4merper4mer

Did you reply to the wrong post?

I’ve seen write ups indicating that punter could go as early as the second round. That seems crazy to me but I doubt he lasts to the sixth.

Doesn’t sound completely ludicrous but….. 1. I doubt a bird would figure that out. “Birdbrain” is a word for a reason 2. Any thoughts on the galaxies that have been discovered to have no dark matter at all?

Is that your favorite way governments are wasting time and money or are there better ones IYHO?

Prove that some whales don’t have gills. I did that on purpose btw but nice catch nonetheless. There are things that are “literally zero” and others that are “effectively zero”. Yes, there is a difference which is real but it is so immeasurably small that it isn’t worth considering.

He said it. I agreed. Get all up in his business if you’re going to get up in mine. I’m also sure that there are no whales in the ocean that create billiard balls in their gills and shoot them into the corner pocket from their blowholes. Is logic against me on that too?

I put down $100 on Reid Ferguson and if he wins I’m going to buy the Jets Pats and Fish and give us a 6-0 start every year.

I can’t prove something doesn’t exist. It just that everything points in that direction. I was quoting the other poster acknowledgment of such.

Math suggests nothing of the sort. Sitcom interpretation of math and wishful thinking suggests the universe is teeming with life. Actual math, partly referenced above with the mention of the Fermi paradox, suggests a far different picture. Your next sentence attempts to refute it with vague nothingness but I’m the one not arguing points? How about one example of something viable that refutes the Fermi paradox? Brownlee and Ward are hardly known. Why is that? Von Neumann anyone? You can’t make bank on crappy sci fis and sitcoms unless you ignore math. At least you recognize that we are alone in our own galaxy. That’s a start. Keep up the objectivity. It is interesting to ponder the broken link in sitcom math but one of those numbers is a zero.

It’s already in the thread and is explained very directly as you requested. The discussion is about intelligent communicative life and does not involve any speculation on microbial life/etc so your question is not exactly the same.

Not with a name like that he isn’t.

Any updates on this or has math been declared the victor?

Is that LaGrange thing named after ZZTopp? I think they had a space ship on their album cover?

Short people are also outraged but who really cares?

So if that exact play happened at the end of the Super Bowl and the ball is caught by a WR in the end zone that team would and should lose because they can’t advance a fumble? And tat wouldn’t be a big deal? Put another way: Control is a spectrum. The perfect QB with the maximum possible grip on the ball can drop it in a bucket 60 yards away. A slightly lower amount of control and the bucket gets knocked over. This QB was losing control of the ball when his arm started to move forward but had not lost all control because the ball had not left his hand and it ended up going forward. That can only be because his arm at some point began moving forward when he had some measure of control of the ball. That is physics and nothing else. If someone were to say he did not have “enough control” that is an entirely different statement. The judgement of that then becomes entirely subjective which I view negatively. It was not a shock to me that the judgement fell in Bama’s favor. If a Georgia player happened to be standing where the ball landed and caught it do you think it would have been called a reception or a fumble recovery?

OMG in what direction was his arm moving? The sole purpose of fingers are to control things. Screen cap from three frames behind that and the arm is furthe back but moving forward still and the ball is deeper in his hand. Geez. How is it loose if he touched it 100% of the time? Now we’re changing the definition of loose I guess.

I just asked a question. Do you care to answer? The dude had the ball in his hand. He never lost physical contact with the ball. He wanted the ball to go forward. The ball went forward. Would you say he controlled the ball?

How do you “knock” a ball that never leaves your hand. Imagine that exact play in a Bills game with no time on the clock except we start on the opponents 6 yard line and Davis catches it in the end zone. We lose because you can’t advance a fumble. That’s the correct call huh? Better yet imagine that play at the end of a Super Bowl and the result being the team on offense losing. IYHO would that be the most controversial call in the history of sports?

Did you see any air between his hand and the ball? He had it in his hand. If he lost control before his arm started coming forward, it either would have slipped out backward or separated from his hand or get batted. It certainly would not have traveled eightish yards on its own.

Try at home to not move your arm forward but to throw a ball forward. Try it a billion times. Let us know how it goes.

Physics called and said nope.

Lol the laws of physics even stand no chance against the refs favoring Bama. how can the ball go forward if his arm was not? And the ball moved forward how? Magic?

Agreed. I thought it was great. Try “The Pharmacist” if you haven’t seen it. It’s a documentary about a specific aspect of the same thing…..OxyContin….although it starts with something else. It was great. Great. Having seen The Pharmacist it made me realize that the dramatized parts of Dopesick probably weren’t way off. What a tragedy this crisis has been.

It’s friggin ham.