TxHoops

So that's a yes, sport?

1 percent is based on a previous score, not "bloviating." Whether I am able to prove that, and beat the genius Engy is the subject of the bet. Of course, it is not a precise measurement of any particular skill, but it is precise on who can answer the most logic and analytical problems correctly. But to be clear, is the second to the last question of your typical, "bloviating" response an acceptance of my proposed bet? (And get out of here with the GRE, that's child's play. And besides, having taken both, it is incomparable with regard to the testing of one's analytical abilities.)

You are too much. Since you are unable to deduce much, here is your spoon feeding. The test is called the LSAT. 3 of the 4 graded sections are analytical and logical reasoning. 25 questions each section, 35 minutes to take each. Each question gives you a complex scenario from which there is but one correct answer, which is derivable using logic and analytics. Therefore it is what we call “objective.” And before you make suppositions that are wholly incorrect, the test has nothing to do with the knowledge of law. It merely tests the areas in which you seem to think you are superior, and I am willing to bet you are not. So we each deposit our money with an agreed upon 3rd party (I’m so “overly confident” I’m willing to give him 10 percent of my winnings for his trouble), and take the test on the same date, time and place. Whoever scores the highest wins the cash, the loser gets his little ego bruised (I’d also be willing to attach a SETXsports signature bet for further humiliation). So there you have it. Pretty simple, even for the overly inflated individual. I’m sure you want no part of the bet, but I guess we will see. Oh, and I’m not doing it for less than an amount equal to X number of hours of my billable hourly rate, which we can discuss in PMs. Otherwise, it’s not worth my time. (And you should really give Nash an annotation for using his word twice in one paragraph...)

My poor friend, you like to use big words and form long posts in an attempt to mask the fact you are simply unable to grasp simple concepts. But clearly despite your inflated sense of your own analytical skills, you miss the simplest of points being made. First, the test of which I speak is mostly based on analytical and logical reasoning. In fact, it is 75 percent of said test, which would be the only pertinent portion of said test. It is universally used by institutions of higher learning to test said skills, and is completely standardized and objective. And in case you missed a very explicit point I made (no, not in case, you absolutely did), it’s not that I can beat you; it’s that you can’t beat me (don’t let that blow your analytically challenged mind, it’s not that difficult a concept). Therefore, my “edge” in gambling parlance is that I essentially have a “free roll.” But obviously I need to simplify this for you further. And to begin, i don’t think you’re a complete idiot. On the contrary, you’re obviously an intelligent guy. It’s just that we all have our talents. And you continually, in the bluster you like to engage in on this board, like to make quips to me about an area very, very few are more talented. I propose this test would objectively measure our respective “talents” in this area. And again, it has little to do with me beating you, but the fact that you can’t beat me. And unless you are in the 1 percentile bracket, you will, in fact, lose to me. So it’s worth my time (and a couple hundred bucks for the test) to wager 50 times the cost of the test that I will outscore you in logical and analytical reasoning. But let me simplify it further. As I say, we all have our talents. I would not wager AAW that I could beat him in handicapping sporting events. He has proven to me too many times he is far more talented than I in that field. I also wouldn’t wager on a straight up golf match with Nash, his sons, his son-in-law, or probably most of his grandsons. Although there might be a degree of luck there, it would take the Caddyshack’s bishop’s round for me to beat them. But really to make this more analagous to my proposition, it would be like me wagering against Nash on Augusta’s Par 3 course, where we would play those 9 holes approximately 8 times, knowing he was going to ace every single hole. It would be mighty tough (i.e., impossible) for me to win said wager. I don’t know if I can break it down any better, but feel free to continue to blast my analytical skills while overtly not accepting my challenge. As I said, I wouldn’t want to piss away 10 large on a bet I couldn’t win either.

Because I know you can’t beat me, and doubt very seriously you can tie me. But don’t feel bad, the same could be said for 99 percent of those who actually have taken said test, most of whom are well above the mean, intelligence-wise. How do I know this? Because it’s been objectively tested before, strictly on logic and analytical skills. If you throw in the time-tested reading comprehension portion of the test, your chances increase by 1 percent. But since we are only speaking of “analytical skills,” that portion isn’t really germane to this discussion. So you see, you are already showing a severe analytical deficiency. I don’t have to know you (although I know enough from your posts). I know me and I know how I perform with logic games and analytical reasoning problems. If the past is any indicator, I won’t miss. Therefore, you are irrelevant in terms of “beating me.” And that, my friend, is what we call flawless logic.

@BS Wildcats won’t steer you wrong on the grub!

Once again, I am willing to objectively test my “analytical skills” against the great Englebert’s any time, any day. For a sufficiently large wager. And I only bet when I know I have way the best of it. Since my “skills” are so lacking, should be easy money for you

I can’t argue with you on sheeple. You guys certainly are the industry leaders in that field. Never has that been more evident than in the last year!

Your use of the term “real scientist” probably deserves another use of the clip since you, as a nonscientist, consistently try to prove that you know more than those who are. But I guess once a night is probably an adequate usage of that gem.

^ Exhibit A to supplement my video. Guy has almost 2k posts and another 10k+ as “Smitty” and he still doesn’t know how to correctly use the quote button!

Man he was phenomenal in that role. What a great, classic scene. Isn’t YouTube great where you can just pull these things up and watch?

Unfortunately not. Can we interest you guys in John Mackovic, Greg Davis or, better yet, Tim Beck??

Sorry for posting a WSJ story. I forget how you doofus’s prefer the Daily Caller and other “real journalism” publications/sites. Carry on with the kool aid party, I’m just a passin’ through...

[Hidden Content]

They are just better and deeper imo. Kountze has a good team. EC has the ability to be great. And of course it doesn’t hurt having the GOAT in the sideline.

About what I expected. These two might split but I wouldn’t bet on it.

One other classy moment from Silsbee tonight. In the 3rd quarter, Devon McCain tipped the ball out of a Bobcat ballhandler’s hand and it went backcourt, with orangefield getting the ball back. Ref incorrectly calls back court. Devon tells ref he tipped it. Refs confer and Devon walks over and tells them again he tipped it. Regardless, sometimes refs are intent on making a horrible call. But for those of you questioning McCain’s character, I thought that showed a lot.

Silsbee 89 OF 41 F Could have been much, much worse. Joe Sigler is a class act.

LCM 51 BC 40 End 3

I miss watching and listening. Man calls the games seemlessly, keeps complete stats, all on his own. I am lobbying for him to replace Dave South. I can barely walk and chew bubble gum.

He’s something all right [Hidden Content] Sorry to post a link to a rag such as the Journal. Also, in before Smitty/Reagan’s link denying from www.locksteppers.com....

You blew up your own thread in the title

Trying to decide if this is better suited for this thread or Smitty’s, errr Reagan’s other thread where he is wayyyyy out of his element...

I thought it would be fun to post your all time favorite cinematic moments. For me, it’s impossible to choose between two, both ending scenes from two of my favorite films. Both give me the goosebumps each and every time I watch. Both are about three and a half minutes long. And together they make up the best 7 minutes of film I’ve encountered. They are offered below for your viewing pleasure: [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

#lockerroomtalk #lockerroomracism #koolaidforall