Forget LeBron, is CURRENT DURANT better than Kobes ever been?

[TonyMontana]

Kevin Durant Regular Season
PPG: 28.1
RPG: 7.9
APG: 4.6
FG%: 51.0%
3PT: 41.8%
FT%: 90.5%

Durant is putting up legendary scoring numbers WHILE having 50-40-90 splits from the field.

He is a tougher cover because of his height, length, and versatility.

He is better on the boards and on help defense because of his height and length.

I'll go on to say that Durant is better right now than Kobe has ever been.

[truhooper]

i don't like kobe, but kd's career so far isn't touching anything kobe's done

[SpecialQue]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/8719271370_6ce8775986_z.jpg

[SpecialQue]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mehbhxxnYc1qg7hj7o1_500.jpg

[Bandito]

Kevin Durant Regular Season
PPG: 28.1
RPG: 7.9
APG: 4.6
FG%: 51.0%
3PT: 41.8%
FT%: 90.5%

Durant is putting up legendary scoring numbers WHILE having 50-40-90 splits from the field.

He is a tougher cover because of his height, length, and versatility.

He is better on the boards and on help defense because of his height and length.

I'll go on to say that Durant is better right now than Kobe has ever been.
Well Durant is almost 7 feet so as a shooter he is better because it's harder to block him. But Kobe does things Durant can't, like be a playmaker for 48 minutes and ran a fastbreak faster. Durant can't because of his height, the playoff showed that.

EDIT: Oh crap I can't believe I answered this troll :roll:

[9erempiree]

No.

Durant, last time I checked, 2 career assist average. He's not a very good playmaker. Can't play defense.



He is a tougher cover because of his height, length, and versatility.

He is better on the boards and on help defense because of his height and length.

All because of his height?

You basically saying Durant is better because of his height.

:oldlol:

[SpecialQue]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/efae42e528d4478b1a6de157cf777b2d/tumblr_mleaxe2nar1sn21u1o1_250.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/5e254182c8ddc241881cb02413b704fd/tumblr_mleaxe2nar1sn21u1o2_250.gif
http://24.media.tumblr.com/eda82b4d2647cb4b68f0eebf263a2a54/tumblr_mleaxe2nar1sn21u1o3_250.gif

[TonyMontana]

No.

Durant, last time I checked, 2 career assist average. He's not a very good playmaker. Can't play defense.



All because of his height?

You basically saying Durant is better because of his height.

:oldlol:

Newsflash

Height matters in basketball. All of the best players in NBA History are 6'8+ except for Jordan who is a great because he is the best scorer of all-time(30.1 PPG on 50% shooting).

Durant is a better scorer than Kobe. Takes better shots on higher percentages. He even won a playoff series this year without Westbrick. When has Kobe ever won a playoff series without a 7foot hall of fame bigman in his prime let alone an overrated point guard?

What does Kobe do at an elite level other than score? :oldlol: Durants got him beat on his best attribute.

[Jacks3]

Kobe has put up 30+/7/6/2+/1 seasons.

How is he just a scorer?

Haha OP is a ****ing retard.

[TonyMontana]

Kobe has put up 30+/7/6/2+/1 seasons.

How is he just a scorer?

Haha OP is a ****ing retard.

On what shooting percentages?

Durant is probably the most efficient pure scorer on NBA History. If you want to hype up Kobe your going to need to bring something to the table other than 6.9 RPG(less than Durant) or 5.9 APG(1.7 more than Durant and due to him having the ball so much)

[imnew09]

So tell me how many all team first defense durant has?

[PickernRoller]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-kobe-18.png

[Jacks3]

On what shooting percentages?
55.2% TS. +3.2 relative to league average.

So very good efficiency.


Durant is probably the most efficient pure scorer on NBA History. If you want to hype up Kobe your going to need to bring something to the table other than 6.9 RPG(less than Durant) or 5.9 APG(1.7 more than Durant and due to him having the ball so much)
What does this have to do with my point?

You said Kobe is just a scorer.

Tell me, do one-dimensional scorers put up 30/7/6/2/1 seasons? Do they put up post-seasons of 29+/7+/6+/2+? Or 30/6/6/2? Do they make multiple legitimately deserving All-Defense teams?

LOL. Ignorant ass dudes these days.

Durant is far more "one-dimensional" than prime Kobe was.

[Kurosawa0]

Kobe was better. Durant may ultimately surpass him, but we haven't seen it yet.

[PickernRoller]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-kobe-more-than-lebron.png

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll go on to say that Durant is better right now than Kobe has ever been.

Of course you would. That's your shtick.

[Guy Ledouche]

Not quite. Kobe was an elite defender back in the day, and he's always been a better passer than Durant. Kobe could never come close to Durant's efficiency though. In a couple years I'm sure Durant will be better than Kobe has ever been, but as of now I'd give a slight edge to Kobe.

[tpols]

Durant averaged 30+ on like 60 TS in the finals last year..

While his team got backdoor swept and decimated. Do you think a player having an all around game averaging those numbers would be on the losing team by that much? Durants got no man defense and average help.. Average playmaking ability.. Good rebounding kind of average when you consider he's 6'10+.

Kobe was elite in every aspect for a shooting guard. Because his individual skills gets compared to Jordan so much people lose sight.. Durant is not for a small forward.. Not even close.

[RRR3]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-kobe-more-than-lebron.png
:crazysam:

[PickernRoller]

:crazysam:

http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2011/048/4/b/kobe_bryant_the_association_by_angelmaker666-d39shk0.jpg

[KG215]

Durant averaged 30+ on like 60 TS in the finals last year..

While his team got backdoor swept and decimated. Do you think a player having an all around game averaging those numbers would be on the losing team by that much? Durants got no man defense and average help.
Pretty sure we're talking about current Durant, not 2012 Durant. 2013 Durant was improved and better in all of those facets than 2012 Durant. He was a good defender (not bad or even just average, but good...not great though), and a solid playmaker when needed.


Average playmaking ability.. Good rebounding kind of average when you consider he's 6'10+.
You could make a case that, given his height, he could put up better rebounding numbers, but playing SF pulls him away from the basket more than a frontcourt player. He's still shown some ability to be an 8ish RPG type player, which is on par with a lot of PF's of the same size.

Part of the problem that leads to his inconsistency on the boards is that he goes through stretches of games where he hangs back and helps on the defensive glass, and other stretches of games leaking out for a fastbreak basket opportunity after someone on the other team shoots.


Kobe was elite in every aspect for a shooting guard. Because his individual skills gets compared to Jordan so much people lose sight.. Durant is not for a small forward.. Not even close.
I think he was a lot closer this year than you're making it sound. I'm not saying he was as good as whatever version of Kobe you consider to be the best, but I also think he was in the vicinity. I'm a Durant stan, so I'm biased, but I also don't think it's absurd to say, if this ends up being Durant's best single peak season, that it was far off from Kobe's best single peak season. Both are probably in the top 20 somewhere.

[Jacks3]

Cmon dude, people think Kobe is a "legend" because of his scoring.
You're a ****ing idiot! Do you really think he'd be so highly regarded if he was just a scorer like a Melo or Dantley or Wilkins? **** no. The guy is a legend because he's a incredible scorer AND a terrific all-around scorer. Again, do one-dimensional players put up 30/7/6/2/1 seasons? That's what I thought.

:roll:




And I don't know what "TS%" is, but Durant had 65% this past year on only two less points. :oldlol:
You asked for his efficiency. I gave it to you. It was very good.

Deal with it.


Kobe scores a lot because he chucks up so many shots.
Except he's posted excellent efficiency throughout his career.

lol @ using FG% to measure scoring efficiency. You realize a player can shoot 50% from the field and still be horribly inefficient right?

See: Wade in 2013 Finals.

Haha ignorant ass.

:roll:

Prime Kobe was 10X the play-maker/passer Duant is. He was the better defender. And every bit the scorer.

Nobody in their right mind would take current Durant over, say, 2003 Kobe.

Dude would be putting up 34/6/6/2/58% TS seasons in this pathetic no-handchecking league. :lol

[GrapeApe]

As an opposing fan, there's no doubt I feared prime Kobe more than current Durant. I'm not sold on Durant's mental toughness and killer instinct. Even if you dislike Kobe you cannot question those attributes in him.

[Jacks3]

As an opposing fan, there's no doubt I feared prime Kobe more than current Durant..
:applause:

[PickernRoller]

http://www.shiwoncreativespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/32369691042139190_1dxg7iHB_c.jpg

[RRR3]

I already knew you were gay for Bean, picker, what are you trying to prove?

[TonyMontana]

You asked for his efficiency. I gave it to you. It was very good.

Deal with it.l

No it's not. Which other highly regarded legend has a FG% as bad as Kobes?

Bill Russell has a low FG%, but he is overrated to begin with. His niche was defense anyway. Kobes niche is scoring, and he still puts up inefficient scoring numbers.


You're a ****ing idiot! Do you really think he'd be so highly regarded if he was just a scorer like a Melo or Dantley or Wilkins? **** no. The guy is a legend because he's a incredible scorer AND a terrific all-around scorer. Again, do one-dimensional players put up 30/7/6/2/1 seasons? That's what I thought.


Hes highly regarded because of the big scoring numbers he puts up and the "5 rings" thing which has more to do with Lakers management putting consistently dominant casts around Kobe more than anything else.

If Kobe had scrubs around him for his entire career he'd be another Melo/Wilkins. :oldlol:


Except he's posted excellent efficiency throughout his career.

No he hasn't.



lol @ using FG% to measure scoring efficiency. You realize a player can shoot 50% from the field and still be horribly inefficient right?

See: Wade in 2013 Finals.


Wades problem isn't efficiency, its that he can't shoot.

Give me the high FG% over the low FG% any day. There is no scenario where it would be beneficial to have a low fg%. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[PickernRoller]

I already knew you were gay for Bean, picker, what are you trying to prove?

That you follow me like a b1tch?

[tpols]

Pretty sure we're talking about current Durant, not 2012 Durant. 2013 Durant was improved and better in all of those facets than 2012 Durant. He was a good defender (not bad or even just average, but good...not great though), and a solid playmaker when needed.


You could make a case that, given his height, he could put up better rebounding numbers, but playing SF pulls him away from the basket more than a frontcourt player. He's still shown some ability to be an 8ish RPG type player, which is on par with a lot of PF's of the same size.

Part of the problem that leads to his inconsistency on the boards is that he goes through stretches of games where he hangs back and helps on the defensive glass, and other stretches of games leaking out for a fastbreak basket opportunity after someone on the other team shoots.


I think he was a lot closer this year than you're making it sound. I'm not saying he was as good as whatever version of Kobe you consider to be the best, but I also think he was in the vicinity. I'm a Durant stan, so I'm biased, but I also don't think it's absurd to say, if this ends up being Durant's best single peak season, that it was far off from Kobe's best single peak season. Both are probably in the top 20 somewhere.
Durant gives you a consistent 25-35 points every game on great efficiency, average at best man and help defense, average ball handling and playmaking capability, and his rebounding is average, maybe above average.

He is great and consistent at scoring. Like a steve Nash or Chris paul in their primes they were always gong to give you a certain Statline on supreme efficiency.. Because they picked and chose their spots. But in at least Nashs case being deficient in other areas didn't allow him to put a true stamp on games like other superstars sometimes. I've seen Durant take over games with his scoring. I've also seen plenty of games where his scoring wasn't enough but his team could've won had they had better perimeter defense and a better run offense

. KD doesn't get his offenses running smoothly like Kobe did. It's just westbrook going nuts and Durant hitting scores of long range shots in the midst of broken plays and sloppy execution.

Kobe, in his prime the gave you elite man defense, great help, great passing/playmaking, above average rebounding for a guard, and either, 20 something points on poor efficiency or 35-40+ on great efficiency. He's more up and down with his scoring but still contributed in other ways when it was down. And at its peak Kobe's scoring was deadlier and more dominant. Again, in his prime pre 09.

But honestly at his peak running an offense kobe was just better than Durant at controlling the flow.. Passing setting up teammates to start and unleashing at the end down the stretch or when his team got in holes. And he had a higher impact on the other end of the court as well.

[PickernRoller]

There is totally no argument over this. No need to argue. The fact that this thread is still up shows how good mods do their work here. It's a troll thread, not a discussion thread. Should be treated accordingly.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/1001621_532485326787878_19568566_n.jpg

[SpecialQue]

Stephen se puso de pie y se acerc

[SilkkTheShocker]

All I know is that LeBron is better than both

[SpecialQue]

J.R.R.

[Young X]

No it's not. Which other highly regarded legend has a FG% as bad as Kobes?

Bill Russell has a low FG%, but he is overrated to begin with. His niche was defense anyway. Kobes niche is scoring, and he still puts up inefficient scoring numbers.
:kobe:

FG% doesn't measure overall scoring efficiency, you can have a high FG% and still be an inefficient scorer. Prime Kobe is NOT an inefficient scorer.

You're also underrating him as an overall player, one dimensional players don't average 30/7/6 or 27/6/5 for whole seasons.

:kobe:

[AirTupac]

Por n el centro de atenci

[SpecialQue]

In Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball" he devotes an entire chapter on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, and his "myths" on Chamberlain.

I have addressed them before in another thread, but I thought I would rehash a couple of his falsehoods, of which there are MANY.

One point he makes is that Wilt was twice "traded for pennies on the dollar."

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, the Celtics, and their NINE HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

[SpecialQue]

En Bill Simmons "The Book of Basketball" le dedica todo un cap

[PickernRoller]

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]J.R.R.

[SpecialQue]

Las historias de Camelot siempre han sido una mierda en mi opinion ignorante.

Eso es blasfemia. :no:

[SilkkTheShocker]

Durant averaged 30+ on like 60 TS in the finals last year..

While his team got backdoor swept and decimated. Do you think a player having an all around game averaging those numbers would be on the losing team by that much? Durants got no man defense and average help.. Average playmaking ability.. Good rebounding kind of average when you consider he's 6'10+.

Kobe was elite in every aspect for a shooting guard. Because his individual skills gets compared to Jordan so much people lose sight.. Durant is not for a small forward.. Not even close.

Usually tpols is wrong about everything. But he makes a good point about Durant's lack of being a 2 way player. His perimeter defense is terrible. He couldn't even stick with Chalmers during the Finals. Thats why I don't why people think its certain OKC will start winning titles. Durant isn't a dominant player like his stats might suggest.

[PickernRoller]

Eso es blasfemia. :no:

Mencioname una pelicula que valga la pena?

Se me olvidaba:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1323/4722221583_4f09766978.jpg

[Jacks3]

No it's not. Which other highly regarded legend has a FG% as bad as Kobes?
Are you retarded? Didn't I just tell you that FG% is useless?

Look at his TS% numbers. They're very good. More than comparable to most legends in history.




Kobes niche is scoring, and he still puts up inefficient scoring numbers.
Wrong.




If Kobe had scrubs around him for his entire career he'd be another Melo/Wilkins. :oldlol:

Except he's a far, far, far, far better player than either of them.






Wades problem isn't efficiency, its that he can't shoot.
It was a major problem in the Finals despite the fact that he shot almost 50% from the field. FG% means nothing. His TS% was 50.5%. That's HORRIBLE.



Give me the high FG% over the low FG% any day. There is no scenario where it would be beneficial to have a low fg%. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:
Give me the player who is MORE EFFICIENT PER POSSESSION, which is what TS% measures. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. Get it though your thick skull. You can shoot a high FG% and still be terribly inefficient if you're not getting to the line or converting threes.

Deal with it.

[Jacks3]

:kobe:

FG% doesn't measure overall scoring efficiency, you can have a high FG% and still be an inefficient scorer. Prime Kobe is NOT an inefficient scorer.

You're also underrating him as an overall player, one dimensional players don't average 30/7/6 or 27/6/5 for whole seasons.

:kobe:
Exactly this. OP is a ****ing moron! :oldlol:

[SpecialQue]

Sin embargo, a pesar de hacer la final, la ciudad de San Francisco nunca se llev

[KG215]

Durant gives you a consistent 25-35 points every game on great efficiency, average at best man and help defense, average ball handling and playmaking capability, and his rebounding is average, maybe above average.
As an overall defender he's better than "average at best" at this point. I mean I know raw numbers don't tell the whole story, but he's a 1.5 SPG and 1.5 BPG SF, and this year his overall (off-ball and on-ball) defense was good, not just average. For his position, his rebounding is better than just average or above average.


I've seen Durant take over games with his scoring. I've also seen plenty of games where his scoring wasn't enough but his team could've won had they had better perimeter defense and a better run offense
Well, given the results the last 4 seasons, something he's doing is working. But we're talking about the current version of Durant....2013 Durant. He was more than just a scorer this year. Regular season and playoffs included, I think I missed 3 or 4 OKC games this year. He had games where he dominated with his scoring, and games where he dominated with his overall play. He was drastically improved as an all-around player this year (the version of Durant we're talking about), and all the basic/raw and advances stats show that.



KD doesn't get his offenses running smoothly like Kobe did. It's just westbrook going nuts and Durant hitting scores of long range shots in the midst of broken plays and sloppy execution.

Kobe, in his prime the gave you elite man defense, great help, great passing/playmaking, above average rebounding for a guard, and either, 20 something points on poor efficiency or 35-40+ on great efficiency. He's more up and down with his scoring but still contributed in other ways when it was down. And at its peak Kobe's scoring was deadlier and more dominant. Again, in his prime pre 09.

But honestly at his peak running an offense kobe was just better than Durant at controlling the flow.. Passing setting up teammates to start and unleashing at the end down the stretch or when his team got in holes. And he had a higher impact on the other end of the court as well.
I won't disagree with any of this in that Kobe, in his prime, was better at all of those things. But if we're focusing on just 2013 Durant (and what he'll probably be and improve upon going forward), the gap isn't as big as I think you think it is.

I'm not saying Durant right now is better than the best version of Kobe, because he isn't, but I think it's close. If we're ranking all the best single peak seasons in NBA history, both would be in the top 20. Kobe is probably in the top 15, but Durant is in the top 20 somewhere (probably in the 16-20 range), and there's not a huge gap in that regard.

[SpecialQue]

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



The "feud" continued, however, and with Hannum "retiring and moving to the West Coast", and with Chamberlain growing increasingly frustrated by Kosloff's refusal to sell part ownership, Wilt pushed for a trade. This is a critical point. Chamberlain was NOT "traded", and it was most certainly not for "pennies on the dollar." Chamberlain FORCED the "trade."

And he was ultimately traded for THREE players, two of them quality NBA players (one an All-Star in '68 BTW). And Wilt signed a then unheard of contract for $250,000 (teammated Jerry West was making $100,000.)

For my complete take on the actual impact of that trade, I will save myself some time, and copy this post from another thread...

[AirTupac]

[QUOTE=AirTupac]Por n el centro de atenci

[SilkkTheShocker]

I wouldn't say Durant is terrible on defense.

He is kind of slow footed, but his wingspan is monstrous. He can cheat off guys and still contest the shot at the last second because of it. When you compare him to other guys who are 6'11 he is very quick.

Kobes defense is overrated. People think just because he made those teams hes some all-time great defender. Making the all-defensive team as a guard is not that impressive. Guards don't impact defense like bigmen do unless their a specialist like Bruce Bowen or Avery Bradley who devote all their energy to that craft. Even then the bigmen are the most important.

An when Kobe made the teams in his later years he wouldn't even play defense. He'd spend 90% of the defensive possessions hidden on some guy in the corner while roaming. Then he'd get caught cheating and let up an open three. :oldlol:

Can't say I disagree with this. Kobe's impact has always been extremely overrated.

[SpecialQue]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/5706383149_ab135f55d9_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/5706949754_3070926c0f_o.jpg

[TonyMontana]

Are you retarded? Didn't I just tell you that FG% is useless?


Apparently your the retarded one if you think FG% is useless.

I will ask my question again, since you ignored it.

What other all-time "legends" had a FG% as bad as Kobes?

My prediction is that you will ignore it again.


Wrong.

If Kobes niche isn't scoring, then what is it? Making all defensive teams that he earned by guarding Steve Novaks in the corner?

:oldlol:


Give me the player who is MORE EFFICIENT PER POSSESSION, which is what TS% measures. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. Get it though your thick skull. You can shoot a high FG% and still be terribly inefficient if you're not getting to the line or converting threes.

Deal with it.

Getting to the free throw line is a different animal altogether.

FG% is the stat recognized by the offical NBA statisticians. TS% is just a basketball reference stat Kobestans use to try and compensate for Kobe being the only all-time great to have a shitty FG%. :oldlol:

Owned

[PickernRoller]

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



The "feud" continued, however, and with Hannum "retiring and moving to the West Coast", and with Chamberlain growing increasingly frustrated by Kosloff's refusal to sell part ownership, Wilt pushed for a trade. This is a critical point. Chamberlain was NOT "traded", and it was most certainly not for "pennies on the dollar." Chamberlain FORCED the "trade."

And he was ultimately traded for THREE players, two of them quality NBA players (one an All-Star in '68 BTW). And Wilt signed a then unheard of contract for $250,000 (teammated Jerry West was making $100,000.)

For my complete take on the actual impact of that trade, I will save myself some time, and copy this post from another thread...

Los Angeles Lakers[editar] Al a

[Jacks3]

:biggums:

[RRR3]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33188238.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAaRoPcCMAA18qR.jpg:large

[Psileas]

[QUOTE=PickernRoller]Los Angeles Lakers[editar] Al a

[Jacks3]

:coleman:

[SilkkTheShocker]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33188238.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAaRoPcCMAA18qR.jpg:large





























(crickets)

[knightfall88]

Forget stats and rosters.

Lebron and Durant have never had the impact that Kobe has had onto a championship.

[Jacks3]

:banana:

[SpecialQue]

Simmons afirma que diferencia el talento de Russell percibida superiores circundante no era de lo mejor, en las p

[SilkkTheShocker]

Forget stats and rosters.

Lebron and Durant have never had the impact that Kobe has had onto a championship.


I love how Kobe supporters always throw out the term "forget stats" :oldlol:

[Heavincent]

JULES

[Jacks3]

:biggums:

[SilkkTheShocker]

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]Esto es todo lo que puede llegar a?

[Jacks3]

:coleman:

[SilkkTheShocker]

'm 27 years old. I believe in taking care of myself and a balanced diet and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial mask which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

[Heavincent]

You're my lawyer so I think you should know: I've killed a lot of people. Some girls in the apartment uptown uh, some homeless people maybe 5 or 10 um an NYU girl I met in Central Park. I left her in a parking lot behind some donut shop. I killed Bethany, my old girlfriend, with a nail gun, and some man uh some old ****** with a dog last week. I killed another girl with a chainsaw, I had to, she almost got away and uh someone else there I can't remember maybe a model, but she's dead too. And Paul Allen. I killed Paul Allen with an axe in the face, his body is dissolving in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen. I don't want to leave anything out here. I guess I've killed maybe 20 people, maybe 40. I have tapes of a lot of it, uh some of the girls have seen the tapes. I even, um... I ate some of their brains, and I tried to cook a little. Tonight I, uh, I just had to kill a LOT of people. And I'm not sure I'm gonna get away with it this time. I guess I'll uh, I mean, ah, I guess I'm a pretty uh, I mean I guess I'm a pretty sick guy. So, if you get back tomorrow, I may show up at Harry's Bar, so you know, keep your eyes open.

[PickernRoller]

Martha Stewart can roll a joint that would put yours to shame, naturally. Appearing at New York's 92nd Street Y recently in support of her new book, Living the Good Long Life: A Practical Guide to Caring, the homemaking mogul (who's 71!) offered host Andy Cohen of Bravo an amusing anecdote.

"I was driving here tonight ... and there was this stupid ice cream truck in front of me. 'Something Good Cream' or something. And we pulled up right next to it ... and a girl and a guy were smoking joints ... I said, 'Boy, those are sloppy joints.'"

To which she added, "Of course I know how to roll a joint."
Earlier in the segment, Stewart was asked to play "shag, marry, kill" with three rich men -- Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Trump, her Macy's labelmate, was a no-brainer: kill (since "ignore" was not an option, she said). Bloomberg was a definite marry, which, by process of elimination, left Gates for shag.

http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Kobe-Bryant-Quotes-2.jpg

[Jacks3]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff63/Blind_Pig/Derailment.jpg

[SpecialQue]

Oh, my sweet summer child, what do you know about fear? Fear is for the winter, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides for years, and children are born and live and die all in darkness. That is the time for fear, my little lord, when the White Walkers move through the woods... Thousands of years ago, there came a night that lasted a generation. Kings froze to death in their castles, same as the shepherds in their huts, and women smothered their babies rather than see them starve, and wept, and felt their tears freeze on their cheeks. So is this the sort of story that you like?

[Heavincent]

I have no idea where he would have gotten a hold of German pornography. But you and I are mature adults; we've both seen our share of pornographic materials. Oh, you never have? Of course you haven't, how stupid of me. Neither have I. I was just speaking in generalities. Right. I'll stop by the school a little later, Sister Margaret. Bye.

[PickernRoller]

Cartoon Laws


Cartoon Law I
Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.
Daffy Duck steps off a cliff, expecting further pastureland. He loiters in midair, soliloquizing flippantly, until he chances to look down. At this point, the familiar principle of 32 feet per second takes over.

Cartoon Law II
Any body in motion will tend to remain in motion until solid matter intervenes suddenly.
Whether shot from a cannon or in hot pursuit on foot, cartoon characters are so absolute in their momentum that only a telephone pole or an outsize boulder retards their forward motion absolutely. Sir Isaac Newton called this sudden termination of motion the stooge's surcease.

Cartoon Law III
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter.
Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.

Cartoon Law IV
The time required for an object to fall twenty stories is greater than or equal to the time it takes for whoever knocked it off the ledge to spiral down twenty flights to attempt to capture it unbroken.
Such an object is inevitably priceless, the attempt to capture it inevitably unsuccessful.

Cartoon Law V
All principles of gravity are negated by fear.
Psychic forces are sufficient in most bodies for a shock to propel them directly away from the earth's surface. A spooky noise or an adversary's signature sound will induce motion upward, usually to the cradle of a chandelier, a treetop, or the crest of a flagpole. The feet of a character who is running or the wheels of a speeding auto need never touch the ground, especially when in flight.

Cartoon Law VI
As speed increases, objects can be in several places at once.
This is particularly true of tooth-and-claw fights, in which a character's head may be glimpsed emerging from the cloud of altercation at several places simultaneously. This effect is common as well among bodies that are spinning or being throttled. A `wacky' character has the option of self-replication only at manic high speeds and may ricochet off walls to achieve the velocity required.

Cartoon Law VII
Certain bodies can pass through solid walls painted to resemble tunnel entrances; others cannot.
This trompe l'oeil inconsistency has baffled generations, but at least it is known that whoever paints an entrance on a wall's surface to trick an opponent will be unable to pursue him into this theoretical space. The painter is flattened against the wall when he attempts to follow into the painting. This is ultimately a problem of art, not of science.

Cartoon Law VIII
Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
Cartoon cats possess even more deaths than the traditional nine lives, might comfortably afford. They can be decimated, spliced,splayed, accordion-pleated, spindled, or disassembled, but they cannot be destroyed. After a few moments of blinking self pity, they reinflate, elongate, snap back, or solidify. Corollary: A cat will assume the shape of its container.

Cartoon Law IX
Everything falls faster than an anvil.

Cartoon Law X
For every vengeance there is an equal and opposite revengeance.
This is the one law of animated cartoon motion that also applies to the physical world at large. For that reason, we need the relief of watching it happen to a duck instead.

http://cdn.styleforum.net/3/31/312482cd_runaway_train_derailed_thread_soul_asylum .jpeg

[RRR3]

Future rep if you can tell me what this is from

"I am thirsty. Mortals, I am dreaming: that the tun of Heidelberg has an attack of apoplexy, and that I am one of the dozen leeches which will be applied to it. I want a drink. I desire to forget life. Life is a hideous invention of I know not whom. It lasts no time at all, and is worth nothing. One breaks one's neck in living. Life is a theatre set in which there are but few practicable entrances. Happiness is an antique reliquary painted on one side only. Ecclesiastes says: 'All is vanity.' I agree with that good man, who never existed, perhaps. Zero not wishing to go stark naked, clothed himself in vanity. O vanity! The patching up of everything with big words! a kitchen is a laboratory, a dancer is a professor, an acrobat is a gymnast, a boxer is a pugilist, an apothecary is a chemist, a wigmaker is an artist, a hodman is an architect, a jockey is a sportsman, a wood-louse is a pterigybranche. Vanity has a right and a wrong side; the right side is stupid, it is the negro with his glass beads; the wrong side is foolish, it is the philosopher with his rags. I weep over the one and I laugh over the other. What are called honors and dignities, and even dignity and honor, are generally of pinchbeck. Kings make playthings of human pride. Caligula made a horse a consul; Charles II. made a knight of a sirloin. Wrap yourself up now, then, between Consul Incitatus and Baronet Roastbeef. As for the intrinsic value of people, it is no longer respectable in the least. Listen to the panegyric which neighbor makes of neighbor. White on white is ferocious; if the lily could speak, what a setting down it would give the dove! A bigoted woman prating of a devout woman is more venomous than the asp and the cobra. It is a shame that I am ignorant, otherwise I would quote to you a mass of things; but I know nothing. For instance, I have always been witty; when I was a pupil of Gros, instead of daubing wretched little pictures, I passed my time in pilfering apples; rapin is the masculine of rapine. So much for myself; as for the rest of you, you are worth no more than I am. I scoff at your perfections, excellencies, and qualities. Every good quality tends towards a defect; economy borders on avarice, the generous man is next door to the prodigal, the brave man rubs elbows with the braggart; he who says very pious says a trifle bigoted; there are just as many vices in virtue as there are holes in Diogenes' cloak. Whom do you admire, the slain or the slayer, Caesar or Brutus? Generally men are in favor of the slayer. Long live Brutus, he has slain! There lies the virtue. Virtue, granted, but madness also. There are queer spots on those great men. The Brutus who killed Caesar was in love with the statue of a little boy. This statue was from the hand of the Greek sculptor Strongylion, who also carved that figure of an Amazon known as the Beautiful Leg, Eucnemos, which Nero carried with him in his travels. This Strongylion left but two statues which placed Nero and Brutus in accord. Brutus was in love with the one, Nero with the other. All history is nothing but wearisome repetition. One century is the plagiarist of the other. The battle of Marengo copies the battle of Pydna; the Tolbiac of Clovis and the Austerlitz of Napoleon are as like each other as two drops of water. I don't attach much importance to victory. Nothing is so stupid as to conquer; true glory lies in convincing. But try to prove something! If you are content with success, what mediocrity, and with conquering, what wretchedness! Alas, vanity and cowardice everywhere. Everything obeys success, even grammar. Si volet usus, says Horace. Therefore I disdain the human race. Shall we descend to the party at all? Do you wish me to begin admiring the peoples? What people, if you please? Shall it be Greece? The Athenians, those Parisians of days gone by, slew Phocion, as we might say Coligny, and fawned upon tyrants to such an extent that Anacephorus said of Pisistratus: "His urine attracts the bees." The most prominent man in Greece for fifty years was that grammarian Philetas, who was so small and so thin that he was obliged to load his shoes with lead in order not to be blown away by the wind. There stood on the great square in Corinth a statue carved by Silanion and catalogued by Pliny; this statue represented Episthates. What did Episthates do? He invented a trip. That sums up Greece and glory. Let us pass on to others. Shall I admire England? Shall I admire France? France? Why? Because of Paris? I have just told you my opinion of Athens. England? Why? Because of London? I hate Carthage. And then, London, the metropolis of luxury, is the headquarters of wretchedness. There are a hundred deaths a year of hunger in the parish of Charing-Cross alone. Such is Albion. I add, as the climax, that I have seen an Englishwoman dancing in a wreath of roses and blue spectacles. A fig then for England! If I do not admire John Bull, shall I admire Brother Jonathan? I have but little taste for that slave-holding brother. Take away Time is money, what remains of England? Take away Cotton is king, what remains of America? Germany is the lymph, Italy is the bile. Shall we go into ecstasies over Russia? Voltaire admired it. He also admired China. I admit that Russia has its beauties, among others, a stout despotism; but I pity the despots. Their health is delicate. A decapitated Alexis, a poignarded Peter, a strangled Paul, another Paul crushed flat with kicks, divers Ivans strangled, with their throats cut, numerous Nicholases and Basils poisoned, all this indicates that the palace of the Emperors of Russia is in a condition of flagrant insalubrity. All civilized peoples offer this detail to the admiration of the thinker; war; now, war, civilized war, exhausts and sums up all the forms of ruffianism, from the brigandage of the Trabuceros in the gorges of Mont Jaxa to the marauding of the Comanche Indians in the Doubtful Pass. 'Bah!' you will say to me, 'but Europe is certainly better than Asia?' I admit that Asia is a farce; but I do not precisely see what you find to laugh at in the Grand Lama, you peoples of the west, who have mingled with your fashions and your elegances all the complicated filth of majesty, from the dirty chemise of Queen Isabella to the chamber-chair of the Dauphin. Gentlemen of the human race, I tell you, not a bit of it! It is at Brussels that the most beer is consumed, at Stockholm the most brandy, at Madrid the most chocolate, at Amsterdam the most gin, at London the most wine, at Constantinople the most coffee, at Paris the most absinthe; there are all the useful notions. Paris carries the day, in short. In Paris, even the rag-pickers are sybarites; Diogenes would have loved to be a rag-picker of the Place Maubert better than to be a philosopher at the Piraeus. Learn this in addition; the wineshops of the ragpickers are called bibines; the most celebrated are the Saucepan and The Slaughter-House. Hence, tea-gardens, goguettes, caboulots, bouibuis, mastroquets, bastringues, manezingues, bibines of the rag-pickers, caravanseries of the caliphs, I certify to you, I am a voluptuary, I eat at Richard's at forty sous a head, I must have Persian carpets to roll naked Cleopatra in! Where is Cleopatra? Ah! So it is you, Louison. Good day."

[SpecialQue]

Future rep if you can tell me what this is from

"I am thirsty. Mortals, I am dreaming: that the tun of Heidelberg has an attack of apoplexy, and that I am one of the dozen leeches which will be applied to it. I want a drink. I desire to forget life. Life is a hideous invention of I know not whom. It lasts no time at all, and is worth nothing. One breaks one's neck in living. Life is a theatre set in which there are but few practicable entrances. Happiness is an antique reliquary painted on one side only. Ecclesiastes says: 'All is vanity.' I agree with that good man, who never existed, perhaps. Zero not wishing to go stark naked, clothed himself in vanity. O vanity! The patching up of everything with big words! a kitchen is a laboratory, a dancer is a professor, an acrobat is a gymnast, a boxer is a pugilist, an apothecary is a chemist, a wigmaker is an artist, a hodman is an architect, a jockey is a sportsman, a wood-louse is a pterigybranche. Vanity has a right and a wrong side; the right side is stupid, it is the negro with his glass beads; the wrong side is foolish, it is the philosopher with his rags. I weep over the one and I laugh over the other. What are called honors and dignities, and even dignity and honor, are generally of pinchbeck. Kings make playthings of human pride. Caligula made a horse a consul; Charles II. made a knight of a sirloin. Wrap yourself up now, then, between Consul Incitatus and Baronet Roastbeef. As for the intrinsic value of people, it is no longer respectable in the least. Listen to the panegyric which neighbor makes of neighbor. White on white is ferocious; if the lily could speak, what a setting down it would give the dove! A bigoted woman prating of a devout woman is more venomous than the asp and the cobra. It is a shame that I am ignorant, otherwise I would quote to you a mass of things; but I know nothing. For instance, I have always been witty; when I was a pupil of Gros, instead of daubing wretched little pictures, I passed my time in pilfering apples; rapin is the masculine of rapine. So much for myself; as for the rest of you, you are worth no more than I am. I scoff at your perfections, excellencies, and qualities. Every good quality tends towards a defect; economy borders on avarice, the generous man is next door to the prodigal, the brave man rubs elbows with the braggart; he who says very pious says a trifle bigoted; there are just as many vices in virtue as there are holes in Diogenes' cloak. Whom do you admire, the slain or the slayer, Caesar or Brutus? Generally men are in favor of the slayer. Long live Brutus, he has slain! There lies the virtue. Virtue, granted, but madness also. There are queer spots on those great men. The Brutus who killed Caesar was in love with the statue of a little boy. This statue was from the hand of the Greek sculptor Strongylion, who also carved that figure of an Amazon known as the Beautiful Leg, Eucnemos, which Nero carried with him in his travels. This Strongylion left but two statues which placed Nero and Brutus in accord. Brutus was in love with the one, Nero with the other. All history is nothing but wearisome repetition. One century is the plagiarist of the other. The battle of Marengo copies the battle of Pydna; the Tolbiac of Clovis and the Austerlitz of Napoleon are as like each other as two drops of water. I don't attach much importance to victory. Nothing is so stupid as to conquer; true glory lies in convincing. But try to prove something! If you are content with success, what mediocrity, and with conquering, what wretchedness! Alas, vanity and cowardice everywhere. Everything obeys success, even grammar. Si volet usus, says Horace. Therefore I disdain the human race. Shall we descend to the party at all? Do you wish me to begin admiring the peoples? What people, if you please? Shall it be Greece? The Athenians, those Parisians of days gone by, slew Phocion, as we might say Coligny, and fawned upon tyrants to such an extent that Anacephorus said of Pisistratus: "His urine attracts the bees." The most prominent man in Greece for fifty years was that grammarian Philetas, who was so small and so thin that he was obliged to load his shoes with lead in order not to be blown away by the wind. There stood on the great square in Corinth a statue carved by Silanion and catalogued by Pliny; this statue represented Episthates. What did Episthates do? He invented a trip. That sums up Greece and glory. Let us pass on to others. Shall I admire England? Shall I admire France? France? Why? Because of Paris? I have just told you my opinion of Athens. England? Why? Because of London? I hate Carthage. And then, London, the metropolis of luxury, is the headquarters of wretchedness. There are a hundred deaths a year of hunger in the parish of Charing-Cross alone. Such is Albion. I add, as the climax, that I have seen an Englishwoman dancing in a wreath of roses and blue spectacles. A fig then for England! If I do not admire John Bull, shall I admire Brother Jonathan? I have but little taste for that slave-holding brother. Take away Time is money, what remains of England? Take away Cotton is king, what remains of America? Germany is the lymph, Italy is the bile. Shall we go into ecstasies over Russia? Voltaire admired it. He also admired China. I admit that Russia has its beauties, among others, a stout despotism; but I pity the despots. Their health is delicate. A decapitated Alexis, a poignarded Peter, a strangled Paul, another Paul crushed flat with kicks, divers Ivans strangled, with their throats cut, numerous Nicholases and Basils poisoned, all this indicates that the palace of the Emperors of Russia is in a condition of flagrant insalubrity. All civilized peoples offer this detail to the admiration of the thinker; war; now, war, civilized war, exhausts and sums up all the forms of ruffianism, from the brigandage of the Trabuceros in the gorges of Mont Jaxa to the marauding of the Comanche Indians in the Doubtful Pass. 'Bah!' you will say to me, 'but Europe is certainly better than Asia?' I admit that Asia is a farce; but I do not precisely see what you find to laugh at in the Grand Lama, you peoples of the west, who have mingled with your fashions and your elegances all the complicated filth of majesty, from the dirty chemise of Queen Isabella to the chamber-chair of the Dauphin. Gentlemen of the human race, I tell you, not a bit of it! It is at Brussels that the most beer is consumed, at Stockholm the most brandy, at Madrid the most chocolate, at Amsterdam the most gin, at London the most wine, at Constantinople the most coffee, at Paris the most absinthe; there are all the useful notions. Paris carries the day, in short. In Paris, even the rag-pickers are sybarites; Diogenes would have loved to be a rag-picker of the Place Maubert better than to be a philosopher at the Piraeus. Learn this in addition; the wineshops of the ragpickers are called bibines; the most celebrated are the Saucepan and The Slaughter-House. Hence, tea-gardens, goguettes, caboulots, bouibuis, mastroquets, bastringues, manezingues, bibines of the rag-pickers, caravanseries of the caliphs, I certify to you, I am a voluptuary, I eat at Richard's at forty sous a head, I must have Persian carpets to roll naked Cleopatra in! Where is Cleopatra? Ah! So it is you, Louison. Good day."

I almost said "I Claudius" but I know that's wrong.

[RRR3]

I almost said "I Claudius" but I know that's wrong.
This guy said it:
http://media.tumblr.com/ba592523ea0d3e5ee509c6e65027324d/tumblr_mgghbheiZG1qey8sko1_500.gif


Do you know which Character this is?

[AirTupac]

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpghttp://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/61753/61753,1301591793,1/stock-photo-large-girl-eating-a-measuring-tape-74470975.jpg

[PickernRoller]

http://tagadavao.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/applause.gif

http://cccmurphysboro.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/applause-754063-1.jpg

[SilkkTheShocker]

"Friend of a friend, but not a friends of ours."

[SamuraiSWISH]

Come on. Kobe's superior on defense and playmaking alone.

[SpecialQue]

This guy said it:
http://media.tumblr.com/ba592523ea0d3e5ee509c6e65027324d/tumblr_mgghbheiZG1qey8sko1_500.gif


Do you know which Character this is?

No clue. :(

[RRR3]

No clue. :(
Grantaire from Les Mis. He's the drunk cynic among the revolutionary students-the only thing he cares about is Enjolras (the leader of the revolutionaries and the guy in my avatar). Not sure if he's gay for him or what.

[Heavincent]

About five years ago I lived downtown in a major city in the US. I've always been a night person, so I would often find myself bored after my roommate, who was decidedly not a night person, went to sleep. To pass the time, I used to go for long walks and spend the time thinking.
I spent four years like that, walking alone at night, and never once had a reason to feel afraid. I always used to joke with my roommate that even the drug dealers in the city were polite. But all of that changed in just a few minutes of one evening.
It was a Wednesday, somewhere between one and two in the morning, and I was walking near a police patrolled park quite a ways from my apartment. It was a quiet night, even for a week night, with very little traffic and almost no one on foot. The park, as it was most nights, was completely empty.
I turned down a short side street in order to loop back to my apartment when I first noticed him. At the far end of the street, on my side, was the silhouette of a man, dancing. It was a strange dance, similar to a waltz, but he finished each "box" with an odd forward stride. I guess you could say he was dance-walking, headed straight for me.
Deciding he was probably drunk, I stepped as close as I could to the road to give him the majority of the sidewalk to pass me by. The closer he got, the more I realized how gracefully he was moving. He was very tall and lanky, and wearing an old suit. He danced closer still, until I could make out his face. His eyes were open wide and wild, head tilted back slightly, looking off at the sky. His mouth was formed in a painfully wide cartoon of a smile. Between the eyes and the smile, I decided to cross the street before he danced any closer.
I took my eyes off of him to cross the empty street. As I reached the other side, I glanced back... and then stopped dead in my tracks. He had stopped dancing and was standing with one foot in the street, perfectly parallel to me. He was facing me but still looking skyward. Smile still wide on his lips.
I was completely and utterly unnerved by this. I started walking again, but kept my eyes on the man. He didn't move.
Once I had put about half a block between us, I turned away from him for a moment to watch the sidewalk in front of me. The street and sidewalk ahead of me were completely empty. Still unnerved, I looked back to where he had been standing to find him gone. For the briefest of moments I felt relieved, until I noticed him. He had crossed the street, and was now slightly crouched down. I couldn't tell for sure due to the distance and the shadows, but I was certain he was facing me. I had looked away from him for no more than 10 seconds, so it was clear that he had moved fast.
I was so shocked that I stood there for some time, staring at him. And then he started moving toward me again. He took giant, exaggerated tip toed steps, as if he were a cartoon character sneaking up on someone. Except he was moving very, very quickly.
I'd like to say at this point I ran away or pulled out my pepper spray or my cellphone or anything at all, but I didn't. I just stood there, completely frozen as the smiling man crept toward me.
And then he stopped again, about a car length away from me. Still smiling his smile, still looking to the sky.
When I finally found my voice, I blurted out the first thing that came to mind. What I meant to ask was, "What the **** do you want?!" in an angry, commanding tone. What came out was a whimper, "What the fuu

[SpecialQue]

Don't you dare walk away from me! And don't tell me you're sorry! And don't
tell me to forget it, and don't you dare tell me to "let it go." God knows, I'd like to. I
wish I could, but I can't! I can't forget that we had something, and you're running
away. You're running away! Don't you see, Mark? You're running from what I've
searched for all my life! Why, because you're scared? Well, I'm scared too, but you
and I - we have something worth fighting for. We could make it work, I'm not saying
it would be easy, but I care about you. And I know deep down, under this
(Spitting
out the word.)
bravado, you care about me. And that's what it's all about, Mark, don't
you get it? It's the human experience. You can pretend all you want, but you're only
lying to yourself. You're denying the simple and wonderful fact that you are
emotional, and vulnerable, and alive.
Can you honestly stand there and tell me that I mean nothing to you? That
everything that happened that night was a lie? That you feel nothing?
(AMY is crying
or close to it. The following is a painful statement that she makes not to attack or
threaten Mark but rather, to allow herself closure with the situation.)
I feel sorry for
you, Mark. I'll move on. I'll find someone else. I'll be all right, because I will know
that I tried. That I did everything I could. But someday you will look back, and you
will realize what you threw away. And you will regret it always.

[RRR3]

^that reminded me of this for some reason:
http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/misc/I98Dj.gif

[Droid101]

Friends, I cannot state more clearly the following sobering fact: To Mr. Tony Montana, exclusionism is a kind of religion. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Mr. Montana and his subtle but parvanimous attempts to bring gangsterism to this country in the name of anti-gangsterism. I just want to debate the efficacy of his morally repugnant assertions. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that make a genuine contribution to human society.

Mr. Montana can't possibly believe that cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep. He's jaundiced but he's not that jaundiced. In an article I read recently, he is quoted as saying that he wants to ruin my entire day. This was meant be taken as a joke, but the joke is on us. You see, the time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we knock some sense into Mr. Montana, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Mr. Montana provide support to backwards banana republics and their procacious dictators, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of unpleasant statism.

Anyone who questions Mr. Montana's warped view of the world is a threat to his tottering sense of reality, at least insofar as this post is concerned. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to push all of us to the brink of insanity? Total chaos. Mr. Montana claims to be supportive of my plan to bring him to justice. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll lay waste to the environment. Not only that, but if we are going to speak objectively about Mr. Montana's lamentations, we must understand that I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Mr. Montana has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the reprehensible hatemongers around him, I can't help but think that all the deals Mr. Montana makes are strictly one-way. Mr. Montana gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Mr. Tony Montana?

[Heavincent]

I got the results of the test back! I definitely have breast cancer.

[SpecialQue]

What in water did Bloom, waterlover, drawer of water, watercarrier, returning to the range, admire?

Its universality: its democratic equality and constancy to its nature in seeking its own level: its vastness in the ocean of Mercator's projection: its unplumbed profundity in the Sundam trench of the Pacific exceeding 8000 fathoms: the restlessness of its waves and surface particles visiting in turn all points of its seaboard: the independence of its units: the variability of states of sea: its hydrostatic quiescence in calm: its hydrokinetic turgidity in neap and spring tides: its subsidence after devastation: its sterility in the circumpolar icecaps, arctic and antarctic: its climatic and commercial significance: its preponderance of 3 to 1 over the dry land of the globe: its indisputable hegemony extending in square leagues over all the region below the subequatorial tropic of Capricorn: the multisecular stability of its primeval basin: its luteofulvous bed: its capacity to dissolve and hold in solution all soluble substances including millions of tons of the most precious metals: its slow erosions of peninsulas and islands, its persistent formation of homothetic islands, peninsulas and downwardtending promontories: its alluvial deposits: its weight and volume and density: its imperturbability in lagoons and highland tarns: its gradation of colours in the torrid and temperate and frigid zones: its vehicular ramifications in continental lakecontained streams and confluent oceanflowing rivers with their tributaries and transoceanic currents, gulfstream, north and south equatorial courses: its violence in seaquakes, waterspouts, Artesian wells, eruptions, torrents, eddies, freshets, spates, groundswells, watersheds, waterpartings, geysers, cataracts, whirlpools, maelstroms, inundations, deluges, cloudbursts: its vast circumterrestrial ahorizontal curve: its secrecy in springs and latent humidity, revealed by rhabdomantic or hygrometric instruments and exemplified by the well by the hole in the wall at Ashtown gate, saturation of air, distillation of dew: the simplicity of its composition, two constituent parts of hydrogen with one constituent part of oxygen: its healing virtues: its buoyancy in the waters of the Dead Sea: its persevering penetrativeness in runnels, gullies, inadequate dams, leaks on shipboard: its properties for cleansing, quenching thirst and fire, nourishing vegetation: its infallibility as paradigm and paragon: its metamorphoses as vapour, mist, cloud, rain, sleet, snow, hail: its strength in rigid hydrants: its variety of forms in loughs and bays and gulfs and bights and guts and lagoons and atolls and archipelagos and sounds and fjords and minches and tidal estuaries and arms of sea: its solidity in glaciers, icebergs, icefloes: its docility in working hydraulic millwheels, turbines, dynamos, electric power stations, bleachworks, tanneries, scutchmills: its utility in canals, rivers, if navigable, floating and graving docks: its potentiality derivable from harnessed tides or watercourses falling from level to level: its submarine fauna and flora (anacoustic, photophobe), numerically, if not literally, the inhabitants of the globe: its ubiquity as constituting 90 percent of the human body: the noxiousness of its effluvia in lacustrine marshes, pestilential fens, faded flowerwater, stagnant pools in the waning moon.

[SpecialQue]

I got the results of the test back! I definitely have breast cancer.

oh hai heavincent

[DKLaker]

Kevin Durant Regular Season
PPG: 28.1
RPG: 7.9
APG: 4.6
FG%: 51.0%
3PT: 41.8%
FT%: 90.5%

Durant is putting up legendary scoring numbers WHILE having 50-40-90 splits from the field.

He is a tougher cover because of his height, length, and versatility.

He is better on the boards and on help defense because of his height and length.

I'll go on to say that Durant is better right now than Kobe has ever been.

Some people shouldn't own a computer :banghead: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[SpecialQue]

Some people shouldn't own a computer :banghead: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

RUH ROH.

Why did absence of light disturb him less than presence of noise?

Because of the surety of the sense of touch in his firm full masculine feminine passive active hand.

What quality did it (his hand) possess but with what counteracting influence?

The operative surgical quality but that he was reluctant to shed human blood even when the end justified the means, preferring, in their natural order, heliotherapy, psychophysicotherapeutics, osteopathic surgery.

What lay under exposure on the lower, middle and upper shelves of the kitchen dresser, opened by Bloom?

On the lower shelf five vertical breakfast plates, six horizontal breakfast saucers on which rested inverted breakfast cups, a moustachecup, uninverted, and saucer of Crown Derby, four white goldrimmed eggcups, an open shammy purse displaying coins, mostly copper, and a phial of aromatic (violet) comfits. On the middle shelf a chipped eggcup containing pepper, a drum of table salt, four conglomerated black olives in oleaginous paper, an empty pot of Plumtree's potted meat, an oval wicker basket bedded with fibre and containing one Jersey pear, a halfempty bottle of William Gilbey and Co's white invalid port, half disrobed of its swathe of coralpink tissue paper, a packet of Epps's soluble cocoa, five ounces of Anne Lynch's choice tea at 2/- per lb in a crinkled leadpaper bag, a cylindrical canister containing the best crystallised lump sugar, two onions, one, the larger, Spanish, entire, the other, smaller, Irish, bisected with augmented surface and more redolent, a jar of Irish Model Dairy's cream, a jug of brown crockery containing a naggin and a quarter of soured adulterated milk, converted by heat into water, acidulous serum and semisolidified curds, which added to the quantity subtracted for Mr Bloom's and Mrs Fleming's breakfasts, made one imperial pint, the total quantity originally delivered, two cloves, a halfpenny and a small dish containing a slice of fresh ribsteak. On the upper shelf a battery of jamjars (empty) of various sizes and proveniences.

What attracted his attention lying on the apron of the dresser?

Four polygonal fragments of two lacerated scarlet betting tickets, numbered 8 87, 88 6.

What reminiscences temporarily corrugated his brow?

Reminiscences of coincidences, truth stranger than fiction, preindicative of the result of the Gold Cup flat handicap, the official and definitive result of which he had read in the Evening Telegraph, late pink edition, in the cabman's shelter, at Butt bridge.

Where had previous intimations of the result, effected or projected, been received by him?

In Bernard Kiernan's licensed premises 8, 9 and 10 little Britain street: in David Byrne's licensed premises, 14 Duke street: in O'Connell street lower, outside Graham Lemon's when a dark man had placed in his hand a throwaway (subsequently thrown away), advertising Elijah, restorer of the church in Zion: in Lincoln place outside the premises of F. W. Sweny and Co (Limited), dispensing chemists, when, when Frederick M. (Bantam) Lyons had rapidly and successively requested, perused and restituted the copy of the current issue of the Freeman's Journal and National Press which he had been about to throw away (subsequently thrown away), he had proceeded towards the oriental edifice of the Turkish and Warm Baths, 11 Leinster street, with the light of inspiration shining in his countenance and bearing in his arms the secret of the race, graven in the language of prediction.

What qualifying considerations allayed his perturbations?

The difficulties of interpretation since the significance of any event followed its occurrence as variably as the acoustic report followed the electrical discharge and of counterestimating against an actual loss by failure to interpret the total sum of possible losses proceeding originally from a successful interpretation.

His mood?

He had not risked, he did not expect, he had not been disappointed, he was satisfied.

[b1imtf]

Who's Kobes?

[SpecialQue]

Who's Kobes?

Here's some kobes:

http://24sevenpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/kobe_beef_02.jpg

[Ne 1]

A History of Pottery

The production of pottery is one of the most ancient arts. The oldest known body of pottery dates from the Jomon period (from about 10,500 to 400 BC) in Japan; and even the earliest Jomon ceramics exhibit a unique sophistication of technique and design. Excavations in the Near East have revealed that primitive fired-clay vessels were made there more than 8,000 years ago. Potters were working in Iran by about 5500 BC, and earthenware was probably being produced even earlier on the Iranian high plateau. Chinese potters had developed characteristic techniques by about 5000 BC. In the New World many pre-Columbian American cultures developed highly artistic pottery traditions.

After general sections on basic pottery types and decorating techniques this article focuses on the development of Western pottery since the beginning of the Renaissance. For detailed treatment of ancient Western and non-Western pottery, see Chinese art and architecture; Egypt, ancient; Greek art; Islamic art and architecture; Japanese art and architecture; Korean art; Mesopotamia; Minoan art; Persian art and architecture; pre-Columbian art and architecture.

TYPES OF WARES
Pottery comprises three distinctive types of wares. The first type, earthenware, has been made following virtually the same techniques since ancient times; only in the modern era has mass production brought changes in materials and methods. Earthenware is basically composed of clay--often blended clays--and baked hard, the degree of hardness depending on the intensity of the heat. After the invention of glazing, earthenwares were coated with glaze to render them waterproof; sometimes glaze was applied decoratively. It was found that, when fired at great heat, the clay body became nonporous. This second type of pottery, called stoneware, came to be preferred for domestic use.
The third type of pottery is a Chinese invention that appeared when feldspathic material in a fusible state was incorporated in a stoneware composition. The ancient Chinese called decayed feldspar kaolin (meaning "high place," where it was originally found); this substance is known in the West as china clay. Petuntse, or china stone, a less decayed, more fusible feldspathic material, was also used in Chinese porcelain; it forms a white cement that binds together the particles of less fusible kaolin. Significantly, the Chinese have never felt that high-quality porcelain must be either translucent or white. Two types of porcelain evolved: "true" porcelain, consisting of a kaolin hard-paste body, extremely glassy and smooth, produced by high temperature firing, and soft porcelain, invariably translucent and lead glazed, produced from a composition of ground glass and other ingredients including white clay and fired at a low temperature. The latter was widely produced by 18th-century European potters.

It is believed that porcelain was first made by Chinese potters toward the end of the Han period (206 BC-AD 220), when pottery generally became more refined in body, form, and decoration. The Chinese made early vitreous wares (protoporcelain) before they developed their white vitreous ware (true porcelain) that was later so much admired by Europeans.

Regardless of time or place, basic pottery techniques have varied little except in ancient America, where the potter's wheel was unknown. Among the requisites of success are correct composition of the clay body by using balanced materials; skill in shaping the wet clay on the wheel or pressing it into molds; and, most important, firing at the correct temperature. The last operation depends vitally on the experience, judgment, and technical skill of the potter.

[SpecialQue]

We can also interpret the destruction of the theatre as meaning the end of Kewal’s own dream of a “pure” drama, where only the heart rules. In fact, throughout the film, all of his attempts to perform or stage a play fail; never does he reach success. Is Raj Kapoor saying here that art can only be impure, a mixture of artifice and truth, and love a necessary combination of passing (i.e. false) beauty and eternal promises? Aag would therefore be his statement that the artist must be wise enough to accept compromise? That he cannot remain in the dream of ideal beauty? Or on the contrary, does the film idealistically state that the artist must burn whatever compromises his dream of purity, and that beauty is nothing but an artifice of nature that the spirit should disregard as false? Much of the weight of the film would suggest that this second interpretation corresponds to what Raj Kapoor is saying. A theatre or a cinema based on beauty without a quest for the depth of the heart is doomed to remain earthly and false. It is a theatre/cinema of masks, which medusa-like, can burn and transfix, whereas what RK wants is an art of the real fire, that of the soul, where truth lies.

The real love which Kewal takes as a yardstick, is, in his own words, a dream, a faraway dream of “a century ago, when he was ten years old”, that child’s complicity he shared with his little neighbour Nimmi, the first and real Nimmi. Strange that such a dream should be construed as the basis for the mature artist’s position concerning his art. Childhood as the font where all truth comes from? This would sound evangelical enough. Unfortunately, the film deals with beauty in a sufficiently ambiguous way to enable another interpretation. For indeed, if there is an object which it puts to good use, which it presents as sublime and ideal, it is Nargis’ exquisite face. She is continuously photographed in a way that tells the spectator: here is purity, here is what art can aspire to.

Naturally, we would do a disservice to Raj Kapoor if we decided that such a face was an end in itself; certainly he wanted to say: this face is perfection on earth if it is the mirror of the soul, the passage to the heart. Nevertheless, he is too much of an artist to ignore the ambiguity of beauty, and his insistence on that face, the care he takes to illuminate it, and almost shape it with his camera like a sculptor, turn it into a cinematographical object worthy of admiration and love. Beauty is understood as a sign, a sign indicating, in our imperfect world, the ideal world of truth and love. The way if is photographed, and of course the way it is connected to Nimmi’s character (she’s an honest and innocent girl) makes a divine sign, and not a satanic lure. Nimmi does say she “comes from Hell” when she meets Kewal for the first time, but I would say this is part of what Raj Kapoor wants to affirm, and this affirmation is contradicted by his deeper (and perhaps unconscious?) recognition of what he has shown us in Nimmi’s face.

So Aag stages the paradox of art (or theatre) that many thinkers have underlined: in order to reach truth and purity, the creator has to refuse the passage through facile beauty and artificiality, but of course he bumps into the fact that theatre is in its essence artificial and that beauty is a very strong language to express the way towards purity and love. Some creators think perhaps they can reach truth better or faster by sacrificing the flesh and its charms, and therefore attaining the spiritual more certainly. Because indeed beauty does deceive, it is easily turned into a charm to obtain other ends than truth and purity. Yet, if it can be sheltered enough by civilisation, by education, by social protections, it can be a guide towards the divine in man, and no art can really afford to neglect that completely. If fire is domesticated, it can yield the greatest benefits! There is always a risk that it will burn somebody, if it is too bright, too hot; but how can one prevent that? Civilisation constantly needs to be renewed by the fire of beauty and the warmth of passion, otherwise it will die of cold and old practices.

[chazzy]

FG% is the stat recognized by the offical NBA statisticians. TS% is just a basketball reference stat
http://stats.nba.com/?GameScope=Playoffs&PlayerOrTeam=Player&StatCategory=Points

What efficiency is used on the official NBA site? :oldlol:

[SpecialQue]

Tambi

[SpecialQue]

Kami juga dapat menafsirkan penghancuran teater sebagai berarti akhir dari mimpi Kewal sendiri dari "murni" drama, di mana hanya aturan jantung. Bahkan, sepanjang film, semua usahanya untuk melakukan atau tahap bermain gagal, pernah apakah ia menggapai sukses. Apakah Raj Kapoor katakan di sini bahwa seni hanya dapat murni, campuran kecerdasan dan kebenaran, dan cinta kombinasi yang diperlukan lewat (palsu, yaitu) keindahan dan janji-janji kekal? Aag karena itu akan pernyataannya bahwa artis harus cukup bijaksana untuk menerima kompromi? Bahwa dia tidak bisa tetap dalam mimpi keindahan yang ideal? Atau sebaliknya, apakah film idealis menyatakan bahwa artis harus membakar apa pun yang membahayakan mimpinya kemurnian, dan keindahan yang tidak lain adalah kecerdasan alam roh harus mengabaikan sebagai palsu? Sebagian dari berat film akan menyarankan bahwa interpretasi kedua ini sesuai dengan apa yang dikatakan Raj Kapoor. Sebuah teater atau bioskop didasarkan pada kecantikan tanpa pencarian kedalaman hati ditakdirkan untuk tetap duniawi dan palsu. Ini adalah teater / bioskop masker, yang medusa seperti, dapat membakar dan menusuk, sedangkan apa RK inginkan adalah sebuah seni api nyata, bahwa jiwa, dimana kebenaran kebohongan.

Sebenarnya cinta yang Kewal mengambil sebagai patokan, adalah, dalam kata-katanya sendiri, mimpi, mimpi yang jauh dari "abad yang lalu, ketika ia berusia sepuluh tahun", keterlibatan anak tersebut ia berbagi dengan tetangga kecilnya Nimmi, pertama dan real Nimmi. Aneh bahwa mimpi tersebut harus ditafsirkan sebagai dasar untuk posisi artis matang tentang seni. Anak sebagai font mana semua kebenaran berasal dari? Ini akan terdengar cukup evangelis. Sayangnya, film ini berhubungan dengan keindahan dengan cara yang cukup ambigu untuk memungkinkan interpretasi lain. Karena sesungguhnya, jika ada sebuah benda yang menempatkan dengan baik, yang menyajikan sebagai luhur dan ideal, itu adalah wajah indah Nargis '. Dia terus difoto dengan cara yang memberitahu penonton: di sini adalah kemurnian, di sini adalah apa seni bisa bercita-cita untuk.

Tentu, kita akan melakukan tindakan merugikan untuk Raj Kapoor jika kita memutuskan bahwa wajah seperti itu adalah tujuan itu sendiri, tentu ia ingin mengatakan: wajah ini adalah kesempurnaan di bumi jika itu adalah cermin dari jiwa, bagian ke jantung. Namun demikian, dia terlalu banyak seorang seniman untuk mengabaikan ambiguitas keindahan, dan desakan di wajah itu, perawatan ia mengambil untuk menerangi itu, dan hampir membentuknya dengan kamera seperti pematung, mengubahnya menjadi objek cinematographical layak kekaguman dan cinta. Kecantikan dipahami sebagai tanda, tanda yang menunjukkan, di dunia kita yang tidak sempurna, dunia ideal kebenaran dan kasih. Cara jika difoto, dan tentu saja cara itu terhubung dengan karakter Nimmi (dia adalah gadis yang jujur ​​dan polos) membuat tanda ilahi, dan bukan iming-iming setan. Nimmi tidak mengatakan dia "berasal dari neraka" ketika dia bertemu Kewal untuk pertama kalinya, tapi aku akan mengatakan ini adalah bagian dari apa Raj Kapoor ingin menegaskan, dan penegasan ini bertentangan dengan-Nya lebih dalam (dan mungkin sadar?) Pengakuan apa dia telah menunjukkan wajah kita Nimmi itu.

Jadi AAG tahap paradoks seni (atau teater) yang banyak pemikir telah menggarisbawahi: untuk mencapai kebenaran dan kemurnian, pencipta memiliki menolak bagian melalui keindahan lancar dan kepalsuan, tapi tentu saja dia menabrak fakta bahwa teater di buatan esensi dan keindahan yang adalah bahasa yang sangat kuat untuk mengekspresikan jalan menuju kemurnian dan cinta. Beberapa pencipta berpikir mungkin mereka bisa mencapai kebenaran yang lebih baik atau lebih cepat dengan mengorbankan daging dan pesona, dan karena itu mencapai spiritual yang lebih pasti. Karena memang kecantikan tidak menipu, itu mudah berubah menjadi pesona untuk mendapatkan tujuan selain kebenaran dan kemurnian. Namun, jika itu dapat ditampung cukup dengan peradaban, dengan pendidikan, perlindungan sosial, dapat menjadi panduan menuju ilahi dalam diri manusia, dan tidak ada seni yang benar-benar mampu untuk mengabaikan yang benar-benar. Jika api dijinakkan, hal itu dapat menghasilkan manfaat terbesar! Selalu ada risiko yang akan membakar seseorang, jika terlalu terang, terlalu panas, tetapi bagaimana kita bisa mencegahnya? Peradaban terus perlu diperbarui oleh api keindahan dan kehangatan gairah, selain itu akan mati praktek dingin dan lama.

[Droid101]

Multifarious avenues of approach vie for attention as potential retorts to Mr. Tony Montana's high-handed philippics. I guess I should start by saying that Tony is not only immoral but amoral. When he insists that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt meddle in everyone else's affairs", Tony is really saying, "Grant me absolute power and applaud the rape of your freedom". You don't need to be the smartest guy on the planet to figure that out. Heck, even the lowliest Joe Six-Pack knows that Tony's odious attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Tony, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that over time, his values have progressed from being merely whiney to being superwhiney, hyperwhiney, and recently ultrawhiney. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megawhiney.

Tony uses egoism to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to examine his worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing). That's the large elephant in the room that nobody talks about. Nevertheless, I myself certainly aver that people really ought to start talking about it because then they'd realize that Tony has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By taking us all back to the Stone Age, Tony makes it clear that he ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will Tony hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will he see that he thinks it would be a great idea to transform our society into a profligate war machine. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Tony has so frequently lied about how he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Tony's rank-and-file followers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear.

Tony invents problems in order to provide himself with an excuse for making a fuss. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that his reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only stultiloquent answers, addlepated resolutions to conflicts. Be always mindful that he argues that I am patronizing for wanting to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago.

The "facts" Tony has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most dimwitted is Tony's discussion of unforgiving, dishonest scamps. If he doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to prop up corrupt despots around the world, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then Tony will grasp the concept that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that people should soothe each other's pain, not exploit it. An obvious parallel from a slightly different context is that Tony claims that self-deluded extortionists aren't ever licentious. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his ballyhoos. Then again, Tony pompously claims that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

Whenever there's an argument about Tony's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Tony wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that nobody seems to realize that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as he has had, I must honestly guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. I have no problem with the idea that hedonism is something to be prevented, not promoted. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to tactless oniomaniacs. What I do have a problem with are his irritating, orgulous bruta fulmina. He evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of his intended victims. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, when I was a child my clergyman told me, "Tony is at least partially right in that his callous, cold-blooded greed leads him to pamper disagreeable bribe-seekers." If you think about it you'll see his point.

Please forgive my directness, but Tony's ramblings are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, Tony is just trying to pick a fight. That's why he says that he acts in the public interest. Surely, the good Lord must have wept when He saw Tony canonize disrespectful Fagins as nomological emblems of propriety. His deputies profess that his vices are the only true virtues. This is precisely the non-equation that Tony is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that I, for one, plan to get the Tony Montana monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that I must ask that Tony's functionaries wage war on jingoism. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to infantilize and corrupt the public.

I can't predict the future, but I do know this: Tony's expositors are lower than base-minded haggersnashes. They are treasonous, crime-stained numskulls. Those who support their sallies or help create the insidious atmosphere needed for them to blackmail politicians into furthering political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law should realize that Tony can't fool me. I've met impetuous troglodytes before so I know that trying to keep Tony from infringing upon our most important constitutional rights is a sucker's game. No matter how hard we try to stop him, he'll always find some new way to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. Most people react to Tony's simple-minded artifices as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, we must redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Tony complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

I would sooner let Tony force me to recant all of the claims I've made in this letter than become one of his legatees. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that many people think of his dangerous wheelings and dealings as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which raucous creeps will turn menaces loose against us good citizens sooner or later. A second all-too-serious item is that if you hear Tony spouting off about how "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, you should tell him that his sycophants should commit to a process that respects civil liberties, civil rights, and civil discourse. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from backwards poseurs and start doing some research of his own.

Tony craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it. We must do everything we can to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Fortunately, enlightening the mind of Man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, he has made "experience" all-important. Tony's experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly commit acts of banditry and insurgency before you know it.

Tony has been infiltrating and then dominating and controlling the mass media. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Tony's protests are becoming increasingly scrofulous. They have already begun to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Tony to use pharisaism as a more destructive form of blackguardism. If you don't want such a time to come then help me look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Tony waste our time and money. Help me denounce those who claim that vicious saps are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I can see from the length of what I've written so far that I should save the rest of my comments about Mr. Tony Montana for a future letter. Let me close by stating simply that he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of a gutless gang of the most semi-intelligible power brokers you'll ever see.

[b1imtf]

Here's some kobes:

http://24sevenpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/kobe_beef_02.jpg
Shit lookin mad tasty y'all

[rhowen4]

This problem asks you to implement a buffer overflow attack on a program.

a. What is the address of the function trap()? How did you determine this?
0x080485d6, determined by setting a breakpoint on trap() in gdb
b. What is the address on the stack that your input must overwrite (please give both the address of the memory location(s), and their contents)? How did you locate this address?
The address we must overwrite is the return address for getstr(), 0xbffff27c, which contains 0x0804861e, the address of main().
Since the address of buf is 0xbffff264, our input would have to come after 0xbffff264 + 0xc, 0xbffff270. In linux, the return value for the function we are in is &ebp+4 (0xbffff278+4), which is 0xbffff27c.
This means we would have to write 24 characters of junk, then print our 4 bytes to overwrite the return address.
c. What is the address of buf?
0xbffff264, found out using the command in gdb "print &buf"
d. The sled is the input you give to alter the return address stored on the stack. What is the minimum length your sled must be?
It must be at least 12+12+4 characters long, the reason explained in part b. Anything less wouldn't allow an overwrite of the return address for getstr().
214,133,04,08 are the hex characters used to emulate trap's address, 0x080485d6.

[tazb]

All I know is that LeBron is better than both
:applause:

[lakeshow1]

Kevin Durant Regular Season
PPG: 28.1
RPG: 7.9
APG: 4.6
FG%: 51.0%
3PT: 41.8%
FT%: 90.5%

Durant is putting up legendary scoring numbers WHILE having 50-40-90 splits from the field.

He is a tougher cover because of his height, length, and versatility.

He is better on the boards and on help defense because of his height and length.

I'll go on to say that Durant is better right now than Kobe has ever been.

This dude doesn't work. If he does he's minimum wage.

[secund2nun]

Durant is easily a better player than Kobe ever was. Kobe is mr "I cannot make it past the first round even once in the 3 seasons I had when the best front court in the NBA was not carrying me."

[bizil]

Very few perimeter players EVER can claim to be a great scorer, great passer, great rebounder, and great defender all in one relative to their position. Kobe is one of the cats who can claim that. KD is evolving into a very good all around player, but Kobe is a great one. But don't get it twisted KD is a great player and a better shooter than Kobe. When it comes to two alpha dogs like Kobe and KD, the all around aspects can make the difference. Thus MJ, Kobe, and Bron are on a level all to themselves in terms of the way they dominate. To be frank, I wouldn't take current KD YET over Magic or Bird either.

[veilside23]

there is an agenda here its clear that the OP thinks Lebron >> kobe... i am not ready to think that way yet... Lebron still picks his team mates in their prime ... sorry..

[Mr. Jabbar]

OP should have been banned long before he made this thread, by now, its a travesty he still roams in impunity...

[Element]

Durant is turnover machine
Durant is babied by the refs, which accounts for his ridiculous foul draw rate (and thus, his efficiency)
Durant is efficient, but his impact offensively is massively overrated. He doesn't open up the game for others (he gets in good positions to score, he's not dictating defenses to go anywhere)
He admitted to being a cherry picker and avoiding bail out shots
He absolutely sucks ass as a playmaker, both facilitating and creating shots-wise
He sucks ass on defense, he had to be hidden behind Thabo in the playoffs (Kobe coasted on D in 2010 but in the playoffs he went straight back to elite.)

Enough?

[Trollsmasher]

Durant's peak so far > Kobe's.

And Durant is still getting better (he might even get more superstar calls than Kobe ever got).

[SpecialQue]

Why did absence of light disturb him less than presence of noise?

Because of the surety of the sense of touch in his firm full masculine feminine passive active hand.

What quality did it (his hand) possess but with what counteracting influence?

The operative surgical quality but that he was reluctant to shed human blood even when the end justified the means, preferring, in their natural order, heliotherapy, psychophysicotherapeutics, osteopathic surgery.

What lay under exposure on the lower, middle and upper shelves of the kitchen dresser, opened by Bloom?

On the lower shelf five vertical breakfast plates, six horizontal breakfast saucers on which rested inverted breakfast cups, a moustachecup, uninverted, and saucer of Crown Derby, four white goldrimmed eggcups, an open shammy purse displaying coins, mostly copper, and a phial of aromatic (violet) comfits. On the middle shelf a chipped eggcup containing pepper, a drum of table salt, four conglomerated black olives in oleaginous paper, an empty pot of Plumtree's potted meat, an oval wicker basket bedded with fibre and containing one Jersey pear, a halfempty bottle of William Gilbey and Co's white invalid port, half disrobed of its swathe of coralpink tissue paper, a packet of Epps's soluble cocoa, five ounces of Anne Lynch's choice tea at 2/- per lb in a crinkled leadpaper bag, a cylindrical canister containing the best crystallised lump sugar, two onions, one, the larger, Spanish, entire, the other, smaller, Irish, bisected with augmented surface and more redolent, a jar of Irish Model Dairy's cream, a jug of brown crockery containing a naggin and a quarter of soured adulterated milk, converted by heat into water, acidulous serum and semisolidified curds, which added to the quantity subtracted for Mr Bloom's and Mrs Fleming's breakfasts, made one imperial pint, the total quantity originally delivered, two cloves, a halfpenny and a small dish containing a slice of fresh ribsteak. On the upper shelf a battery of jamjars (empty) of various sizes and proveniences.

What attracted his attention lying on the apron of the dresser?

Four polygonal fragments of two lacerated scarlet betting tickets, numbered 8 87, 88 6.

What reminiscences temporarily corrugated his brow?

Reminiscences of coincidences, truth stranger than fiction, preindicative of the result of the Gold Cup flat handicap, the official and definitive result of which he had read in the Evening Telegraph, late pink edition, in the cabman's shelter, at Butt bridge.

Where had previous intimations of the result, effected or projected, been received by him?

In Bernard Kiernan's licensed premises 8, 9 and 10 little Britain street: in David Byrne's licensed premises, 14 Duke street: in O'Connell street lower, outside Graham Lemon's when a dark man had placed in his hand a throwaway (subsequently thrown away), advertising Elijah, restorer of the church in Zion: in Lincoln place outside the premises of F. W. Sweny and Co (Limited), dispensing chemists, when, when Frederick M. (Bantam) Lyons had rapidly and successively requested, perused and restituted the copy of the current issue of the Freeman's Journal and National Press which he had been about to throw away (subsequently thrown away), he had proceeded towards the oriental edifice of the Turkish and Warm Baths, 11 Leinster street, with the light of inspiration shining in his countenance and bearing in his arms the secret of the race, graven in the language of prediction.

What qualifying considerations allayed his perturbations?

The difficulties of interpretation since the significance of any event followed its occurrence as variably as the acoustic report followed the electrical discharge and of counterestimating against an actual loss by failure to interpret the total sum of possible losses proceeding originally from a successful interpretation.

His mood?

He had not risked, he did not expect, he had not been disappointed, he was satisfied.

[SpecialQue]

Tambi

[riseagainst]

dang... thread backfire. OP getting destroyed in this thread. :oldlol:

[Doctor Rivers]

[quote=SpecialQue]Tambi

[TheMarkMadsen]

bumps