Soxbadger

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) It's not like Germany had a major standing army to stop Hitler or the Nazi party once is started to gain influence. The country was in shambles for the better part of the 20's and 30's. But even amongst the Nazis the side with the guns lost. The SA controlled by Rohm (military) lost to the SS controlled by Himmler. Once gain, ideas proved more powerful than sheer guns. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/night...long_knives.htm Notice that it wasnt guns that convinced the military to join Hitler, it was an agreement, signed by a pen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) SB I think you're technically right that words could have stopped Hitler, but it's sort of a meaningless point. At the time you needed to stop the Nazi's (i.e., after it was too late) you needed more than words to do it. I'm sure 6 millions Jews would have liked the opportunity to have a gun and fight back instead of being put into small districts and camps where they complained and argued (i.e., used words) to no avail. But here is the odd thing Jenks, I know these people and most of them dont agree with you. There was no standing up to Hitler after he gained control of the Govt. That was the moment you could have stopped Hitler, with words and ideas. If the German people would have said "NO", if they would not voted for Nazis, if they had revolted against the disbanding of govt and the institution of emergency powers. That was the time when you had a chance. Once Hitler took power, guns werent going to save Jews. Even if every German Jew had a gun, they couldnt stop the German Army. The French Army couldnt, the British Army barely could, there is nothing that 6 million civilians could have done to fight a govt with tanks and the support of the other tens of millions of Germans. This wasnt a majority oppressed by a minority with weapons. This was a majority with weapons oppressing a very small minority that could never fight back. And you are also wrong about: This part you just cant understand. But their words did have meaning, their struggle, their lives in concentration did mean something. Sometimes simply surviving is a win, because as Jews we live in the shadow of Masada. { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada } Im not sure people can really understand this. There is an extreme sorrow and guilt that hangs over the head of all of those who survived. But to suggest their struggle was for not, is terrible. They survived, it was not to no avail, they survived and their survival means something.

There is a certain whimsy about playing a system that you got when you were 6 years old and changed your life.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 03:48 PM) He also used guns, though. And Ive never said he didnt. Ive just said all things being equal, a pen will ultimately beat a sword. And Hitler is proof of this. Hitler had no sword to start, only a pen. And he was able to topple all of the swords/guns of Germany, not with a gun, with an idea.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) "blame the marginalized minority for society's problems" wasn't exactly some new innovation Hitler came up with Its unlikely it was even Hitler. Far more likely was Goebbels. But the fact is, Hitler didnt use guns to rise to power, he used ideas. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/paul_von_hindenburg.htm That was the man with the most guns in 1930 Germany. He lost, because all of the guns in the world dont mean a thing if I can convince you not to use them. Hence why the pen is mightier than the sword.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) What would have happened had you tried to use words against Stalin? Interestingly enough the Soviet Union was eventually beaten by words, not by guns.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) There was a sizeable portion of the German population that DIDN'T want Hitler or the Nazi's or the direction they were taking the country and they DID say no. And Hitler beat them up and/or killed them. Words are worthless when the side you're up against has guns. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) I also want to clarify the causation of the Jews surviving the Holocaust and such. They didn't survive BECAUSE they didn't have guns. They survived DESPITE not having guns. If you one day those hungry, starving, naked Jews didn't have guns, and the next they just suddenly did have guns, what do you think would happen? Wite and Jenks, Im not sure you guys actually know what happened. I am related to holocaust survivors. I actually knew people who were in Germany under Hitler. I actually knew people who survived the holocaust. It wasnt about guns. They were killed because of ideas, because of manipulation. The triumph of the Nazis is actually the ultimate proof that the pen is mightier than the sword. Hitler started off as a criminal. He was jailed and he wrote Mein Kampf. It was his idea "blame the Jews" that was powerful. It wasnt his gun. He had no military or army to start, the German people willingly gave him that power. If guns were mightier than the sword, there would be no Hitler. Under the Wiemar Republic, Hitler's position "Chancellor" had almost no power, President was far more powerful. Hitler used legislature to change the law to give him extreme power as chancellor. Thus Hitler is the prime example of the pen being mightier than the sword. To start Hitler did not have guns, he only had ideas. His ideas triumphed over the guns of Hidenburg and Ernst Rohm. Because Im sure as you are both aware, Hidenburg had the military support and despised Hitler. Unfortunately the people of Germany voted for Hitlers "ideas" and ideas beat guns, as they always do.

Going to see Fitz and the Tantrums tonight. Just started listening to them yesterday. Kind of have an interesting 60s soul vibe.

Ive actually seen the car.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) If you were transported back to WW2 and forced to face Nazi's without a gun, I'm pretty sure you'd be dead. Many Jews survived the holocaust with out a gun. Yeah that is right, they survived Auschwitz, Buchenwald, without guns. They survived in the Ghettos of Poland, without guns. So there is no correlation between having a gun and surviving as a Jew in the holocaust. And the best way to have beaten the Nazis was with words, not guns. Had the world stood up to Hitler, had they not appeased him, had the people of Germany said "no" to his ideas, guns would not have been necessary.

My tivo box is much slower than my regular box, fwiw.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 01:05 PM) The use of guns ended slavery, put an end to the Nazis and a host of other good things. Guns did none of those things. People did them. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Guns dont save people, people save people. You dont need a gun to be a hero, you dont need a gun to fight Nazis or slave owners. The pen is mightier than the sword.

QUOTE (TRU @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 06:00 PM) Why the f*** would anyone still want to play a playstation game? Well Final Fantasy VII is a pretty fun game for the PS1 and I really dont feel like grinding Cloud back to a good enough level to beat Ruby/Emerald? Then I own a bunch of PS2 and PS3 games (which PS4 wont play), so I really have no idea why I wouldnt keep my previous system. Not to mention it runs Netflix and can be used as a blu ray player in another room. Does not seem like good value to trade that in for what $200-$300? Ultimately the PS3 I own is rare and its rareness is worth more than the trade in for someone like me. But then again, I still own every system Ive ever had since NES.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 02:11 AM) No kidding. Dekker is gone after this year right? A lot would depend on this year. If his stock is high enough I assume he will leave. But if he doesnt, Wisconsin could be really good next year.

So can Wisconsin.

QUOTE (TRU @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:51 PM) Ok, this is all full of wrong.. First, if you get a PS4 there is no reason what so ever to keep the PS3. Its still a bluray player and media hub. Secondly, I traded in my XBOX360 and just Black Ops 2 and got $150 store credit. If you have more than 1 game and trade it in when they are running promos youll get way more than $70 My PS3 is backwards compatible and can play all of my PS, PS2 games. So I wont be trading it in.

So I guess Frank Kaminsky went insane last night and scored 40 points for Wisconsin. I dont get BTN2GO so I have no clue but he was something silly like 16-18 and 6-6 from 3. http://wisconsin.scout.com/2/1348633.html There is the story, it has some funny Bo Ryan lines. Especially about getting after Frank for not having an assist.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) Enter the Wu-Tang, 20 Years Later: Who Ya Got? I saw them at North Coast and actually had tickets to the Cobra Lounge after but my friend couldnt last (grr). The concert was cancelled right when Method Man was about to perform "Black Out". "Oh My God....." And then the music went out. My favorite Wu is Method Man. I like Ghostface and Redman as well, but Method is my #1.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 04:32 PM) Agree to disagree I guess. I don't see him ever catching that ball based on the route he was running and where Brady put the ball. And I think it would have been terrible to bail out the Patriots and basically give them a win on a penalty that didn't affect the play. Bail them out? If the ball was so poorly thrown and there was no way Gronk could get it, why did the defender find it necessary to interfere? Its not "bailing them out", its calling a penalty. I really dont care, I dont like the Patriots. I just find that many people are willing to look past "rules" and "fairness" if a team they dislike loses because of it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Yes, Gronk had a 0% chance of ever catching that ball. Take away his defender and he still doesn't catch that ball. He's going to the back of the endzone whereas the carolina defender and the ball were towards the middle of the end zone. In .25 seconds he's not changing direction and diving forward 2-3 yards. I don't think it was catchable based on the where the ball was and where Gronk was headed even with the contact. There's no way he catches that ball even if it's not intercepted. The interception just further establishes that it was never going to happen. Completely disagree. I think that Gronk makes that play if there is no interference and no other defender. (edit) And the fact that there is any real argument over whether it was "catchable" should mean that the flag stays. It should have to be indisputably not catchable. Im talking 15-20 yards away.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball. But would he have intercepted the ball had Gronk not been interfered with? This isnt chicken versus egg. The interference occurred prior to the pass being intercepted. Now if the pass was already intercepted and then the foul occurred, that is not a foul and the penalty should be negated. But the rules already provide for this as once a ball is tipped there is no pass interference. Here is the ultimate reason why this logic doesnt work: Bears v Packers. Last play of the game. Fade route to Marshall. The defender as soon as the ball is released tackles Marshall to the ground, another defender intercepts the ball. According to your rule, no interference because the ball was intercepted and therefore "not catchable" Or is it a penalty, because "but for the interference" we dont know what Marshall could or could not have done. And the rule is fine. It generally only applies to cases where the ball couldnt be caught due to the pass being outside of the range of the WR. I have never seen it called because a defender was in front of the WR and therefore it was possible that it would be intercepted and thus "not catchable". Its just a berserk interpretation and I assume will be fixed in the off-season.

Its a terrible call. If Gronk isnt held, who knows what happens. And the presence of a possible interceptor should do nothing. What if the ball goes right through his hands, now its pass interference?

4 score and 7 years ago? Ive never been forced to memorize, but Ive heard it enough that I can do a few lines.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) Yep, he clearly is arguing that he was making decisions based on a 13% probability. Whether he really believed that at the time is a different story, but that is what he is saying here. Otherwise, he shouldn't have mentioned it. It's irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. If he wants to use that for the reason he punted, fine, but not for why he didn't take timeouts here. I would think the Raven's td percentages once they reached the 5 were in the realm of 50-65 percent or more, and against our defense, maybe higher. Well isnt the real question what is the probability inside the 10 that the other team will score a td or fg? Because part of the reason you save time is so that you have a chance to win in regulation even if the other team kicks a fg.

And here I thought he was going to argue that by not calling time outs it potentially limited the Ravens play calling because they had to worry about time running out. Odd explanation.