Jump to content

Paul Wesley

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3489 Surly 10%

1 Follower

About Paul Wesley

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 100% this. Yes, maybe the ball moves. But it doesn't touch the ground.
  2. I have yet to see an angle where the ball hits the ground.
  3. I miss Bolden. He took a LOT of chances fielding the ball, but he was also a fucking threat.
  4. Yeah, I thought the biggest question marks were 1) can the transfer DT's just be serviceable vs good running teams, and 2) are the WRs who waited their turns to be starters good enough to threaten a defense? So far: yes, and no. Man, what I would give for Golden, Bolden, Worthy, or Mitchell.
  5. Yeah, our transfer DTs have done a pretty good job, and that felt like the biggest question mark coming into the game. The defense is one poorly-timed penalty from shutting out some of the best skill players in the country. The offense is just terribly out-of-sorts, and given Sark's history of superb pre-game preparation in games like this (Bama, Michigan), that's a massive disappointment.
  6. Yeah, coming off his foot, I thought it was an intentionally-short punt aiming for a boundary. Surprised it carried like that.
  7. Yeah, at the beginning of that drive, they were averaging 6.8 yards per rush and less than 2 yards per completion. And they came out with five wide. Ugh.
  8. Cincinnati has done Nebraska a huge favor by making themselves one-dimensional when there was still two minutes left in the game
  9. Cincinnati goes into the fourth quarter averaging 5.7 yards per rush, yet they only have one touchdown. That seems like bad coaching to me. They're like a bear, with these fangs and these big claws. And they're just saying, "How do I kill the bunny?"
  10. Careful, AUTF. tbone is going to bill you for 75 minutes of work related to this case.
  11. "Creek people" is such ominous shorthand for "kids who lived in the neighborhood and used to sneak out and meet up to drink alcohol." (edit) If that is the criteria, then pretty much everyone on this thread was a member of "vacant lot people," "local park people," "undeveloped wooded area people," etc.
  12. A few random thoughts after episode 3: 1. In a case with both incriminating and exonerating evidence, the filmmaker has a lot of power to influence your opinion. In this case, it seems like Margaret Brown had a shit ton of hours of "confession" footage to pick from, and she could show either the most absurd moments (things that objectively couldn't have been true) or the most incriminating moments to push us either way. 2. The fact that two of the suspects in completely separate interviews told a story about one of them (Scott?) attempting to rape a girl but being unable to "perform".... I mean, that seems like a HIGHLY specific and consistent anecdote where it strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely that each of them just came up with that detail independently. 3. It occurs to me that this might be a case study of the failures of the Reid interview techniques: it generates confessions (often false) from the weaker and arguably less-culpable suspects, but fails to obtain one from a the ringleader/sociopath. There doesn't seem to be any dissent from either these four suspects or from law enforcement or from the "creek people" who casually knew them that Maurice was the "alpha" among these four (though lately that term is wildly overused). 4. My observations in both #2 and #3 might be wholly due to #1.
  13. Really? I don't know anything about that theory, and maybe you know a lot more about this case than I do (which is admittedly not much). But that doesn't ring true to me. It's way more shocking, way more titillating, way more seductive in the way that conspiracies are seductive. But that would be a *big* conspiracy which would require the silence/complicity of a lot more people, which, to me, makes it way less likely than the much simpler theory that "teenage losers" did it and got away with it.
  14. Raider would be an example of "violent people are going to continue to do violent things," right? Maybe that's the point you were making(?). I'm just saying: Sometimes when even the most horrific of crimes is solved, it turns out that the murderer went on to lead a law-abiding life.
  15. To me, that statement feels perfectly analogous to "no one would ever confess to something they didn't do." Both declarations *feel* like they must be true, but they're just not. In this era of DNA evidence solving decades-old crimes, we have seen MANY examples of guys being brought to justice after they had gone on to lead simple and nondescript lives. Many of the murderers who were ultimately discovered and convicted had committed horrific crimes... even family annihilations (John List comes to mind). Many of them later married, attended church, worked stable jobs, raised good kids, etc. The fact that these four guys didn't get convicted of anything violent in the next 20-30 years... I don't think that proves anything one way or another - *especially* for whoever was the stupid "follower(s)" under the influence of an actual sociopath.
×
×
  • Create New...