Soxbadger

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 11:26 PM) The Heat got the benefit of swing fouls/calls. The BS goaltending call in the first half. It was a 8 point game with OKC making a run. Bad call makes it a 10pt game and leads to a big run by Miami. The horrible call against Fisher on Wade when Wade falls to the ground and the refs call Fisher for a foul with 2 seconds on the shot clock. That play happens every game with no whistle. Miami scores on that possession. And we all know about final Durant shot. I agree with the above. Its not always about ft numbers, it just seemed that more of the breaks went to Miami. But ultimately OKC could have won that game.

I think a ton of close calls went against OKC through out the game. But at the end of the day OKC only can blame themselves for missing free throws.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 10:50 PM) Seriously? If they called that foul with Lebron taking the shot, everyone would be going ballistic. Lebron would have gotten that call 99 out of 100 times and no one would say a word. I actually believe the Heat had a foul to give and were trying to foul Durant on the floor.

Durant deserves better than that, what a joke.

Durant should take this shot, if not him harden.

I think patent lawyers can make pretty good money, especially because you have to have a science degree to even take the patent bar, which eliminates a ton of competition.

What a joke seriously,what the f*** nba.

Wisconsin offered late for whatever reason, but heis supposed to be a good player.

Refs need to quit jobbing for the Heat.

Yeah its rough right now, but you just have to find a way to get your foot in the door somewhere, even if its unpaid etc.

It was a while ago, so maybe its not happening anymore. Who knows, but with the proliferation of AP credits, Id assume its becoming easier to make sure you graduate in 4 years.

I had 36 or 38 AP credits and passed on 20 retro French credits out of fear my parents wouldnt let me stay in College for 4 years. I just couldnt figure out any way to convince them that taking only 8 credits a semester was legitimate. Which is why I so clearly remember the Indiana thing, they were pitching 5th year free and my family was wondering what type of disaster would have to occur for me to stay 5.

It really doesnt matter. Penn State has money and makes money. It has thousands of students paying money every semester, its not very difficult to freeze a PSU bank account and get a turnover order. Why even worry about the state, it just would result in unnecessary litigation.

Ha I thought you were making a specific comment about Indiana. I never took a summer class nor took more than 13 credits in a semester and I graduated in 3.5 years. So its not really that unheard of, I just know Indiana was having problems with people graduating in 4 years, at least back when I was in the College market.

Not sure if this article has been posted, its about the Sox going to Larussa's charity event on Monday. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,5640345.column

I think its specifically about IU, I know that part of their pitch was that the 5th year would be free if you didnt graduate through no fault of your own. I have no idea though, just speculating.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 12:39 PM) Completely unfounded, perhaps he gave money to some of the victims due to the massive amount of guilt he felt. Who knows? And if he did that the victim could come forward and tell people they got money. As I said, its completely unfounded. Famous people seal their wills all the time, they dont want the public going and making copies and doing strange stuff with it. I know I would seal my will if I could, why would I ever want random people being able to look into my business after I die?

Joe Paterno doesnt have more money than PSU, so the deeper pocket is still PSU. Furthermore, Paterno is dead, so all of those assets are no longer his. They are either with a beneficiary or in a trust for the benefit of a beneficiary. Regardless, suing Paterno would be nonsensical, unless you are going to make a claim against his estate, which you dont need to see the will to do.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) I honestly dont give a s*** about Paterno being involved, the guy is dead. The more important players here are the trustees and the administrators who swept this under the rug because of football and finances. I think it may even go higher than PSU. Some things Ive read suggest that 2nd Mile has some really powerful people involved.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) Or find out how much money they earned from a charity that was handing off little boys to a child molester. Not only is it unfounded, your accusation doesnt even make sense. How would a will tell you where Paterno got his money from? All the will says is where he wants his money and belongings to go. Its not an accounting, it doesnt show how he earned the money.

Yep your completely unfounded accusation is much more likely than what happens every day in Court. http://wills.about.com/b/2012/03/26/probat...ones-sealed.htm Did Davey Jones want to hide money from 2nd Mile too?

The Paterno will stuff is nonsense. Yes its rare, but not when they are a celebrity and they dont want the public to be able to pull their will and find out who they gave their money too. Or they have a will that merely says, everything to my trust and the trust isnt a public record.

Tex, Each situation is its own animal. If someone's life is in imminent threat, I believe most people agree deadly force is warranted. Its situations where the threat is not imminent that the question arises. Its not black and white.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) That's a pretty far fetched scenario. Is Steven Seagal working as a cook somewhere too? And yes, I do have problem with the sentencing guidelines for rapists/molestors. Short of being shot they should have their balls removed. But anyways. I'm talking even in the streets. A well trained private citizen is every bit as safety conscious as someone we've given some authority to. That's the point. If society would get off this "oh well police are safe but private citizens would just keep shooting each other" thing then this whole issue would become moot. We trust individuals to carry around guns and shoot people and if they kill someone innocent it's not ok, but it's acceptable. Now take that badge off and it should be the same situation. The scenario is far fetched, but that is the point, you never know what is really going on in the moment. If you have a problem with sentencing guidelines, then the appropriate response is to try and change the system, not to have people going out and giving their own sentence. A well trained citizen may be as competent or better than someone that we have given authority to, but we have rules and a system, so until we decide that there is no reason for police and we should all just police ourselves, Im going to stick with the system. Its the same argument for why shouldnt I be able to get top secret information from the US govt. The people who have clearance are just individuals, and there is no evidence that they are any more trustworthy or smart than me, so why shouldnt I have access? Take away their security clearance they are no different than me. Or why shouldnt I get to have access to nuclear codes and the ability to fire nuclear weapons. The people who have access are nothing more than humans with badges who are capable of mistakes, just like me. For better or for worse our system is that individuals do not have the right to take justice in their own hands. Why is that better? Well for one if youre a third party you are much more likely to take an impartial stance and not let emotions/connection get in the way of clear thought. Its the same reason most Dr's wont do surgery on a loved one, or why a lawyer wouldnt represent himself. You cant think clearly when its something that actually impacts you. So when you see someone might hurt your family, you are more likely to make a rash/emotional decision as opposed to a third party. The problem with your argument is that I dont think police are necessarily safer, I just think that they are a necessary evil, and therefore you limit the damage as much as possible.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) There's no question of guilt there. None. Why waste the time/money and resources on that? As to the bolded, that's the point. They ARE acting within their legal right and they still make mistakes. So what's the big deal? Make them take mandatory training classes. I'm fine with that. You say that like it would make a difference in your opinion. I could mandate 100 hours of safety gun classes a year and you still wouldn't like the idea of people being able to use a gun to protect themselves. They could be MORE safety conscious than police (who btw, understand they're on the benefit side of the law there) and you still wouldn't be ok with it. I fail to see why the designation of being a cop or a private citizen has any relevance to the main moral issue here. Being a cop is a man made construct: Here, you're a cop. You're still human, you're still prone to mistakes, you're still just as likely to make a bad decision as the most highly trained private citizen. Yet for some reason the badge means it's an acceptable loss, but being a private citizen it's not. Makes no sense to me. Because I dont think its a waste of time. You say there is no question of guilt, but you have no idea if there are outstanding circumstances. What if it was shown that the molester had been drugged by a criminal who kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them unless he molested that girl. Its extremely unlikely, but in a situation like that, it would be unlikely that the molester would get a death sentence, which you are saying is okay. The other problem is that child molestation generally does not carry a life sentence, so you are giving the public the right to punish worse than the actual system can, which is another issue. Your making a lot of assumptions on what my beliefs are. Guns in the home is much different than guns on the street. Being a police officer who is imbued with the power to use deadly force, is different than being a regular person and making that decision. Mistakes will always happen, the only thing we can do as a society is try and prevent the most mistakes as possible. It is my opinion that the way to prevent the most mistakes is to completely remove guns from society. But that is likely impossible, therefore we have to come up with another alternative, to which I believe the reasonable answer is to remove guns from the street, but allow people to have them in their homes as long as they have been properly trained on safety (that includes use and securing the weapon.) The actual reality is, I dont really care. I care more about the hypocritical nature of people who support gun rights, but dont support other personal freedoms. I supported gun rights for a long time, I just got sick of gun rights activists who are against all other rights. Bitter hypocrisy to the end, but sometimes the ends justify the means. I do really believe that the world would be better off without guns, I just dont think you can put that back in the box though.