Soxbadger

QUOTE (Tex @ May 16, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Kids behavior gets out of hand in hurry. Something as silly as holes in jeans have become a major source of distraction here. It is so annoying trying to gain the attention of the class while the boys are discussing whether they could see some girls underwear or WHAT!!!! through the holes in her jeans. So why should the school have to deal with jeans with holes? Because no matter what you do, you are not treating women as equal. If you let Disney make a character sexier they are bad because it promotes bad self image. If you dont let girls wear nothing to school, the school is bad because it is repressing them. lol

Hard to imagine them not getting rid of Boozer and getting younger at that position.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:43 PM) The funny thing is Butler's look was pretty clean there. Its no excuse. You have the ball and are down 3. This isnt college where you have a 1 and 1 so you can extend the game. You draw up your best play to get your best 3 point shooter open. At least some guys like Butler got a ton of experienceu

Cant even complain. You dont take a timeout to get 3 point shooters in? Feel bad for the players, they gave it their all.

lol This is the classic it was a foul on Wade, they wanted to give the Bulls the ball to be fair, but now on review its gotta be Miami ball.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:34 PM) He did the same thing in game 3. I don't get it. He is a great drill sergeant, not always a great general.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:33 PM) In October Thats the joke. Next game will be next season.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:32 PM) :lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting yeah right, what if hes only 99% ready to play? I got sources

Ill say it now, Rose will play in the next bulls game.

lol 25 just kept trying to convince the other 2 refs.

Ref 25 just came in and basically told the other refs to call a flagrant. If you rewind you can read his lips.

This game is over, one of the refs just said "That wasnt a basketball play"

In college almost every game is like a playoff game because 1 loss is many times the difference between getting in the ccg or not. They can control the weather on all football games, so I dont see why we only care about 1 game. The National Championship game can be played outside, obviously that is as important as the Big10 CCG. It just seems that football needs to decide if its going to become basketball and only played indoors. If its going to remain outdoors, then all weather conditions should be fair game. Because while you may not like a snow storm game, I find those to be very entertaining. I like to see how teams do in terrible conditions, to me that is the mark of a champion. In your scenario of Illinois winning, they still had to make the game. Its not like 0-11 Illini are playing 11-0 OSU and the snow screwed OSU. But hilariously the week before that could happen, and it would be just part of the game.

I dont know why indoor stadiums exist, I dont like indoor football. I prefer outdoor football because I think weather is part of the sport. Its a personal opinion, I just find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin (a team with an outdoor stadium) is saying they want an indoor championship game. They then will complain when other teams dont want to come to Camp Randall to play. You cant have it both ways, which is why I find Alvarez's comments puzzling.

lol I presume that is just sarcasm

It can rain any day of the year. It can be windy any day of the year. If we are saying that football is better when there is no weather, then football should be always played indoors. Otherwise I personally think that weather is part of the game and thus you win or lose based on the conditions of that day.

Why play any game outdoors then? 1 loss could be the difference between getting in the 4 team playoff.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05...ampionship-game Pretty pathetic. Wisconsin has an outdoor stadium yet is complaining about weather?

I know, but the fact is this board is predominately male. Whether or not a woman posted has less to do with the subject matter and more to do with the gender composition of the message board. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess Winston from New Girl is a Wisconsin fan? Bucky forever!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 14, 2013 -> 08:13 PM) From the tenor of this thread, I can't imagine any woman not getting at least a little bit upset and not even bothering to interject with a response. lol What? Are you implying that women cant handle a heated debate? (edit) I cant even say the last time I saw a female post on this board, so it really was a throwaway comment from the start.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Gender...id=pUo2T34ppKUC How can flowers have a gender? Is it because male flowers play in the dirt and female flowers get dressed up in pretty dresses? Maybe its which one cooks and cleans?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 04:32 PM) Gender is cultural, not biological. Sex is biological. "Norm" is the social expectations, e.g. girls play with dolls and wear pink and like to play "house" while boys like to play with action figures and wear blue and play "army." A boy who plays with "girl" toys or a girl who is a "tomboy" are breaking gender norms. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 06:03 PM) So I didn't realize how dishonest of a snip this was at first. The rest of the definition: a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex WHO's definition: "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. Pretty much the same thing! I'm back to being done with you in this thread. The only person being dishonest is you. I never said that gender couldnt mean multiple things. you are the one that said gender is not scientific, which is wrong. You can be done with me all you want, it wont make you right, you will continue to be wrong. Next time if you are going to try and make up bulls*** lies, pick a weaker opponent. Because I never said "gender exclusively = sex" I merely said that A DEFINITION OF GENDER IS SCIENTIFIC. Unlike you, I dont try and get fake internet points by saying my opponent 1) cant spell, 2) cant quote and 3) didnt use a word properly when they in fact did. Nice try though, maybe next time. (Edit) And just because gender means "girls play with barbies" to you, doesnt mean that it does to me. When someone asks "What is the gender of this plant" Im not saying that the the female plant plays with barbies, Im saying that it is a female and thus has the female reproductive system. The WHO article is discussing what some people may mean when they say "gender", its merely for discussion purposes. The definition of gender has multiple meanings, the only person who suggested otherwise, is you, who said "Gender is cultural, not biological." Which as we know, is not true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 05:23 PM) So now you claim that the entirety of human sexual attraction can by boiled down to symmetry? Given that you can't stop making false claims about what others are saying (women never judge men!), i think I'm done. When you're willing to be honest, let me know. Im not claiming anything, Im not a scientist. Im just saying that there is a wealth of scientific information to suggest that human attractiveness is not some sort of media driven creation, but instead is a result of evolution and biology. if you want to disagree with that, go ahead. But I would expect a little bit more research than you just repeating your opinion. You know, maybe you could provide us with some evidence of your position. The only person who ha actually provided studies has been me. Fancy that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 05:17 PM) I haven't argued against there being some biological aspect, I've pointed out that there is a significant cultural aspect. Why is natgeo a reliable source but not WHO The article you cited is an opinion piece. When I use the term gender, its neutral. Its used in the law constantly. When I say "What is the gender of the child" Im not asking if it wears a suit or a dress, Im asking is it a boy or a girl. Thats why it says "What do we mean" instead of "What is the actual definition of the word" they are trying to distinguish when in science there isnt one. If I ask: What is the gender of that cat? or What is the sex of that cat? I will get the exact same answer. There is no "well what do you mean by gender". Here is a discovery show for further information on symmetry: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-sh...of-symmetry.htm The difference is, I wont link junk opinion pieces and try and prove that you dont know the definition of a word. That is just low brow tactics. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender Notice how every dictionary will equate gender and sex. Its just not worth arguing, because WHO is trying to change the word.