Jenksismyhero

After a few games, I'm really impressed with the detail of The Show. One of the coolest graphical features is the clouds during a day game, making certain spots of the field darker or lighter. Also, the shadows change little by little as each inning goes along. In years past it was basically sunny from innings 1-3, shadowy from 4-6, and then dark from 7-9.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) I was thinking that too, but then this point was brought up to me: Didn't "Man in Locke" manipulate Ben into killing Jacob? ah, true

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) I only say it when people say "this episode was boring. we didnt learn anything" stuff like that. After 5 years of watching this show, I've learned never to discount an episode, beacuse often it has bigger impacts down the line. Last night's episode was good. I was starting to like Dogan. I'm starting to think Jacob is the evil one, and "man in lock"/smokey/man in black is good. I thought this same thing since the beginning of this season. I found it telling that Dogan said the machine can tell good from evil, but then didn't say anything about which one Sayid is. Also (and this could be intentional writing), we're lead to believe that Jacob is the "good" one, despite the fact that he's clearly manipulated each one of these people to do what he wants. Whereas Smokey essentially talks them, letting them decide how to act (choice/free will). I also think it was important that Smokey didn't kill the temple people who decided to leave. Though I guess he could do it later.

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Mar 2, 2010 -> 11:26 PM) Paul is obviously athletic in that he can jump like crazy, but I have a hard time judging how quick he is because he doesn't have the handle to drive and he \Recruiting is part of it, but coaching is as well. You don't have to rely on someone beating their man one-on-one off the dribble to penetrate. You can run an offense that involves screening and cutting to get offense going to the hoop. UI doesn't do that. They pass they ball around the perimeter hoping that the speed of the passing and motion of the players will get them a clear jump shot at some point. Your point about not having a guy that can break a defense on his own is true, but it is a fact that Weber's offense is not one that generates a lot of shooting fouls. Two words: Mike Davis. The motion offense is dependent on movement and screens on the backside. Mike Davis refuses to move around the court at all. Only when the shot clock gets to 10 does he finally come out to set a screen for a pick and pop. I'll say it again too, the major issue with this team is not having a 2nd point guard. The margin of error is so small, especially when you play on the road, you just can't afford a 6-8 point swing. Jeff Jordan sucks at running an offense to the point where it's now expected that when he's in the game the team will not score any points. You just have to hope they play a little D. I dunno why Weber hasn't given him the reigns to at least attempt a couple of pull up jump shots when he's in the game. At least that way "Jeff Jordan does actually shoot the ball" would be on the scouting report. As it is, teams know he can't do anything with the ball, so the entire offense shuts down.

For anyone who has followed big ten basketball, you know the home team gets homer calls. Two major Illinois runs in this game were shut down on phantom calls. I dunno how anyone can deny this. It has less to do with the games being called in favor of one team or another, and everything to do with the home team ALWAYS getting bailed out by the refs killing momentum. Illinois was up 4, and three possessions in a row Ohio State manages to get the ball to kill the momentum. Illinois is down 6, makes a run, and gets killed by another 2-3 possessions in a row that goes Ohio States way. Yeah, OSU is clearly the driving team so they're going to get more calls and get to the FT line more. But it's not a consistent game when you let guys play physically and then magically decide that three possessions in a row its not. This Illinois team was screwed by the schedule. They're clearly a decent team as every major opponent they've faced they've been able to hang with them for the majority of the game (save for the 2nd half @msu and the first game against osu). Their downfall was playing down to their competition. I still think all they have to do is win one more game (either against Wisky or another in the tourney) and they're in. They have good quality wins and their bad losses were in the first month of the season. Edit: And I'll add that the biggest weakness of this team is Jeff Jordan. He is awful. He's not a threat to do anything on the offensive end, picks up his dribble in horrible situations, and just doesn't help the offense flow. I'd say about 3 losses of this team are squarely on him being absolutely awful and allowing opponents to increase their lead while McCamey is on the bench.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 2, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) I cant decide on the show. I get bored of playing the computer pretty quick, but not sure I can play a 162 game season online either. What is the plan for the online league? I'm the same way. I end up playing about a quarter of the season before getting tired of it and starting up an RTTS guy. I'll play that for a while too before moving on to someting else. I'm hoping an online league will keep me motivated to play.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 2, 2010 -> 12:02 AM) Everyone in bold has confirmed that they have or will be purchasing MLB 10 The Show. Let me know if I missed anyone. Soxtalk name - PSN name onedude - onedude84 Soxbadger - Soxbadger Kalapse - K_A_L_A_P_S_E RockRaines - THE_Rockraines BobDylan - iIi-MARV-iIi chimpy2121 - drunkchimp Buehrle>Wood - gregf5711 ChiSox Sonix - hungryj0e BigSqwert - m4rk0358 BurlyMan56 - BTRAIN1105 nitetrain8601 - jtamay3 DrunkBomber - drunkbomber Jenksismyb**** - IbKillin beautox - buzzbuzz785 BFirebird - BDalco Quinarvy - Quinarvy_Ethil kev211 - kev211 almagest - al_magest Steve9347 - Steve9347 I'm buying it and would be interested in the league.

Pre-ordered my copy of The Show 2010 this morning. Is anyone going to set up an online league? I didn't buy the 09 version so i wasn't able to do it, but i'd be interested this year.

I have heard zero buzz about Purdue bball recruiting basically since the johnson/moore/hummel class. Their window of opportunity is this year and next. If I'm Hummel, I'm planning to come back next year, even if it's a half season.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Very true. Their freshmen this year have been a HUGE disappointment besides Barlow, but even he has really struggled the last few games. Grant has picked up his game, but Hummel is irreplaceable and it will spell the end for Purdue. I wonder if Johnson will end up leading early. And agreed about my Hoosiers. They are hard to watch. Rivers is god awful. Hopefully just adding Sheehey and Oladipo with their athleticism will help us out some next year. I pray we can add one more impact recruit for 2010 or the fans will really start to question Crean with another down year. I despise the Hoosiers, but I think the fan base needs to be a little patient with Crean. I'd give him at least 5 years to make them a good program again. Any hint of talent left that team after the Sampson debacle, so he's relying on low rated players and walk-ons to compete. He needs to get recruits in, and those recruits need to play for 2-3 years before there's any reasonable expectation that they'll become a decent team. I guess if he's still one of the bottom 3 in the league, then you might question the hire, but really so long as he's in the 8-5 range I think you have to be ok with it for another season or two.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) Shannon used it the last time they were at the caves when they thought Sawyer was keeping the meds. It was just a nice touch of history. It's not like they had some long running dialogue about the inhaler. It was just something they found. Yeah it was just a segway to "oh hey, the cave!" Thought the last two episodes were pretty cool. I still think the flash-sideways is a little slow, but last nights ramped it up a little with the clues about the two worlds connecting. Jack not remembering his appendix surgery for example, or the fact that he seemed completely unaware that his son played the piano or that he's given his son a hard time about failing. Also, the casting of Jacob was perfect. That guy has a perfect confident/serious but still inviting kind of a face, which is exactly what that character needs. Read an interesting theory that in the sideways world Jack's ex-wife could be Juliette, who left him for Sawyer. That'd be pretty wild. Oh, and I listened to the Lost podcast on the way to work. If anyone was wondering about the discrepancy between the date the 815 flight was supposed to land (9/22 i think) and Claire's ultra sound in the sideways world (10/24 or something), that was just a prop error. No significance. Next week we need more Ben.

ugh, ugly win, but whatever, road win.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) If I'm Weber I rip on the refs in the post game. Horrible officiating that entire game today. Totally inconsistent.

Purdue +16 in ft's, shocker.

I just hope there were enough ambalamps.

Well, sorry to be an asshole back, but you are being an asshole, and you're wrong. I dunno how you can claim that a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin of the building blocks of life doesn't deal with the origin of life. Well, I dunno how old you are, but I'm not that old (near 28). I was taught in school that life was created by a big explosion in the universe which created elements, which by hundreds of different means formed, multiplied, split, connected, molded, morphed, grew, blah blah until my beautiful face came into the world. When I asked where those elements came from, I was told "we don't know yet," an answer I continually see out there which is just crap. I am not, and have not, argued that science does not help us explain the means of we got from that stage to this stage, but it's incredibly narrow minded to claim that science doesn't try and answer the question of creation or that it's just a "blurb" in the text book. It's the f***ing essential question that science in this arena attempts to answer. Like a religious belief, however, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. And that's my point. You can either believe in a book, or you can believe that there's an answer, we just dunno what it is yet, both are equally "unscientific" and both require some leap of faith. Yet one is considered to be moronic (clearly your opinion), but the other is perfectly acceptable. Clearly you didn't read me qualifying my answers to a specific issue here, which is the unanswerable and unproveable question about creation, and how science still thinks its got the right answer, despite not having any answer (oh but we have a methodology!), and it poo-poo's everything else. /participation in this thread. I'll go back to the Republican thread where us unedumicated folk gather and talk about people in the clouds.

Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010. Just like this specific scientific explanation is unsupported and unientific. It's a cop out to say that science answers all when it can't answer certain questions, like where did life begin. How exactly? I'm saying I need more than "here's the answer to where did life come from, unfortunately we can't start with the most pressing question, so we'll just stick to what we think happened AFTER all that..." I'm not disputing this. But that doesn't mean science answers all, or that if science can't answer it, nothing can. I'm not disagreeing with this, in general. But when you're talking about teaching this stuff to kids in school it's important. No one thinks we should stop teaching biology and start teaching meditation or something. But we're talking about teaching controversial, political issues, like when/how did life begin. I completely agree that SCIENCE should be taught, but again, it's crazy to me that any sort of religious explanation is instantly thrown out the window as entirely impossible, yet SCIENCE also fails to have an answer.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) The Big Bang is precisely steps 2 through X. What happened before the Big Bang is not just unknown, it is unknowable and scientists would admit as much. What? Scientists don't claim that the big bang created life and that there's no other explanation? I think that's their whole argument! They think a greater power is laughable (clearly some of you agree), despite not being able to answer the first part of the question. That's like saying you understand the creation of a human without being able to answer where the egg and sperm came from and why they came together in the first place. No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this." All I'm saying is that academia preaches just as much as religion. At the end of the day science can answer more questions than religion, no doubt, but not the important questions. Not the questions of why we are here, how we got here, etc. Those are unknowable. It makes me laugh how self-righteous the anti-religious people are, how they know they're right, and how they know that anyone who thinks differently is so obviously unintelligent.

Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way. IMO the difference between a scientific theory of creation and a religious theory of creation is trivial. At the end of the day you have to have pure belief in the manner of creation. The rest of is just filler. So to say one belief is silly, but the other makes complete sense is comical to me. I wish we could all just agree we don't know anything, and start from there. Religion and science don't have to be polar opposites.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) Jon Stewart went after Keith for that rant, and so did I in this thread. Pssh. Jon Stewart did not. He basically said, you're a really smart guy and a great journalist, you went a little far here don't you think? He commented on what he said. That's far from calling him out for it. (in reality, Jon Stewart decapitated Olbermann, and also obliterated Maddow)

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) Your point remains wrong. Religious claims are not equivalent to scientific theories. Really? So taking a theory like the Big Bang is so vastly different than a theory about an old bearded guy in the sky? Don't both require a belief in something that's entirely unprovable (God, or the existence of elements that just happened to be hangin' around in space).

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) Much of the authorship of the Bible is highly questionable, so I'm unsure how you can attribute all of it to first-hand accounts. First-hand knowledge wouldn't account for the obviously false (Creation, Noah, Exodus) events or the really poor history in other areas. My point remains. Both contain unverifiable facts (the beginning, for example). One is preaching, the other is teaching.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) You know what? There's some reasonable quibbles with the methodology, but there was a legitimate study a couple years ago that found that O'Reilly typically uses negative name-calling against a his political opponents on average once every 10 seconds or so. Right, like the fact that the study focused on his Talking Points segment, which is the soap box portion of the show. Shocker he wouldn't stick to the professional standards of journalism there. I mean i don't want to argue that O'Reilly is better than Olbermann, that he's more of a journalist. I'm just saying that besides from the "that guys stupid" or "that's insane," I've never heard him attack someone with such unsubstantiated vitriol, which had little to do with whatever he was reporting on, and everything to do with his hatred for a certain segment of society. I'm still shocked that no one went after Olbermann for it. He was basically saying "look who these f***tards just elected," and then proceeded to bash him. If someone on Fox News had done that the uproar would have been deafening.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) Not sure why you're in the Dem thread trying to convince me that the bible is fact. I wasn't. I'm saying I find it funny that the "left" basically says unless you come to me with "science" you're preaching to me, without realizing that what they do is the exact same thing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) Right. I'll come back after I round up 2 of every species and build an ark. Nice. The Jon Stewart line of reasoning. Instead of debating an issue, just make a joke and you win.