Jump to content

Mikey4

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    1432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mikey4

  1. I think you're splitting hairs. OP didn't say Sark was perfect. He's made mistakes. But overall, I'm happy with how he did in year 2. He should have beaten Alabama. We pulverized 0u. All losses within one possession. Let's see if he builds on it in year 3.
  2. Yes, I think so. The roster he inherited was not his fault. The injuries to an already thin roster were not his fault. If you look at the things he was responsible for -- recruiting, developing, and retaining talent, and winning the winnable games -- he has done well. I wouldn't say perfect, but well.
  3. It was a "bad conference" in the sense that Art Fucking Briles sabotaged us to keep us out of the running.
  4. Can't they just put a 3* TE at offensive tackle? /nomackbrown
  5. Yes, that's why the fans are so impressed with what Sark has done here. It's also why he's in the hot seat.
  6. I'm sorry, this is wrong. Before you accused me of sympathizing with him, I had already said his views are abhorrent and should be condemned. Either you didn't read what I wrote or, perhaps worse, you read it and posted what you did anyway. Yes, people across the political spectrum can have repulsive views. I can't believe this is even debatable. Here are a few: "I want the entire world to burn until the last cop is strangled with the intestines of the last capitalist." "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. . . . Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him." “I’m not wishing for it… but I’d be ok if #BetsyDevos was sexually assaulted.” Calling the Holocaust a “hoax” and “invented,” and saying that Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means.” As Queen Elizabeth II was dying: "May her pain be excruciating." None of these statements has any role in mainstream discourse. If I'm slow to respond, it's because I'm busy and do not have the interest or time to sit behind a keyboard and have an Internet debate over this stuff -- especially when you're not reading (or reading but choosing to ignore) my positions.
  7. I negged you because I didn't say any of those things, that's emphatically not who I am, and it's insulting for you to accuse me of holding those views. I said his views are abhorrent and he should be condemned for holding them. Somehow you construed that to mean that I agree with him. That's why I negged you.
  8. This is basically how I see it, except that CFB is strange and unpredictable. Our 2008 team was the best team in the country, but one fluke road game kept us from winning it all. Shit happens sometimes. If we don't at least win the conference this year, then I'll be pissed, but I'll want to know what happened. Was it scheme or play calling?Or did we have bad luck with injuries and get jobbed by refs? The former would be on Sark, but the latter, not necessarily so.
  9. Would people be complaining if he wrote for left-wing websites? Edit: whoa, that's a lot of "fuck yous." To he clear, I'm not condoning his abhorrent views. He should be condemned for holding them, just as a progressive professor taking abhorrent stances should be called out for doing so. But this is devolving intona CR cesspool, so I don't expect to get any traction on trying to be even handed. Edit 2: Yeah, I'm not going to read or respond to all this shit individually. I'll leave it at this: 1) If you would tolerate abhorrent views because the speaker generally aligns with your politics, then that's on you, and I don't care if you give me the finger for calling you out. 2) If you're attacking some other argument that I didn't make, then you're fighting a strawman, so have fun with that and enjoy the circle jerk and internet points.
  10. So we now have 2 (I think) videos showing this material levitating or partially levitating over a magnet. Assuming those aren't hoaxes, is there any alternative scientific explanation for that phenomenon? Like, "this isn't a superconductor, but instead is XYZ, which can produce a similar levitating effect?"
  11. There should be a simple solution: the military enters into a contract with StarLink that requires StarLink to keep the service turned on and contains a clause that allows the government to enforce the contract by specific performance. Also, as long as StarLink is being paid, I don't know what incentive it would have to turn off the service. StarLink is a company and is in business to make money. It maximizes its return by selling a service, not by turning it off and driving customers away.
  12. Explain this line of reasoning to me. No one expects any other military contractor or private company to donate equipment or services for the war. The Pentagon pays for it. Why should StarLink be different? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you're making.
  13. Here is the phenomenon: people have used their imaginations to make shit up for a really long time.
  14. This is all probably bullshit, but the primary claim is that Italy recovered the craft during WWII, and the U.S. learned about it and worked with the Vatican to obtain it somehow.
  15. I'd love for this to be true. But when confronting exceptional claims, what is more likely? That we've secretly recovered alien spaceships with dead aliens inside, and no hard evidence of the recovery has ever escaped? Or that this guy talked to someone whom he finds to he credible and convincing, but in fact his source is mistaken, exaggerating, or flat out lying? The hearsay element of this, combined with the extreme nature of the claims, makes me very skeptical.
  16. Derail alert: I'm in the "that" camp. Over the years, I've read a lot of writing by the anti-that crowd, and removing all the thats is what I find distracting and borderline unreadable. Why? It differs from 80%+ of what I'm reading. So I stumble over awkward clauses and then remember, "oh yeah, this guy is deleting all the thats," mentally re-insert the missing that, and then continue. Situationally, it can be OK, especially if you have a real need for efficiency, but normally there's no need to delete every "that" in a peice of writing.
  17. This is why every man needs an offset smoker and a brisket every Saturday during cfb season. Get the fire going before your wife wakes up. "Oh no, I really want to go to the 6 year old's birthday party, but I can't leave the fire unattended!"
  18. As a preface, I'm pretty convinced that the crafts spotted by pilots have terrestrial explanations and that the whistlebower's claims will be debunked with investigation. But to address your question.... Think about the steps of the Drake equation. We should expect that habitable planets are more common than planets with life, planets with life are more common than planets with intelligent life, and, probably, planets with intelligent life are more common than planets with intelligent life and the capability to detect and shoot down spacecraft. So assume that an intelligent civilization studies star systems like we do -- detects exoplanets and does spectral analyses to look for chemical signatures consistent with life -- and then sends scouts out to explore interesting planets. They may do this for thousands of years or longer without ever encountering planets in that last category -- where intelligent life could detect and shoot down their crafts. In that case, it would be logical for the crafts not be equipped with stealth tech... because why would they need it?
  19. Yeah, barring some behind the scenes infighting that hasn't been reported, I'd say give that man a blank check.
×
×
  • Create New...