18.06.2009 - 16:46
THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD ZEALOT....
ABOUT THAT????? are you saying that people that are proponents of
sotg arent frement and even militant about it? then explain the overt
opposition to the use of refs......especially when they are such an
itragral part of EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD.
surley its not the term "spirit" that people are having a problem
with.
SO YES.......I AM A REF ZEALOT!!!!! but my zealousness on this issue
is in direct responce to the zealotry that is practiced in opposition
to refs..................which again, in the real world, is very very
normal sports related enhancement and service.
18.06.2009 - 17:45
On Jun 18, 7:460am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
a ferment and even militant proponent of somthing.......WHATA SO BAD
ABOUT THAT?????
I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
few others, this is a pretty chill board. The only fervent or
militant proponent of anything around here is you. You're the
zealot. Some other folks disagree with you, but far less...
militantly. Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
If there were ever an actual spirit zealot, you'd know. S/he would be
acting like you, but from the opposite side. There's no anti-ref
version of Toad around here.
I think there are four groups here:
half-assed anti-ref (2nd biggest)
who cares? (by far the biggest)
half assed pro-ref (3rd biggest)
you (4th...)
0are you saying that people that are proponents of
sotg arent frement and even militant about it?
Well, yeah. I guess maybe whoever actually voted in the "player-
controlled" definition back in the day, but around these parts, here
on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support. Most
people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
Being an SOTG zealot is kind of a silly position. Being spirited
isn't really a controversial or crazy thing. It's like a basic
expectation. It's like Chris Rock says: "you want a cookie?" Yeah,
sotg becomes a bit more important when self-reffing, but not being a
jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
In fact, since you're always looking for an SOTG "definition," I think
I've got mine. "Don't be a jackass." Hard to militantly support
something that... mundane, but it seems like a good enough idea to
survive without militant support.
~p
a ferment and even militant proponent of somthing.......WHATA SO BAD
ABOUT THAT?????
I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
few others, this is a pretty chill board. The only fervent or
militant proponent of anything around here is you. You're the
zealot. Some other folks disagree with you, but far less...
militantly. Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
If there were ever an actual spirit zealot, you'd know. S/he would be
acting like you, but from the opposite side. There's no anti-ref
version of Toad around here.
I think there are four groups here:
half-assed anti-ref (2nd biggest)
who cares? (by far the biggest)
half assed pro-ref (3rd biggest)
you (4th...)
0are you saying that people that are proponents of
sotg arent frement and even militant about it?
Well, yeah. I guess maybe whoever actually voted in the "player-
controlled" definition back in the day, but around these parts, here
on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support. Most
people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
Being an SOTG zealot is kind of a silly position. Being spirited
isn't really a controversial or crazy thing. It's like a basic
expectation. It's like Chris Rock says: "you want a cookie?" Yeah,
sotg becomes a bit more important when self-reffing, but not being a
jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
In fact, since you're always looking for an SOTG "definition," I think
I've got mine. "Don't be a jackass." Hard to militantly support
something that... mundane, but it seems like a good enough idea to
survive without militant support.
~p
18.06.2009 - 21:16
On Jun 18, 11:450am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:460am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> a ferment and even militant proponent of somthing.......WHATA SO BAD
> ABOUT THAT?????
I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
few others, this is a pretty chill board.
by chill you mean boring?
-------------------------------------------
0The only fervent or
militant proponent of anything around here is you. 0You're the
zealot.
well i already admitted to that......and suceeded to the fact i was
possibly the only 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Some other folks disagree with you, but far less...
militantly.
yea, the militant ones(2's) steer pretty clear of the controversy.
why would they want to bring any attention to it. things are their
way presently
------------------------------------------------
0Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
too bad you aint one of em.
------------------------------------------------
If there were ever an actual spirit zealot, you'd know. 0S/he would be
acting like you, but from the opposite side. 0There's no anti-ref
version of Toad around here.
there's really no need for one is there?.......although i'd say colin
has made it clear that he's, not only ant ref, but anti observers
makin ref calls. then ya got the people like you and pete that say
you arent anti ref but you sure take any cahnce you can get to
discredit them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are four groups here:
half-assed anti-ref (2nd biggest)
who cares? (by far the biggest)
half assed pro-ref (3rd biggest)
you (4th...)
so that means that the half assed pro-ref contingincy is the
majority.......with ME tippin the scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
> 0are you saying that people that are proponents of
> sotg arent frement and even militant about it?
Well, yeah. 0I guess maybe whoever actually voted in the "player-
controlled" definition back in the day,
how about those that refuse to update it......and are now twisting it
to mean somthing completely different from what the authors OBVIOUSLY
imply. a zealot is a zealot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
but around these parts, here
on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support.
i thought support for that was shown via membership dues? either way
though, there is no real big need to campaign for somthing that
already is. I think that is why the whole "ult rev" got so much
critisism......because there wasn nothing remotely "revolutionary"(in
the rebelious sence of the word) about it. as crazy frank noted, "how
can there be a revolution lead by those in control when they are
pretty much perfectly fine with how things presently are".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
0Most
people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
them then right. whats the big fight about then. why such
intollerance by many of their incorporation of ultimate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Being an SOTG zealot is kind of a silly position.
you got dat straight!!!!
------------------------------------------------
0Being spirited
isn't really a controversial or crazy thing.
when its to the point that you overtly reject the concept of refs it
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------
0It's like a basic
expectation. 0It's like Chris Rock says: "you want a cookie?" 0Yeah,
sotg becomes a bit more important when self-reffing,
a bit????? ITS EVERYTHING.....dumbass
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
but not being a
jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
well cops arent for when people arent being dumbasses now are they?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
In fact, since you're always looking for an SOTG "definition," I think
I've got mine. 0"Don't be a jackass."
well, i think that describes good sportsmanship but we both know that
the term "spirit" when used in conjunction with ultimate has taken on
a like of its own and is defined differently by everybody. In fact
your illustrious administration has come up with a much more complex
breakdown of what "spirit" means that cant be boiled down to just "not
being a jacklass"......because, again, that goal is just as attainable
with refs as it is without them.
0Hard to militantly support
something that... mundane,
since when is spirit mundane? i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by most
as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
----------------------------------------------------------.
but it seems like a good enough idea to
survive without militant support.
for what to survive? sotg? think again. the people that run this
sport arent tolerant of refs like you and me. its just like that
Hboy guy said......"refs in ultimate would interfere with the sanctity
of spirit". now are you trying to say that people opposed t gay
marriage wouldnt fit the "zealot" billing as well?
On Jun 18, 7:460am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> a ferment and even militant proponent of somthing.......WHATA SO BAD
> ABOUT THAT?????
I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
few others, this is a pretty chill board.
by chill you mean boring?
-------------------------------------------
0The only fervent or
militant proponent of anything around here is you. 0You're the
zealot.
well i already admitted to that......and suceeded to the fact i was
possibly the only 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Some other folks disagree with you, but far less...
militantly.
yea, the militant ones(2's) steer pretty clear of the controversy.
why would they want to bring any attention to it. things are their
way presently
------------------------------------------------
0Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
too bad you aint one of em.
------------------------------------------------
If there were ever an actual spirit zealot, you'd know. 0S/he would be
acting like you, but from the opposite side. 0There's no anti-ref
version of Toad around here.
there's really no need for one is there?.......although i'd say colin
has made it clear that he's, not only ant ref, but anti observers
makin ref calls. then ya got the people like you and pete that say
you arent anti ref but you sure take any cahnce you can get to
discredit them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are four groups here:
half-assed anti-ref (2nd biggest)
who cares? (by far the biggest)
half assed pro-ref (3rd biggest)
you (4th...)
so that means that the half assed pro-ref contingincy is the
majority.......with ME tippin the scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
> 0are you saying that people that are proponents of
> sotg arent frement and even militant about it?
Well, yeah. 0I guess maybe whoever actually voted in the "player-
controlled" definition back in the day,
how about those that refuse to update it......and are now twisting it
to mean somthing completely different from what the authors OBVIOUSLY
imply. a zealot is a zealot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
but around these parts, here
on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support.
i thought support for that was shown via membership dues? either way
though, there is no real big need to campaign for somthing that
already is. I think that is why the whole "ult rev" got so much
critisism......because there wasn nothing remotely "revolutionary"(in
the rebelious sence of the word) about it. as crazy frank noted, "how
can there be a revolution lead by those in control when they are
pretty much perfectly fine with how things presently are".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
0Most
people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
them then right. whats the big fight about then. why such
intollerance by many of their incorporation of ultimate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Being an SOTG zealot is kind of a silly position.
you got dat straight!!!!
------------------------------------------------
0Being spirited
isn't really a controversial or crazy thing.
when its to the point that you overtly reject the concept of refs it
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------
0It's like a basic
expectation. 0It's like Chris Rock says: "you want a cookie?" 0Yeah,
sotg becomes a bit more important when self-reffing,
a bit????? ITS EVERYTHING.....dumbass
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
but not being a
jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
well cops arent for when people arent being dumbasses now are they?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
In fact, since you're always looking for an SOTG "definition," I think
I've got mine. 0"Don't be a jackass."
well, i think that describes good sportsmanship but we both know that
the term "spirit" when used in conjunction with ultimate has taken on
a like of its own and is defined differently by everybody. In fact
your illustrious administration has come up with a much more complex
breakdown of what "spirit" means that cant be boiled down to just "not
being a jacklass"......because, again, that goal is just as attainable
with refs as it is without them.
0Hard to militantly support
something that... mundane,
since when is spirit mundane? i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by most
as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
----------------------------------------------------------.
but it seems like a good enough idea to
survive without militant support.
for what to survive? sotg? think again. the people that run this
sport arent tolerant of refs like you and me. its just like that
Hboy guy said......"refs in ultimate would interfere with the sanctity
of spirit". now are you trying to say that people opposed t gay
marriage wouldnt fit the "zealot" billing as well?
19.06.2009 - 00:56
On Jun 18, 12:160pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
> few others, this is a pretty chill board.
by chill you mean boring?
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
00Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
> the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
too bad you aint one of em.
Oh come on now, you're not fooling anyone. If I were gone, you'd miss
me. Heck, every time I do go somewhere, I come home and find that
you've called me out in one or more threads.
there's really no need for one is there?.......although i'd say colin
has made it clear that he's, not only ant ref, but anti observers
makin ref calls. 0then ya got the people like you and pete that say
you arent anti ref but you sure take any cahnce you can get to
discredit them.
Nuance, my friend. It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
opposed to some aspects of it.
so that means that the half assed pro-ref contingincy is the
majority.......with ME tippin the scales.
I'm not sure that you're tipping anything. In the general case
though, yes. In pretty much any political endeavor, he who can win
over the apathetic can win the day, since there are usually more
apathetic folks than folks who care one way or the other... about
anything. More people didn't vote last November than voted for Obama,
etc.
The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
The answer generally is: you don't. You can require voting I
suppose. Some countries do that. I'm not sure it results in a more
informed electorate though.
0but around these parts, here
> on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support.
i thought support for that was shown via membership dues?
I think "support" is fair to say. "Fervent," "militant," or "zealot,"
less so. I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. Food's decent. I'm
supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
their menu. But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot. I'm not a militant
supporter. I just dig the product that they're selling enough to pay
the price they're asking.
00Most
> people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
> don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
them then right. 0whats the big fight about then. 0why such
intollerance by many of their incorporation 0of ultimate.
I wouldn't consider SOTG and refs to be either/or. Refs surely don't
help, they probably hurt a bit, but it's not an either/or situation.
Your numbering system makes that assumption, but I don't.
0but not being a
> jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
well cops arent for when people arent being dumbasses now are they?
Sure they are. Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
else.
Kind of like how the NBA enforces a stupid post-game dress code, but
doesn't give a shit about players traveling.
You're not the first person to conflate legal and ethical, and you
won't be the last...
00Hard to militantly support
> something that... mundane,
since when is spirit mundane? 0i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by most
as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
Well, sacred's not a word I'd use when discussing SOTG, but I dig your
drift. There's value in the mundane. Sunsets are mundane. Saturday
mornings with your wife are mundane. Playing disc with your buddies
who aren't behaving like aggro rageaholics, mundane. That doesn't
make them worthless...
~p
> I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
> few others, this is a pretty chill board.
by chill you mean boring?
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
00Most are apathetic or just don't want to get involved in
> the shit-storm that any conversation with you becomes.
too bad you aint one of em.
Oh come on now, you're not fooling anyone. If I were gone, you'd miss
me. Heck, every time I do go somewhere, I come home and find that
you've called me out in one or more threads.
there's really no need for one is there?.......although i'd say colin
has made it clear that he's, not only ant ref, but anti observers
makin ref calls. 0then ya got the people like you and pete that say
you arent anti ref but you sure take any cahnce you can get to
discredit them.
Nuance, my friend. It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
opposed to some aspects of it.
so that means that the half assed pro-ref contingincy is the
majority.......with ME tippin the scales.
I'm not sure that you're tipping anything. In the general case
though, yes. In pretty much any political endeavor, he who can win
over the apathetic can win the day, since there are usually more
apathetic folks than folks who care one way or the other... about
anything. More people didn't vote last November than voted for Obama,
etc.
The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
The answer generally is: you don't. You can require voting I
suppose. Some countries do that. I'm not sure it results in a more
informed electorate though.
0but around these parts, here
> on RSD, I'm not seeing much in the way of militant SOTG support.
i thought support for that was shown via membership dues?
I think "support" is fair to say. "Fervent," "militant," or "zealot,"
less so. I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. Food's decent. I'm
supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
their menu. But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot. I'm not a militant
supporter. I just dig the product that they're selling enough to pay
the price they're asking.
00Most
> people just treat it like an inoccuous "be a good sport, don't cheat,
> don't be a dick" bromide that's kind of... uncontroversial.
fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
them then right. 0whats the big fight about then. 0why such
intollerance by many of their incorporation 0of ultimate.
I wouldn't consider SOTG and refs to be either/or. Refs surely don't
help, they probably hurt a bit, but it's not an either/or situation.
Your numbering system makes that assumption, but I don't.
0but not being a
> jackass is something that applies even when the cops are around.
well cops arent for when people arent being dumbasses now are they?
Sure they are. Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
else.
Kind of like how the NBA enforces a stupid post-game dress code, but
doesn't give a shit about players traveling.
You're not the first person to conflate legal and ethical, and you
won't be the last...
00Hard to militantly support
> something that... mundane,
since when is spirit mundane? 0i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by most
as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
Well, sacred's not a word I'd use when discussing SOTG, but I dig your
drift. There's value in the mundane. Sunsets are mundane. Saturday
mornings with your wife are mundane. Playing disc with your buddies
who aren't behaving like aggro rageaholics, mundane. That doesn't
make them worthless...
~p
19.06.2009 - 02:19
On Jun 18, 6:560pm, William Lorentson <william.lorent...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:160pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> > I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
> > few others, this is a pretty chill board.
> by chill you mean boring?
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
where else would i have learned to "get up, stand up, stand up for
your rights.......get up, stand up, DONT GIB UP DE FIGHT"....so, "no i
wont gib up de fight........no, i'll neba gib up de fight".....
marley was ALL about redemtion!!!!!!, dont tell me. i was listening to
bmw before you were born
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on now, you're not fooling anyone. 0If I were gone, you'd miss
me.
try me
---------------------------------------------
0Heck, every time I do go somewhere, I come home and find that
you've called me out in one or more threads.
every time??????
-------------------------------------------------
Nuance, my friend. 0It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
opposed to some aspects of it.
so youre just a dick then eh?
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that you're tipping anything.
according to your little chart i am
-------------------------------------------------------
0In the general case
though, yes. 0In pretty much any political endeavor, he who can win
over the apathetic can win the day,
and thats what i'm trying to do.......and since you say you dont
really have a dog in th fight, why do you always stand in opposition
to me and fight my attemts to sway the apathetic fence dwellers? my
insight tells me you DO have a dog in the fight, that or you are just
an huge pussy(that refuses to see the misrepresentation of the upa
admin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
since there are usually more
apathetic folks than folks who care one way or the other... about
anything. 0More people didn't vote last November than voted for Obama,
etc.
so i guess YOU would count those votes towards the THEN status quoe,
right?. remember, a non vote is a vote NOT for change.....as per you
anyways.......the apathetic are fine with how things are, hence their
apathy and all that bullshit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
i call em out......obviously
--------------------------------------------------------
The answer generally is: you don't. 0You can require voting I
suppose. 0Some countries do that. 0I'm not sure it results in a more
informed electorate though.
how "informed" does someone have to be to know weather or not they are
pro or anti ref?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think "support" is fair to say. 0"Fervent," "militant," or "zealot,"
less so.
so youre saying their is support for the admin to be zealous (about
preserving sotg)??????........cause thats what they do
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
0I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. 0Food's decent. 0I'm
supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
their menu. 0But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot.
well you are far from being in the zone then........which, to a
nutritionalist, might be considered a non zealous diet. thing is
though, while you can tolerate an occasional fast food meal (even as
someone who normally eats healthy)......the majority of spirit zealots
have NO TOLERANCE for refs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0I'm not a militant
supporter. 0I just dig the product that they're selling enough to pay
the price they're asking.
fine, i'm not. and my main problem is their exclusive
mentality........which isnt at all in line with the traditional,
tolerant, hippy mentality that sotg was born from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
> fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
> them then right. 0whats the big fight about then. 0why such
> intollerance by many of their incorporation 0of ultimate.
I wouldn't consider SOTG and refs to be either/or.
well, your administrators do. maybe not as much now as they did in
the past but there is still a signifigant stigmatization amoungst the
majority of those setting policy to not be all that accepting of the
thought of refs........while TOTALLY on fire for sotg (which, as a
membership, we still cant agree on its meaning).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Refs surely don't
help, they probably hurt a bit,
see now, this is the kind of anti ref propaganda that puts you amongst
the SZP.........and makes me question your true tolerance for refs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
but it's not an either/or situation.
Your numbering system makes that assumption, but I don't.
well its just cause yu are all over the place with it that you cant
find a place to fit in. its your own fault. but believe me, youde be
MUCH more welcome with them than with us. even mike who is a self
proclaimed 3 hates your guts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------
Sure they are. 0Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
else.
sure it is, if ya flaunt it.......but even the fbi called off the dogs
on many of the growers in cal. bad analogy.......or bad law, take
your pick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of like how the NBA enforces a stupid post-game dress code, but
doesn't give a shit about players traveling.
how can you say they dont give a shit about traveling when THEY make
the penalty a turnover. I'd say its ultimate that cares less about
that as when you travel in ulti you get a mulligan.......over and over
and over and over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not the first person to conflate legal and ethical, and you
won't be the last...
isnt that what the sotg clause does to a tee?
-------------------------------------------------------------
> since when is spirit mundane? 0i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by mos=
t
> as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
Well, sacred's not a word I'd use when discussing SOTG,
spirit zealots probably do......or at least think that its sacred
----------------------------------------------------
but I dig your
drift. 0There's value in the mundane. 0Sunsets are mundane. 0Saturd=
ay
mornings with your wife are mundane. 0Playing disc with your buddies
who aren't behaving like aggro rageaholics, mundane.
its still mundane when they do act agro though, right?.......or would
you call the incedent that the "seller of his sole to the devil" wrote
about to be sacred? how would the behavior of anybody in any of your
examples have any bearing on a thing being sacred or mundane?
-----------------------------------------------------
0That doesn't
make them worthless...
first off, value and worth are very subjective as things can be
valuable in different ways. would playing ultimate with refs fit into
the mundane? now i do agree that a simple pickup game of just about
ANY sport is mundane.......but when ya go out of your way to use those
"gentlemans rules" in an organized, formal competition (especially as
a way to increase peoples "spirit" levels.......isnt that THE supposed
benefit of self officiation?........besides savin a buck of
course)......you are bordering on the sacred.
wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:160pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> > I think the inaccuracy comes from the fact that, aside from you and a
> > few others, this is a pretty chill board.
> by chill you mean boring?
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
where else would i have learned to "get up, stand up, stand up for
your rights.......get up, stand up, DONT GIB UP DE FIGHT"....so, "no i
wont gib up de fight........no, i'll neba gib up de fight".....
marley was ALL about redemtion!!!!!!, dont tell me. i was listening to
bmw before you were born
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on now, you're not fooling anyone. 0If I were gone, you'd miss
me.
try me
---------------------------------------------
0Heck, every time I do go somewhere, I come home and find that
you've called me out in one or more threads.
every time??????
-------------------------------------------------
Nuance, my friend. 0It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
opposed to some aspects of it.
so youre just a dick then eh?
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that you're tipping anything.
according to your little chart i am
-------------------------------------------------------
0In the general case
though, yes. 0In pretty much any political endeavor, he who can win
over the apathetic can win the day,
and thats what i'm trying to do.......and since you say you dont
really have a dog in th fight, why do you always stand in opposition
to me and fight my attemts to sway the apathetic fence dwellers? my
insight tells me you DO have a dog in the fight, that or you are just
an huge pussy(that refuses to see the misrepresentation of the upa
admin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
since there are usually more
apathetic folks than folks who care one way or the other... about
anything. 0More people didn't vote last November than voted for Obama,
etc.
so i guess YOU would count those votes towards the THEN status quoe,
right?. remember, a non vote is a vote NOT for change.....as per you
anyways.......the apathetic are fine with how things are, hence their
apathy and all that bullshit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
i call em out......obviously
--------------------------------------------------------
The answer generally is: you don't. 0You can require voting I
suppose. 0Some countries do that. 0I'm not sure it results in a more
informed electorate though.
how "informed" does someone have to be to know weather or not they are
pro or anti ref?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think "support" is fair to say. 0"Fervent," "militant," or "zealot,"
less so.
so youre saying their is support for the admin to be zealous (about
preserving sotg)??????........cause thats what they do
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
0I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. 0Food's decent. 0I'm
supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
their menu. 0But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot.
well you are far from being in the zone then........which, to a
nutritionalist, might be considered a non zealous diet. thing is
though, while you can tolerate an occasional fast food meal (even as
someone who normally eats healthy)......the majority of spirit zealots
have NO TOLERANCE for refs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0I'm not a militant
supporter. 0I just dig the product that they're selling enough to pay
the price they're asking.
fine, i'm not. and my main problem is their exclusive
mentality........which isnt at all in line with the traditional,
tolerant, hippy mentality that sotg was born from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
> fine, all that can be accomplished just as easily with refs as without
> them then right. 0whats the big fight about then. 0why such
> intollerance by many of their incorporation 0of ultimate.
I wouldn't consider SOTG and refs to be either/or.
well, your administrators do. maybe not as much now as they did in
the past but there is still a signifigant stigmatization amoungst the
majority of those setting policy to not be all that accepting of the
thought of refs........while TOTALLY on fire for sotg (which, as a
membership, we still cant agree on its meaning).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Refs surely don't
help, they probably hurt a bit,
see now, this is the kind of anti ref propaganda that puts you amongst
the SZP.........and makes me question your true tolerance for refs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
but it's not an either/or situation.
Your numbering system makes that assumption, but I don't.
well its just cause yu are all over the place with it that you cant
find a place to fit in. its your own fault. but believe me, youde be
MUCH more welcome with them than with us. even mike who is a self
proclaimed 3 hates your guts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------
Sure they are. 0Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
else.
sure it is, if ya flaunt it.......but even the fbi called off the dogs
on many of the growers in cal. bad analogy.......or bad law, take
your pick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of like how the NBA enforces a stupid post-game dress code, but
doesn't give a shit about players traveling.
how can you say they dont give a shit about traveling when THEY make
the penalty a turnover. I'd say its ultimate that cares less about
that as when you travel in ulti you get a mulligan.......over and over
and over and over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not the first person to conflate legal and ethical, and you
won't be the last...
isnt that what the sotg clause does to a tee?
-------------------------------------------------------------
> since when is spirit mundane? 0i'd ultimate "spirit" is viewed by mos=
t
> as more sacred(which is the oppisite of mundane, right?) than mundane.
Well, sacred's not a word I'd use when discussing SOTG,
spirit zealots probably do......or at least think that its sacred
----------------------------------------------------
but I dig your
drift. 0There's value in the mundane. 0Sunsets are mundane. 0Saturd=
ay
mornings with your wife are mundane. 0Playing disc with your buddies
who aren't behaving like aggro rageaholics, mundane.
its still mundane when they do act agro though, right?.......or would
you call the incedent that the "seller of his sole to the devil" wrote
about to be sacred? how would the behavior of anybody in any of your
examples have any bearing on a thing being sacred or mundane?
-----------------------------------------------------
0That doesn't
make them worthless...
first off, value and worth are very subjective as things can be
valuable in different ways. would playing ultimate with refs fit into
the mundane? now i do agree that a simple pickup game of just about
ANY sport is mundane.......but when ya go out of your way to use those
"gentlemans rules" in an organized, formal competition (especially as
a way to increase peoples "spirit" levels.......isnt that THE supposed
benefit of self officiation?........besides savin a buck of
course)......you are bordering on the sacred.
19.06.2009 - 07:24
On Jun 18, 5:190pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> Nuance, my friend. 0It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
> opposed to some aspects of it.
so youre just a dick then eh?
Well, I have my moments, but that's a whole 'nother thing. Point is,
you can be basketball generally without being for foul shooting.
> The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
i call em out......obviously
How's that been workin' for you?
00I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. 0Food's decent. 0I'm
> supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
> their menu. 0But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot.
well you are far from being in the zone then........which, to a
nutritionalist, might be considered a non zealous diet. 0thing is
though, while you can tolerate an occasional fast food meal (even as
someone who normally eats healthy)......the majority of spirit zealots
have NO TOLERANCE for refs.
Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
vegan. Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. I've got you
pegged for a 2.
well its just cause yu are all over the place with it that you cant
find a place to fit in. 0its your own fault.
When the model fails to account for reality, the fault lies with the
model, not with reality. Every time. If you've got a fancy equation
that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
0but believe me, youde be
MUCH more welcome with them than with us. 0even mike who is a self
proclaimed 3 hates your guts
That's a shame, one would think that Mike would have better things to
do with his time than waste it hating some dude from the interwebs
that he'd never met. He's gottta do what he's gotta do, I suppose,
but what that has to do with anything under current discussion is
beyond me.
Are you saying that even if I wanted to support your platform, you
wouldn't want my support, since Mike doesn't like me? Isn't that a
"you guys" problem? That's what you'd say in this situation, right?
> Sure they are. 0Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
> coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
> else.
sure it is, if ya flaunt it.......but even the fbi called off the dogs
on many of the growers in cal. 0bad analogy.......or bad law, take
your pick.
Bad law. There are a shit ton of drug offenders in prison, many of of
them for dope. Surely all of them weren't flaunting it. You're right
that Cali's about as close to legalizing as you can get without
legalizing, but we're also home to three strikes and rampant prison
overcrowding. The point is, the cops don't encourage good and punish
bad. They encourage abiding the laws that they care to enforce and
discourage breaking those same laws. Since the laws of the land and
the things that the cops prioritize don't map very well to "good and
bad," well, we've got a situation where we've ceded moral authority to
an entity that isn't capable of handling it.
It's like contracting somebody to build your house that builds really
shitty houses. Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
how can you say they dont give a shit about traveling when THEY make
the penalty a turnover.
It's only a penalty if it gets called. To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. Only seven of
those were called." Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?vDrlp=
suq6iABg
when ya go out of your way to use those
"gentlemans rules" in an organized, formal competition
It's about ceding authority again. If I pay somebody to build my
house, I don't need to learn how to build houses. If there are no
gentleman's rules, there will be no gentlemen. Obviously not a
concern to you (it would appear that you don't distinguish between
"gentlemanly behavior" and "gay"), but probably a concern for others.
It's fine that you'll take the trade-off, but you can't pretend that
it's not there.
~p
> Nuance, my friend. 0It's like I'm not anti-basketball, I'm just
> opposed to some aspects of it.
so youre just a dick then eh?
Well, I have my moments, but that's a whole 'nother thing. Point is,
you can be basketball generally without being for foul shooting.
> The trick of course is: how do you motivate people who don't care?
i call em out......obviously
How's that been workin' for you?
00I'll eat at In-N-Out sometimes. 0Food's decent. 0I'm
> supporting them with my dollars, which I wouldn't do if I didn't like
> their menu. 0But I'm not an In-N-Out zealot.
well you are far from being in the zone then........which, to a
nutritionalist, might be considered a non zealous diet. 0thing is
though, while you can tolerate an occasional fast food meal (even as
someone who normally eats healthy)......the majority of spirit zealots
have NO TOLERANCE for refs.
Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
vegan. Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. I've got you
pegged for a 2.
well its just cause yu are all over the place with it that you cant
find a place to fit in. 0its your own fault.
When the model fails to account for reality, the fault lies with the
model, not with reality. Every time. If you've got a fancy equation
that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
0but believe me, youde be
MUCH more welcome with them than with us. 0even mike who is a self
proclaimed 3 hates your guts
That's a shame, one would think that Mike would have better things to
do with his time than waste it hating some dude from the interwebs
that he'd never met. He's gottta do what he's gotta do, I suppose,
but what that has to do with anything under current discussion is
beyond me.
Are you saying that even if I wanted to support your platform, you
wouldn't want my support, since Mike doesn't like me? Isn't that a
"you guys" problem? That's what you'd say in this situation, right?
> Sure they are. 0Smoking weed isn't a dumbass thing to do, but the
> coppers put more people in jail for that than pretty much anything
> else.
sure it is, if ya flaunt it.......but even the fbi called off the dogs
on many of the growers in cal. 0bad analogy.......or bad law, take
your pick.
Bad law. There are a shit ton of drug offenders in prison, many of of
them for dope. Surely all of them weren't flaunting it. You're right
that Cali's about as close to legalizing as you can get without
legalizing, but we're also home to three strikes and rampant prison
overcrowding. The point is, the cops don't encourage good and punish
bad. They encourage abiding the laws that they care to enforce and
discourage breaking those same laws. Since the laws of the land and
the things that the cops prioritize don't map very well to "good and
bad," well, we've got a situation where we've ceded moral authority to
an entity that isn't capable of handling it.
It's like contracting somebody to build your house that builds really
shitty houses. Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
how can you say they dont give a shit about traveling when THEY make
the penalty a turnover.
It's only a penalty if it gets called. To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. Only seven of
those were called." Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?vDrlp=
suq6iABg
when ya go out of your way to use those
"gentlemans rules" in an organized, formal competition
It's about ceding authority again. If I pay somebody to build my
house, I don't need to learn how to build houses. If there are no
gentleman's rules, there will be no gentlemen. Obviously not a
concern to you (it would appear that you don't distinguish between
"gentlemanly behavior" and "gay"), but probably a concern for others.
It's fine that you'll take the trade-off, but you can't pretend that
it's not there.
~p
19.06.2009 - 15:58
On Jun 19, 1:240am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so youre just a dick then eh?
Well, I have my moments,
and you choose to use them all up here,eh?
-------------------------------------------------
Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've got yo=
u
pegged for a 2.
just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". And
if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
efficient fuel source). Where do you get your protien from as a
vegan? must get old eating tofu at every meal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
When the model fails to account for reality,
how?......and why is it that you (and some other random 2's) are the
only ones that think this? lests see you break it down for us and see
if and how people respond. seriously, aside from not having a
catigory for you specifically how is this model inaccurate. I mean,
obviously it gets a little blurry between the 2's and 3's but when
isnt it blurry where two factions split. i thought it was very much
like a typical upa survey question.......aside from the misinterpreted
"offensive" lables i used for the groupings
---------------------------------------------------------------
0If you've got a fancy equation
that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
no, its the engineers/archeticts fault....as well as the planing
inspector (point is, youde never get a permit to build a house like
that in the first place.....dumbass)....you obviously know nothing
about the house building industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------
That's a shame, one would think that Mike would have better things to
do with his time than waste it hating some dude from the interwebs
that he'd never met.
thats the thing punto......you just make it so effortless
------------------------------------------------------------------
0He's gottta do what he's gotta do, I suppose,
but what that has to do with anything under current discussion is
beyond me.
then wy didtnt you just ignore it......like the way you do the gay
marriage analogy......you know, Hboys BRILLIANT "refs would interfere
with the sanctity of spirit" quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
Are you saying that even if I wanted to support your platform, you
wouldn't want my support, since Mike doesn't like me? 0Isn't that a
"you guys" problem? 0That's what you'd say in this situation, right?
nah, i said we would gladly take your money and your vote. dosent
mean we'de get caught in public socializing with you (or private for
that matter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad law.
then ya cant blame the law "enforcers" now can ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
0>
It's like contracting somebody to build your house that builds really
shitty houses.
well, what kind of a dumbass hires someone like that in the first
place. seems like a simple matter of doing ones homework to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. do
yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------
It's only a penalty if it gets called.
well, at least they dont allow players to call fantom bailout travels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. 0Only seven of
those were called." 0Here's the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?vD=
rlpsuq6iABg
well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
advasntage over the other i say bfd. then again, maybe basketball
refs that are leinient with the traveling calls are just more evolved
that cops that havent learned to look the other way when it comes to a
little weed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------
It's about ceding authority again. 0If I pay somebody to build my
house, I don't need to learn how to build houses.
yea, you just need to learn how to hire the right contractor. of
which i'm sure there is plenty of info on the web as to how to do
that. and iof ya dont, as with your examples above.......THEN ITS YOUR
OWN DAMN FAULT!!!!!
so..........in ultimate terms........."yea, you just need to learn how
to hire the right refs. cause if ya dont, its your own damn fault."
but your right about one thing, if you pay someone else to manage your
ultimate competition and enforce the rules.......then you dont need to
learn that. dosent mean it wouldnt be in your best interest to know
the rules.......or have some understanding of how a house is built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
If there are no
gentleman's rules, there will be no gentlemen.
are you saying that there is not one sigle person that CAN play with
honor in sports with refs? because of the refs?????? man, thats a
stretch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
0Obviously not a
concern to you (it would appear that you don't distinguish between
"gentlemanly behavior" and "gay"), but probably a concern for others.
and what exactly is that concern?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
It's fine that you'll take the trade-off, but you can't pretend that
it's not there.
trade offs are everywhere punto........even in your prescious sotg
style ultimate.......which, last i checked, is about 99.9% of it.
> so youre just a dick then eh?
Well, I have my moments,
and you choose to use them all up here,eh?
-------------------------------------------------
Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've got yo=
u
pegged for a 2.
just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". And
if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
efficient fuel source). Where do you get your protien from as a
vegan? must get old eating tofu at every meal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
When the model fails to account for reality,
how?......and why is it that you (and some other random 2's) are the
only ones that think this? lests see you break it down for us and see
if and how people respond. seriously, aside from not having a
catigory for you specifically how is this model inaccurate. I mean,
obviously it gets a little blurry between the 2's and 3's but when
isnt it blurry where two factions split. i thought it was very much
like a typical upa survey question.......aside from the misinterpreted
"offensive" lables i used for the groupings
---------------------------------------------------------------
0If you've got a fancy equation
that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
no, its the engineers/archeticts fault....as well as the planing
inspector (point is, youde never get a permit to build a house like
that in the first place.....dumbass)....you obviously know nothing
about the house building industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------
That's a shame, one would think that Mike would have better things to
do with his time than waste it hating some dude from the interwebs
that he'd never met.
thats the thing punto......you just make it so effortless
------------------------------------------------------------------
0He's gottta do what he's gotta do, I suppose,
but what that has to do with anything under current discussion is
beyond me.
then wy didtnt you just ignore it......like the way you do the gay
marriage analogy......you know, Hboys BRILLIANT "refs would interfere
with the sanctity of spirit" quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
Are you saying that even if I wanted to support your platform, you
wouldn't want my support, since Mike doesn't like me? 0Isn't that a
"you guys" problem? 0That's what you'd say in this situation, right?
nah, i said we would gladly take your money and your vote. dosent
mean we'de get caught in public socializing with you (or private for
that matter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad law.
then ya cant blame the law "enforcers" now can ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
0>
It's like contracting somebody to build your house that builds really
shitty houses.
well, what kind of a dumbass hires someone like that in the first
place. seems like a simple matter of doing ones homework to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. do
yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------
It's only a penalty if it gets called.
well, at least they dont allow players to call fantom bailout travels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. 0Only seven of
those were called." 0Here's the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?vD=
rlpsuq6iABg
well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
advasntage over the other i say bfd. then again, maybe basketball
refs that are leinient with the traveling calls are just more evolved
that cops that havent learned to look the other way when it comes to a
little weed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------
It's about ceding authority again. 0If I pay somebody to build my
house, I don't need to learn how to build houses.
yea, you just need to learn how to hire the right contractor. of
which i'm sure there is plenty of info on the web as to how to do
that. and iof ya dont, as with your examples above.......THEN ITS YOUR
OWN DAMN FAULT!!!!!
so..........in ultimate terms........."yea, you just need to learn how
to hire the right refs. cause if ya dont, its your own damn fault."
but your right about one thing, if you pay someone else to manage your
ultimate competition and enforce the rules.......then you dont need to
learn that. dosent mean it wouldnt be in your best interest to know
the rules.......or have some understanding of how a house is built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
If there are no
gentleman's rules, there will be no gentlemen.
are you saying that there is not one sigle person that CAN play with
honor in sports with refs? because of the refs?????? man, thats a
stretch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
0Obviously not a
concern to you (it would appear that you don't distinguish between
"gentlemanly behavior" and "gay"), but probably a concern for others.
and what exactly is that concern?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
It's fine that you'll take the trade-off, but you can't pretend that
it's not there.
trade offs are everywhere punto........even in your prescious sotg
style ultimate.......which, last i checked, is about 99.9% of it.
19.06.2009 - 17:42
On Jun 19, 6:580am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
> vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've got =
you
> pegged for a 2.
just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". 0And
if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
efficient fuel source). 0Where do you get your protien from as a
vegan? 0must get old eating tofu at every meal.
Tofu? A level-5 vegan doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow. A
Simpsons refresher for you:
Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
shadow.
0 0If you've got a fancy equation
> that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
> you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
no, its the engineers/archeticts fault....as well as the planing
inspector (point is, youde never get a permit to build a house like
that in the first place.....dumbass)....you obviously know nothing
about the house building industry.
I'm not talking about bureaucracy. I'm talking about models and
reality. Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
wanted to. Only those whose models of how a house should be
constructed were accurate would succeed. I think you've fallen into
your old habit of taking analogies too literally... again...
> Bad law.
then ya cant blame the law "enforcers" now can ya.
Well, not for the law. Naturally it says something when somebody
signs up to enforce a bad law. The reality of course is that some
laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
00Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
> have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
> shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
> 7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. 0do
yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
code.
Seriously, dude? Do you understand the concept of an analogy? I was
kind of alluding to the bogus house that the town made in the
Simpsons, but even if I wasn't, that's not the point. Obviously you
wouldn't hire someone to build a shitty house, and obviously if such a
shitty house were somehow to get built, local bureaucrats would have
the machinery in place to make sure that it wasn't lived in. The
point however remains unscathed: Whenever you cede authority to
someone else, you lose 1) some control over outcomes and 2) some of
your own capability. I understand that hypotheticals are harder for
some than others, but you're out-doing yourself here.
00To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
> far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. 0Only seven of
> those were called." 0Here's the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Drlpsuq6iABg
well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
advasntage over the other i say bfd.
Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
NBA cared about travels. The NBA doesn't give a shit about a travel,
so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
reel in the process.
> It's about ceding authority again. 0If I pay somebody to build my
> house, I don't need to learn how to build houses.
yea, you just need to learn how to hire the right contractor. 0of
which i'm sure there is plenty of info on the web as to how to do
that.
Wow, three strikes. The abstract might well be beyond you.
~p
> Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
> vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've got =
you
> pegged for a 2.
just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". 0And
if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
efficient fuel source). 0Where do you get your protien from as a
vegan? 0must get old eating tofu at every meal.
Tofu? A level-5 vegan doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow. A
Simpsons refresher for you:
Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
shadow.
0 0If you've got a fancy equation
> that says you can build a house with half as much timber as usual, and
> you try it, and the house collapses... is it the timber's fault?
no, its the engineers/archeticts fault....as well as the planing
inspector (point is, youde never get a permit to build a house like
that in the first place.....dumbass)....you obviously know nothing
about the house building industry.
I'm not talking about bureaucracy. I'm talking about models and
reality. Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
wanted to. Only those whose models of how a house should be
constructed were accurate would succeed. I think you've fallen into
your old habit of taking analogies too literally... again...
> Bad law.
then ya cant blame the law "enforcers" now can ya.
Well, not for the law. Naturally it says something when somebody
signs up to enforce a bad law. The reality of course is that some
laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
00Sure, you've got someplace to live, and you didn't
> have to do the job yourself, but now you've got a leaky roof and
> shitty insulation and creaky floors and a living room ceiling that's
> 7ft tall at the north end and 8 at the south.
well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. 0do
yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
code.
Seriously, dude? Do you understand the concept of an analogy? I was
kind of alluding to the bogus house that the town made in the
Simpsons, but even if I wasn't, that's not the point. Obviously you
wouldn't hire someone to build a shitty house, and obviously if such a
shitty house were somehow to get built, local bureaucrats would have
the machinery in place to make sure that it wasn't lived in. The
point however remains unscathed: Whenever you cede authority to
someone else, you lose 1) some control over outcomes and 2) some of
your own capability. I understand that hypotheticals are harder for
some than others, but you're out-doing yourself here.
00To quote ESPN: "In 1996 so
> far, there have been over 1500 cases of traveling. 0Only seven of
> those were called." 0Here's the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Drlpsuq6iABg
well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
advasntage over the other i say bfd.
Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
NBA cared about travels. The NBA doesn't give a shit about a travel,
so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
reel in the process.
> It's about ceding authority again. 0If I pay somebody to build my
> house, I don't need to learn how to build houses.
yea, you just need to learn how to hire the right contractor. 0of
which i'm sure there is plenty of info on the web as to how to do
that.
Wow, three strikes. The abstract might well be beyond you.
~p
19.06.2009 - 18:26
On Jun 19, 11:420am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:580am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> > Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
> > vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've go=
t you
> > pegged for a 2.
> just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". 0And
> if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
> burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
> efficient fuel source). 0Where do you get your protien from as a
> vegan? 0must get old eating tofu at every meal.
Tofu? 0A level-5 vegan doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow. 0A
Simpsons refresher for you:
exactly!!! ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
VEGANISM IS THE ULTIMATE FRISBEE OF DIETS!!!! now THAT sounds like a
good thread topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
shadow.
yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". little too
snobbish for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
I'm not talking about bureaucracy.
well i am......cause its bureacracy that preventing refs from being
allowed into ultimate
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about models and
reality. 0Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
wanted to.
like in the 1800's? prior to logical and progressive
thinking.......standards and whatnot?
------------------------------------------------------------
0Only those whose models of how a house should be
constructed were accurate would succeed.
kinda like the "referee" model has succeeded in sports?
-----------------------------------------------------------
0I think you've fallen into
your old habit of taking analogies too literally... again...
well your gonna have to intruct me how to take em prior to you giving
them then.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not for the law. 0Naturally it says something when somebody
signs up to enforce a bad law.
what?
-----------------------------------------
0The reality of course is that some
laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
probably do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
> CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. 0do
> yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
> a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
> KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
> generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
> code.
Seriously, dude? 0Do you understand the concept of an analogy?
sure, but they only work when the analoger KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK HES
TALKING ABOUT!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0I was
kind of alluding to the bogus house that the town made in the
Simpsons, but even if I wasn't, that's not the point.
I dont know any contractor that bases the soundness of
archetecture,engeneering and building from a comical tv
show......especially one thats a cartoon. The simpsons it about
pointing out the foibles of everyday life.....not an intructional on
how to properly build a house........dumbass
------------------------------------------------------------------
0Obviously you
wouldn't hire someone to build a shitty house, and obviously if such a
shitty house were somehow to get built, local bureaucrats would have
the machinery in place to make sure that it wasn't lived in.
which is what kills your analogy
------------------------------------------------------------
0The
point however remains unscathed: Whenever you cede authority to
someone else, you lose 1) some control over outcomes and 2) some of
your own capability.
but when its your money, YOU are the boss, so YOU are the one that has
ultimate control as well as ultimate responsibility........and as for
capability......THIS is why people hire professionals FOR MOST
EVERYTHING.....from building houses to reffing sports. sure ther are
some do it yourselfers out there that try to DIY and save a
buck....but many find that they pay more in the end by going that
route, or by not doing the proper reasearch prior to hiring others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
> well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
> advasntage over the other i say bfd.
Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
NBA cared about travels.
i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
0>The NBA doesn't give a shit about a travel,
then either voice that opinion as a consumer or dont patronize the
product
----------------------------------------------------------------
so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
reel in the process.
then why did labron get called for it on one of his crab walks in the
semis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, three strikes.
which means your OUT!!!!
---------------------------------------------
0>The abstract might well be beyond you.
maybe so........of course it may just be that i find nothing abstract
in the least about the concept of refs in sports.........and i'm
assuming the majority of sports related people also dont.
On Jun 19, 6:580am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> > Dude, aside from those occasional In-N-Out dalliances, I'm a level 5
> > vegan. 0Anyone who isn't is just a fuckin' half-stepper. 0I've go=
t you
> > pegged for a 2.
> just cause your a vegan dont put you in the nutritional "zone". 0And
> if you aint in the zone, you aint in the zone(which means you are
> burning carbs as fuel instead of fat........which is a much more
> efficient fuel source). 0Where do you get your protien from as a
> vegan? 0must get old eating tofu at every meal.
Tofu? 0A level-5 vegan doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow. 0A
Simpsons refresher for you:
exactly!!! ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
VEGANISM IS THE ULTIMATE FRISBEE OF DIETS!!!! now THAT sounds like a
good thread topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
shadow.
yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". little too
snobbish for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
I'm not talking about bureaucracy.
well i am......cause its bureacracy that preventing refs from being
allowed into ultimate
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about models and
reality. 0Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
wanted to.
like in the 1800's? prior to logical and progressive
thinking.......standards and whatnot?
------------------------------------------------------------
0Only those whose models of how a house should be
constructed were accurate would succeed.
kinda like the "referee" model has succeeded in sports?
-----------------------------------------------------------
0I think you've fallen into
your old habit of taking analogies too literally... again...
well your gonna have to intruct me how to take em prior to you giving
them then.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not for the law. 0Naturally it says something when somebody
signs up to enforce a bad law.
what?
-----------------------------------------
0The reality of course is that some
laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
probably do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> well, the 7 ft ceiling hight would prevent most homes from gettin the
> CO so the reality is that you wouldnt have someplace to live. 0do
> yourself a favor and use analogies with things that you actually have
> a little knowledge about......cause again, its totally apparent you
> KNOW NOTHING OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY........as leaky roofs are
> generally a pretty easy fix and shitty insulation instal wont pass
> code.
Seriously, dude? 0Do you understand the concept of an analogy?
sure, but they only work when the analoger KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK HES
TALKING ABOUT!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0I was
kind of alluding to the bogus house that the town made in the
Simpsons, but even if I wasn't, that's not the point.
I dont know any contractor that bases the soundness of
archetecture,engeneering and building from a comical tv
show......especially one thats a cartoon. The simpsons it about
pointing out the foibles of everyday life.....not an intructional on
how to properly build a house........dumbass
------------------------------------------------------------------
0Obviously you
wouldn't hire someone to build a shitty house, and obviously if such a
shitty house were somehow to get built, local bureaucrats would have
the machinery in place to make sure that it wasn't lived in.
which is what kills your analogy
------------------------------------------------------------
0The
point however remains unscathed: Whenever you cede authority to
someone else, you lose 1) some control over outcomes and 2) some of
your own capability.
but when its your money, YOU are the boss, so YOU are the one that has
ultimate control as well as ultimate responsibility........and as for
capability......THIS is why people hire professionals FOR MOST
EVERYTHING.....from building houses to reffing sports. sure ther are
some do it yourselfers out there that try to DIY and save a
buck....but many find that they pay more in the end by going that
route, or by not doing the proper reasearch prior to hiring others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
> well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting an
> advasntage over the other i say bfd.
Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
NBA cared about travels.
i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
0>The NBA doesn't give a shit about a travel,
then either voice that opinion as a consumer or dont patronize the
product
----------------------------------------------------------------
so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
reel in the process.
then why did labron get called for it on one of his crab walks in the
semis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, three strikes.
which means your OUT!!!!
---------------------------------------------
0>The abstract might well be beyond you.
maybe so........of course it may just be that i find nothing abstract
in the least about the concept of refs in sports.........and i'm
assuming the majority of sports related people also dont.
19.06.2009 - 20:56
On Jun 19, 9:260am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
exactly!!! 0ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
Ethics aren't that useful if you never apply them...
> Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
> Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
> Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
> Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
> shadow.
yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". 0little too
snobbish for me.
The level 5 vegan was a joke. Because you're a level 5 ref
supporter. The self-righteousness in your zealotry and Jesse's was
the comparison.
> reality. 0Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
> access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
> wanted to.
like in the 1800's? 0prior to logical and progressive
thinking.......standards and whatnot?
Or you're stranded on a desert island tomorrow, or whatever. The
point is: models have to predict reality in order to be useful. I
think that using housing is hopeless. It's something you understand
well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
comparison at hand. Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well. If
you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
fine. The model is useful at that range.
If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
model.
At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. The earth isn't
perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
The question is, how accurate do you need your model to be? Modeling
political opinions in the US through the use of 2 parties, or opinions
in the ultimate world through the use of 5 points on a continuum that
evaluates only one issue, those are pretty week models. They have
their uses, same as a flat-earth model has its uses, but there are
going to be places where it's a bad approximation.
The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
right. Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
and the big capitalism of the right. And so on.
00The reality of course is that some
> laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
> enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
probably do.
Unless the law explicitly prohibits discretion... as many do...
> > well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting a=
n
> > advasntage over the other i say bfd.
> Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
> NBA cared about travels.
i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
How they're dealt with in ultimate: they're called sometimes, surely
not most times.
How they're dealt with in the NBA: they're called almost never.
In ulty it stops play, in NBA its a turn. Turns are way more
significant in ulty than in the NBA, so it's hard to compare apples
and oranges in that regard. The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
which is a big deal, or pull back a dump throw, which doesn't matter
at all. The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
be critical.
The overall weighted risk of committing a travel depends on both: the
severity of the penalty and the likelihood of being penalized. If you
look at it that way, comparing the NBA and ulty is almost silly, since
neither sport is really doing much to discourage traveling. (NBA-
specific here, college and HS have different enforcement standards).
> so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
> reel in the process.
then why did labron get called for it on one of his crab walks in the
semis.
LeBron probably traveled 2 dozen times IN THAT GAME. I guess that was
one of the 7/1500 that the video I posted was talking about. D)
~p
exactly!!! 0ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
Ethics aren't that useful if you never apply them...
> Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
> Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
> Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
> Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a
> shadow.
yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". 0little too
snobbish for me.
The level 5 vegan was a joke. Because you're a level 5 ref
supporter. The self-righteousness in your zealotry and Jesse's was
the comparison.
> reality. 0Imagine, if it helps, a free country, where anyone who had
> access to land and material could attempt building a house, if they
> wanted to.
like in the 1800's? 0prior to logical and progressive
thinking.......standards and whatnot?
Or you're stranded on a desert island tomorrow, or whatever. The
point is: models have to predict reality in order to be useful. I
think that using housing is hopeless. It's something you understand
well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
comparison at hand. Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well. If
you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
fine. The model is useful at that range.
If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
model.
At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. The earth isn't
perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
The question is, how accurate do you need your model to be? Modeling
political opinions in the US through the use of 2 parties, or opinions
in the ultimate world through the use of 5 points on a continuum that
evaluates only one issue, those are pretty week models. They have
their uses, same as a flat-earth model has its uses, but there are
going to be places where it's a bad approximation.
The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
right. Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
and the big capitalism of the right. And so on.
00The reality of course is that some
> laws are bad, some are good, and the good ones definitely need
> enforcing, so the enforcers have to choose both by choosing one.
or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
probably do.
Unless the law explicitly prohibits discretion... as many do...
> > well, as long as its called consistantly so that no team is getting a=
n
> > advasntage over the other i say bfd.
> Well, now you're 180 from yesterday, when you were claiming that the
> NBA cared about travels.
i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
How they're dealt with in ultimate: they're called sometimes, surely
not most times.
How they're dealt with in the NBA: they're called almost never.
In ulty it stops play, in NBA its a turn. Turns are way more
significant in ulty than in the NBA, so it's hard to compare apples
and oranges in that regard. The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
which is a big deal, or pull back a dump throw, which doesn't matter
at all. The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
be critical.
The overall weighted risk of committing a travel depends on both: the
severity of the penalty and the likelihood of being penalized. If you
look at it that way, comparing the NBA and ulty is almost silly, since
neither sport is really doing much to discourage traveling. (NBA-
specific here, college and HS have different enforcement standards).
> so long as you're doing something that'll look cool on a highlight
> reel in the process.
then why did labron get called for it on one of his crab walks in the
semis.
LeBron probably traveled 2 dozen times IN THAT GAME. I guess that was
one of the 7/1500 that the video I posted was talking about. D)
~p
19.06.2009 - 21:42
On Jun 19, 2:560pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:260am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> exactly!!! 0ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
> diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
Ethics aren't that useful if you never apply them...
or if they are inconsistantly regulated and enforced (which seems to
be the case of most "honor" systems)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
> yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
> proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". 0little too
> snobbish for me.
The level 5 vegan was a joke. 0Because you're a level 5 ref
supporter. 0The self-righteousness in your zealotry and Jesse's was
the comparison.
i kinda figured that out when you said you ate the occasional fast
food meal.......which, as jacob noted, is COMPLETELY UNETHICAL as it
is against any vegan philosophy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
Or you're stranded on a desert island tomorrow, or whatever.
where do you come up with this shit punto. for that i'd refer to man
vs wild. good luck finding an insulation material that could be
improperly installed too OR having to worry about your ceiling hight
being out of level
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
0The
point is: models have to predict reality in order to be useful.
well, self proclaimed 3, mike g, thought the model was well
defining.....and hes no ref zealot. feel free to submit one of your
own that is more realistic though......or gettin anyone to respond to
it for that matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------
0I
think that using housing is hopeless.
obviously....as you have no clue what you are talking about when it
comes to that field
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0It's something you understand
well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
comparison at hand.
i think it is your LACK of understanding that is the source of the
"meandoring".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well.
to dumbasses maybe.........they actually figured out that the earth
was round over 4000 years ago. stonehenge was based on the roundness
of the earth. it was the relegious zealot types that propagated the
notion of its flatness. so, i'm liking this model already
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0If
you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
fine. 0The model is useful at that range.
If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
model.
At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. 0The earth isn't
perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
your techno-weenieness never seises to amaze me. i take it you dont
know all that much about science and space either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
The question is, how accurate do you need your model to be?
as accurate as i made it, obviously. and just the fact that it was
only the 2 types that were in opposition to it told me that i was
really on to somthing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0Modeling
political opinions in the US through the use of 2 parties, or opinions
in the ultimate world through the use of 5 points on a continuum that
evaluates only one issue, those are pretty week models.
tell that to the upa then.....as their surveys ar full of em. how was
that referee experimentation question "modeled" again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0They have
their uses, same as a flat-earth model has its uses, but there are
going to be places where it's a bad approximation.
yea, that place is called 2 ville
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
right. 0Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
and the big capitalism of the right. 0And so on.
thats where cat 3 comes in. isnt that where you said you came in at
anyways?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
> probably do.
Unless the law explicitly prohibits discretion... as many do...
well, they probably simply use discretion on the prohibitive
discretion then........or are simply labeled as corupt by those that
are of the zealous type when it comes to following the leter of the
law. andy grifith is a tv show that might enlighten you to such a
discretionary concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
> how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
How they're dealt with in ultimate: they're called sometimes, surely
not most times.
How they're dealt with in the NBA: they're called almost never.
but, the penalty is such that they are definitely more motivated to
follow it with the way its enforced in the nba. not a whole lot of
risk when ya know youll get a do over.....IF that is, it even gets
called. One thing youll never see a basketball ref call is a fantom
travel that partially(as in which team it benefits) motivated though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
In ulty it stops play, in NBA its a turn. 0Turns are way more
significant in ulty than in the NBA, so it's hard to compare apples
and oranges in that regard.
OK then , use pee wee legue basketball.......its a better comparson
(points/possessions wise) yet they still penalize it with a turn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
which is a big deal,
not if they get another try.
-------------------------------------------------------
or pull back a dump throw, which doesn't matter
at all. 0The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
be critical.
thats like saying missing free throws at the beggining of the game is
less of a big deal than at the end.
this argument is so tired though......fuck it
On Jun 19, 9:260am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> exactly!!! 0ya see, just as i dont want ethics all jumbled up in my
> diet.....i also dont want them all jumbled up in my sports.
Ethics aren't that useful if you never apply them...
or if they are inconsistantly regulated and enforced (which seems to
be the case of most "honor" systems)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
> yea, kinda self rightious dont ya think......just like someone
> proclaiming "i wont play any sport that has refs". 0little too
> snobbish for me.
The level 5 vegan was a joke. 0Because you're a level 5 ref
supporter. 0The self-righteousness in your zealotry and Jesse's was
the comparison.
i kinda figured that out when you said you ate the occasional fast
food meal.......which, as jacob noted, is COMPLETELY UNETHICAL as it
is against any vegan philosophy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
Or you're stranded on a desert island tomorrow, or whatever.
where do you come up with this shit punto. for that i'd refer to man
vs wild. good luck finding an insulation material that could be
improperly installed too OR having to worry about your ceiling hight
being out of level
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
0The
point is: models have to predict reality in order to be useful.
well, self proclaimed 3, mike g, thought the model was well
defining.....and hes no ref zealot. feel free to submit one of your
own that is more realistic though......or gettin anyone to respond to
it for that matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------
0I
think that using housing is hopeless.
obviously....as you have no clue what you are talking about when it
comes to that field
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0It's something you understand
well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
comparison at hand.
i think it is your LACK of understanding that is the source of the
"meandoring".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well.
to dumbasses maybe.........they actually figured out that the earth
was round over 4000 years ago. stonehenge was based on the roundness
of the earth. it was the relegious zealot types that propagated the
notion of its flatness. so, i'm liking this model already
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0If
you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
fine. 0The model is useful at that range.
If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
model.
At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. 0The earth isn't
perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
your techno-weenieness never seises to amaze me. i take it you dont
know all that much about science and space either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
The question is, how accurate do you need your model to be?
as accurate as i made it, obviously. and just the fact that it was
only the 2 types that were in opposition to it told me that i was
really on to somthing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0Modeling
political opinions in the US through the use of 2 parties, or opinions
in the ultimate world through the use of 5 points on a continuum that
evaluates only one issue, those are pretty week models.
tell that to the upa then.....as their surveys ar full of em. how was
that referee experimentation question "modeled" again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0They have
their uses, same as a flat-earth model has its uses, but there are
going to be places where it's a bad approximation.
yea, that place is called 2 ville
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
right. 0Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
and the big capitalism of the right. 0And so on.
thats where cat 3 comes in. isnt that where you said you came in at
anyways?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> or they can use discretion with each law and situation......which many
> probably do.
Unless the law explicitly prohibits discretion... as many do...
well, they probably simply use discretion on the prohibitive
discretion then........or are simply labeled as corupt by those that
are of the zealous type when it comes to following the leter of the
law. andy grifith is a tv show that might enlighten you to such a
discretionary concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i just said they cared about em more than ultimate does......based on
> how they were delt with (which was YOUR criteria, not mine)
How they're dealt with in ultimate: they're called sometimes, surely
not most times.
How they're dealt with in the NBA: they're called almost never.
but, the penalty is such that they are definitely more motivated to
follow it with the way its enforced in the nba. not a whole lot of
risk when ya know youll get a do over.....IF that is, it even gets
called. One thing youll never see a basketball ref call is a fantom
travel that partially(as in which team it benefits) motivated though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
In ulty it stops play, in NBA its a turn. 0Turns are way more
significant in ulty than in the NBA, so it's hard to compare apples
and oranges in that regard.
OK then , use pee wee legue basketball.......its a better comparson
(points/possessions wise) yet they still penalize it with a turn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
which is a big deal,
not if they get another try.
-------------------------------------------------------
or pull back a dump throw, which doesn't matter
at all. 0The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
be critical.
thats like saying missing free throws at the beggining of the game is
less of a big deal than at the end.
this argument is so tired though......fuck it
19.06.2009 - 21:54
On Jun 19, 3:420pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
this argument is so tired though......fuck it
now if only you applied that reasoning to a certain other argument5
btw, i broke out the real ellipsis. so that makes me a topography
zealot lvl 5. im looking for the power ups to get to the nxt lvl.
this argument is so tired though......fuck it
now if only you applied that reasoning to a certain other argument5
btw, i broke out the real ellipsis. so that makes me a topography
zealot lvl 5. im looking for the power ups to get to the nxt lvl.
19.06.2009 - 22:48
On Jun 19, 3:540pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
On Jun 19, 3:420pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> this argument is so tired though......fuck it
now if only you applied that reasoning to a certain other argument5
you know better than that.
On Jun 19, 3:420pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> this argument is so tired though......fuck it
now if only you applied that reasoning to a certain other argument5
you know better than that.
20.06.2009 - 00:10
On Jun 19, 12:420pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
00It's something you understand
> well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
> comparison at hand.
i think it is your LACK of understanding that is the source of the
"meandoring".
No, I understand that there are building codes and all of that.
That's the POINT, silly. The building codes, the regs, the knowledge
that's been passed down, that's the model. It's a good model. If you
build a house to the model (to code), it'll stay up. It'll keep the
insides in and the outsides out. All that good stuff that houses
do.
What I was saying, and that you're just not quite grasping, is that if
someone didn't have that sophisticated model, that was developed over
a lot of time, they'd have a tough time putting a house together that
didn't suck in incredibly obvious ways.
00Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
> At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well.
to dumbasses maybe
No, as noted, flat earth models are worthwhile for pretty much all
every day use. If you're not navigating the globe, or shooting
something off of it, onto it, or around it, flat earth gets the job
done. Most of us spend most or all of our time not doing anything at
all that needs a concept of a non-flat earth. Just because the model
is wrong at some level of abstraction doesn't mean it's not useful at
another (pretty much anywhere where you're measuring distances in
anything less than 20 miles).
0If
> you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
> fine. 0The model is useful at that range.
> If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
> funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
> orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
> representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
> model.
> At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. 0The earth isn'=
t
> perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
your techno-weenieness never seises to amaze me. 0i take it you dont
know all that much about science and space either.
More than the average bear, but if you've got some need bits of info,
don't hold back.
tell that to the upa then.....as their surveys ar full of em. 0how was
that referee experimentation question "modeled" again
Their models were pretty weak. And yet still far stronger than
yours. In fact, it was you who complained about the length of the
survey as a negative... If they tried to get any more detailed,
perhaps not even 6% would have sweated it out.
> The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
> oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
> right. 0Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
> and the big capitalism of the right. 0And so on.
thats where cat 3 comes in. 0isnt that where you said you came in at
anyways?
I didn't say. I said the model didn't have a place for me. It's like
you were asking me what color my car was, and gave me the options:
red, green and blue. But my car is grey. If you only had three
colors on your list, well, you'd have a model that didn't account for
a car like mine. Oh well.
well, they probably simply use discretion on the prohibitive
discretion then........or are simply labeled as corupt by those that
are of the zealous type when it comes to following the leter of the
law. 0andy grifith is a tv show that might enlighten you to such a
discretionary concept.
Try "The Wire."
OK then , use pee wee legue basketball.......its a better comparson
(points/possessions wise) yet they still penalize it with a turn.
In pee wee basketball, you're talking about a shooting percentage
that's probably in the single digits. A possession is next to useless
at that level.
00The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
> which is a big deal,
not if they get another try.
I won a game once where our opponents completed what would have been a
game-winning huck. Disc comes back on a travel (didn't see it, don't
know if it was legit). Two points later, we won on universe. The
other try wasn't enough to help them.
> at all. 0The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
> big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
> be critical.
thats like saying missing free throws at the beggining of the game is
less of a big deal than at the end.
It is like saying that. I used to be of the same mindset as you. The
points all count the same, right? I've since come to the conclusion
that they don't, not exactly. At the end of the game, you have more
information. You know what the foul situation is, what the score
difference is, how much time there is left. You plan the last two
minutes way differently than the first 46, so a turnover in the final
two messes with your plans in a totally different way.
Say you travel in the first quarter, turn it, and they go up 2. Both
teams play even until the end-game, where you know you're down two.
You know that, so there are things you can do. You can start fouling
and taking three pointers. Taking extra risks for the shot at getting
back into it.
Same turnover happens when you're tied, but there are only 6 seconds
left. They score it and go up two, but at the buzzer. You had no
time to change your strategy and react to the penalty.
For the same reason, NFL coaches will usually punt on 4th until late
in the game, when they know that going for it might be the only way
that they can win.
~p
00It's something you understand
> well, but you use that understanding to meander off far from the
> comparison at hand.
i think it is your LACK of understanding that is the source of the
"meandoring".
No, I understand that there are building codes and all of that.
That's the POINT, silly. The building codes, the regs, the knowledge
that's been passed down, that's the model. It's a good model. If you
build a house to the model (to code), it'll stay up. It'll keep the
insides in and the outsides out. All that good stuff that houses
do.
What I was saying, and that you're just not quite grasping, is that if
someone didn't have that sophisticated model, that was developed over
a lot of time, they'd have a tough time putting a house together that
didn't suck in incredibly obvious ways.
00Consider instead, the matter of the flat earth.
> At one level of approximation, a flat earth model works well.
to dumbasses maybe
No, as noted, flat earth models are worthwhile for pretty much all
every day use. If you're not navigating the globe, or shooting
something off of it, onto it, or around it, flat earth gets the job
done. Most of us spend most or all of our time not doing anything at
all that needs a concept of a non-flat earth. Just because the model
is wrong at some level of abstraction doesn't mean it's not useful at
another (pretty much anywhere where you're measuring distances in
anything less than 20 miles).
0If
> you're drawing a map of a small town and writing directions, flat is
> fine. 0The model is useful at that range.
> If you're trying to figure out why photos taken from Everest look
> funny, or get a rocket to the moon and back, or put a satellite into
> orbit, the fact that the flat-earth model is a very poor
> representation of reality matters, and you switch to a spherical
> model.
> At some point, the spherical model will fail you too. 0The earth isn'=
t
> perfectly round, there are bulges and shit like that.
your techno-weenieness never seises to amaze me. 0i take it you dont
know all that much about science and space either.
More than the average bear, but if you've got some need bits of info,
don't hold back.
tell that to the upa then.....as their surveys ar full of em. 0how was
that referee experimentation question "modeled" again
Their models were pretty weak. And yet still far stronger than
yours. In fact, it was you who complained about the length of the
survey as a negative... If they tried to get any more detailed,
perhaps not even 6% would have sweated it out.
> The liberal-conservative thing has no place for libertarians who
> oppose the taxation of the left and the religious stuff from the
> right. 0Or for anarchists who oppose the big government of the left
> and the big capitalism of the right. 0And so on.
thats where cat 3 comes in. 0isnt that where you said you came in at
anyways?
I didn't say. I said the model didn't have a place for me. It's like
you were asking me what color my car was, and gave me the options:
red, green and blue. But my car is grey. If you only had three
colors on your list, well, you'd have a model that didn't account for
a car like mine. Oh well.
well, they probably simply use discretion on the prohibitive
discretion then........or are simply labeled as corupt by those that
are of the zealous type when it comes to following the leter of the
law. 0andy grifith is a tv show that might enlighten you to such a
discretionary concept.
Try "The Wire."
OK then , use pee wee legue basketball.......its a better comparson
(points/possessions wise) yet they still penalize it with a turn.
In pee wee basketball, you're talking about a shooting percentage
that's probably in the single digits. A possession is next to useless
at that level.
00The ulty penalty can pull back a score,
> which is a big deal,
not if they get another try.
I won a game once where our opponents completed what would have been a
game-winning huck. Disc comes back on a travel (didn't see it, don't
know if it was legit). Two points later, we won on universe. The
other try wasn't enough to help them.
> at all. 0The NBA penalty causes a turnover, which is almost never a
> big deal, unless it's at the end of the game, in which case it might
> be critical.
thats like saying missing free throws at the beggining of the game is
less of a big deal than at the end.
It is like saying that. I used to be of the same mindset as you. The
points all count the same, right? I've since come to the conclusion
that they don't, not exactly. At the end of the game, you have more
information. You know what the foul situation is, what the score
difference is, how much time there is left. You plan the last two
minutes way differently than the first 46, so a turnover in the final
two messes with your plans in a totally different way.
Say you travel in the first quarter, turn it, and they go up 2. Both
teams play even until the end-game, where you know you're down two.
You know that, so there are things you can do. You can start fouling
and taking three pointers. Taking extra risks for the shot at getting
back into it.
Same turnover happens when you're tied, but there are only 6 seconds
left. They score it and go up two, but at the buzzer. You had no
time to change your strategy and react to the penalty.
For the same reason, NFL coaches will usually punt on 4th until late
in the game, when they know that going for it might be the only way
that they can win.
~p
26.06.2009 - 02:56
On Jun 18, 6:560pm, William Lorentson <william.lorent...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
Here is one REALLY good piece of advice.
When they ask for a description of what you have done, (Then tell them
what you need to tell them, don't be afraid to go
overlong (it's no points off for overlengthy but points off if they
think you didn't tell them enough), make sure to give them as much as
possible in your own language but repeat their buzzwords
mk5000
"Qwerty Doolittle: I know that you are going to say it's time for you
to leave, but I don't, I don't want you to go yet. I want you to stay.
Rose Johnny: Are you sure?
Qwerty Doolittle: Yeah. You can stay here, I have plenty of blankets.
You can stay the night.
Rose Johnny: I don't even know your name. "--powder blue
wrote:
Dude, do you really listen to Marley, or are you just pulling our leg?
Here is one REALLY good piece of advice.
When they ask for a description of what you have done, (Then tell them
what you need to tell them, don't be afraid to go
overlong (it's no points off for overlengthy but points off if they
think you didn't tell them enough), make sure to give them as much as
possible in your own language but repeat their buzzwords
mk5000
"Qwerty Doolittle: I know that you are going to say it's time for you
to leave, but I don't, I don't want you to go yet. I want you to stay.
Rose Johnny: Are you sure?
Qwerty Doolittle: Yeah. You can stay here, I have plenty of blankets.
You can stay the night.
Rose Johnny: I don't even know your name. "--powder blue
Ähnliche Themen
This word has no definition
08.01.2011 - 20:11 - Posts: 1
Definition of a Lao word
05.04.2011 - 17:59 - Posts: 18
A Cat, a Tree, and a New Word Definition
13.09.2011 - 04:20 - Posts: 1
Consistency of the definition of a word
03.01.2011 - 08:30 - Posts: 8
The Ultimate Definition Of The Word "Oxymoron"..
18.01.2012 - 02:50 - Posts: 9
The DSS have given us a contemporary definition of the word "Christ"
10.10.2009 - 20:25 - Posts: 8
Have the DSS given us a contemporary definition of the word "Christ"?
11.10.2009 - 21:24 - Posts: 12
More
Search
