your homework? You need to go back to bed, and then try getting up on the right side.

    Plus Donald... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    ...there is no way he could know that, ditto for aliens, zombies, and gods...

    Never mind the city... (none / 0) (#48)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    ...why hasn't the MPAA jumped all over these people because of copyright infringement?

    They certainly aren't shy about doing so in other arenas.


    Willie McCool... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    ...is still the best astronaut name ever. RIP to him, and to all those adventurous souls. (Way more adventurous to me, I might add. I'm like Christoper Walker, who, when asked by Jay Mohr what he would rather have, the gift of flight or the tail of a dog, Chris replied without hesistation, "A tail, it's no contest! Come on, you can always get in a plane and fly. But a tail. People could know, without saying a word to you, how to deal with you that day.  

    "Production Asst: 'Uh oh, look out, Chris is in a bad mood today, stay away from him if you can.'

    "Production Asst 2: 'How do you know?"

    "Production Asst: 'Just look at his tail.'"

    No space travel for me!

    Christopher WALKEN (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:01:53 AM EST

    I Was Looking at My Dog... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    ...this weekend thinking the same thing, how different humanity would be if we couldn't hide our emotions.

    I was watching TV, and my dog was on her bed facing the opposite direction.  She was not happy with me, so I did what I always do, gave her some turkey jerky, rubber her belly, and told her what a good dog she is, problem solved, she was facing me and tail was a wagging.  She was happy.

    I looked at the GF and thought, there has got to be an easier way.  And then it hit me, tails would allow us a little insight into what others are thinking.  Not entirely, but just enough to solve so many problems and miscommunications.


    Did you try rubbing the GF's belly? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    Sorry - it's just that that part of your comment cracked me up.

    Think about this for a minute: what if you couldn't speak, or read or write?  What if the only communication tools at your disposal were your facial expressions and your physicality?  And what if the people around you were in the same boat?  If you wanted to communicate, you wouldn't be able to hide your feelings - because they - and the ability to hug someone, or push them out of the way, or turn your back on them would be about all you'd have to get your meaning across.  

    Would there be less misunderstanding?  I don't know - but it might not be as easy and simple as we'd like it to be, and it might not be all better with a special treat and a belly rub.  

    It puts me in mind of babies.  They can't tell you the why of anything - crying could mean anything from "I'm hungry" to "I'm so tired crying is the only way I know how to bleed off enough energy so I can sleep" to "I don't want you to put me down - I like it here in your arms."

    Trial and error - there would be a lot of that.  We'd become mimes, I guess; not a great selling point.  And I don't know that we'd be any better at figuring each other out, but we'd get good at being glad someone got it close enough!


    No, Just a Tail... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    ...tails don't lie.  I don't want to communicate without words, just a gauge to let me know the general mood of people, including myself.  I would have a sign, "When the tail is down, Don't come around."

    I did give another GF some dog treats long ago and told her to hold them, little did I know she though it was a snack.  By the time I got my dog's collar a leash on, the treats were gone.

    I thought it was hilarious, but I did not need a tail to know she was not happy.


    Now, if someone was just scanning (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    Anne's subject line and your subject line without reading the comments themselves, the whole thing could be seriously misconstrued.  To wit:
    "Did you try rubbing the GF's belly?"
    "No, Just a Tail...."
    I mean, ahem.

    Has anything been changed for the SB (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    re: each team controlling their own balls or checking pressure or anything?

    Seems to me that, even if it's just for appearances, the balls should be above suspicion for the big game.

    I'm more interested in this Seahawk god thing (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:45:21 PM EST
    Is there a betting line on how many interceptions god will make Russell Wilson throw to keep the game interesting? And will the betting line only count god induced interceptions as opposed to those that Wilson is responsible for?

    Also, when asked what he's going to do if he wins the Super Bowl, will Marshawn Lynch say he's going to Disney World or will he say "I'm only here so I won't get fined".

    I pulled for the Seahawks last year but these two could be a little too far out there for me this time around.


    I'm not rooting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    For either team.  
    But we'll watch it, anyway, and I'll make my usual, once a year batch of Buffalo wings and St. Louis toasted ravioli.

    Guess I missed the whole God thing, (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    which doesn't hurt my feelings.

    Maybe Disney will have to have the Disney-bound player say, "I'm going to Disney World - right after I get vaccinated for the measles!"


    As a Giants fan I root against the Pats as a rule. As an LA resident I root against Pete Carroll as a rule.

    Decisions, decisions.

    Pretty easy choice really, decision made, I'm rooting for the Seahawks.


    I believe the NFL has said that ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    ... the officiating crew assigned to the Super Bowl would keep all the footballs in their possession throughout the entire game.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    "Like many aspects of our policies and procedures, there are modifications for the Super Bowl," league spokesman Michael Signora said. "At the Super Bowl, the equipment manager of another team [Bears, Tony Medlin] is in charge of the game balls and arranging for the ball attendant crews, which are hired before the Super Bowl teams are determined. The officials will maintain strict control of the game balls for the Super Bowl.