knapplc

BRACKET It's a PDF. First Round: #7 Michigan #10 Illinois #6 Nebraska #11 Northwestern #8 Minnesota #9 Wisconsin #5 Michigan State #12 Indiana Second Round: #2 Ohio State #7 Michigan (won) #3 Iowa #6 Nebraska (presumptive winner) #1 Penn State (winner #8/#9 game) #4 Purdue (winner #5/#12 game)

Already was address, Knapplc: My bad - I should have written that it wasn't considered by someone who isn't on my Blocked User list. Sorry about that.

They do appear to have the talent to beat just about anyone, they're just young. If they can keep it together throughout the tournament they'll be a tough out, but if they have another swoon like they did over the past seven games, even for one half, they'll get bounced. At this point we're just killing time until Northwestern is officially outed from the tourney. Every Husker has played and scored a point at this point in the game.

LINK

LINK

I believe this is the official definition of a beatdown. 33-point lead right now. Nothing going right for the Wildcats.

I think we were making them at the same time. Great minds thinking alike once again. Kinda eerie that our threads were so similar. We're not secretly twins, are we? Halftime score, Huskers clinging to a near-30-point lead, 54-25.

We join the tournament already in progress. As of 7:48 to go in the first half, the Huskers lead 36-10 thanks in large part to a 28-3 run. Jordan Hooper has passed the 1,000-career point mark, making her the first Husker Sophomore ever to surpass the 1,000 point mark. EDIT - today's victim is Northwestern, who defeated Nebraska 63-51 at the Bob two weeks ago today. This seems a little like a "you shouldn't have beaten us last game" game.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being more likely to vote for Uncle Bob than any other candidate. The lesser of two evils, as it were.

This is better than that word salad you had before. WTH was that supposed to be? It hurt my eyes.

$300,000 But it's still a dumb number. It says nothing about the marginal value of attending college for someone that should actually think hard about that decision. $900,000 for a BS, $1.2 million for a Masters, from a different study.

You request a courtesy that you do not extend. You ask for logic beyond that of a child's game, yet offer none yourself. I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of knowledgeable military strategist, but I have the ability to discuss my opinion, and I'm willing to discuss it openly and honestly, and provide support for that opinion when asked. You do not reciprocate; rather, you make statements which you cannot or will not support, then when they are challenged your responses vary between 1) ignoring the other person's point, 2) changing the subject, 3) implying that the other person doesn't understand (often with a side order of "go reread the post/thread), or 4) implying that the person to whom you're directing your comments is uneducated/uninformed/not smart/any combination of those three. Your presumptions are often baseless, or the product of unsupportable opinions. To wit: North Korea has once already attacked South Korea, with the express purpose of absorbing them into a unified Korea. That purpose has not ended simply becuase 60 years have passed. It is only the presence of a militarily (if not numerically) superior force across the DMZ that prevents them from doing it again. Pretending that North Korea, a known exporter of arms and information to terrorist organizations, is some benign entity set upon by belligerent American & South Korean interests is to ignore their history, both recent and past. Iran is also a known supporter of terrorist organizations, and has been for decades. Pretending that, again, they are some persecuted, peace-loving nation beset by the Americans is to ignore their past behavior. Your insinuations that America is the aggressor in either of these situations is based on false presumptions or erroneous conclusions, and to get there you're guilty of either ignoring or obfuscating facts. America's military presence in the region occupied by Iran has been thoroughly explained to you, yet here you are bringing them up again. North Korea's situation is quite obvious, yet here you are arguing that they are the ones persecuted. Let's try a simple, not-intended-to-be-1:1 analogy. You have two neighborhoods. Neighborhood A has a high crime rate, Neighborhood B has a low crime rate. Which neighborhood would you be MOST LIKELY to see a strong police presence in? I'll give you a hint - it's not Neighborhood B.

Just saw this on CNN. Never heard of the guy until a few threads cropped up here, but figured it might interest some. EDIT: From his website: LINK

Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects. After reading my above post, which is consistent with everything I had posted to this point, are you still confused? Do you expect a reasonable response to your bombast? This is just silly. You stated, "They have almost no ability to invade South Korea and occupy land, all they have is alot of artillery to shell cities." As if to imply that the KPA is not to be feared, since "all they have is alot (sic) of artillery to shell cities." This is ridiculously untrue, especially considering the fact that Seoul is 10-15 miles from the DMZ, and the obvious first target. The bulk of one million men even if they were just artillery brigades (which they certainly are not) would wreak havoc with Seoul and by extension the U.S. and financial markets throughout the world. Your comment seems to be easily brushing aside what is a formidable force, even if only in the short-term. Carlfense points out to you that you're too-easily dismissing the potential damage caused by one million men on the attack, and you respond with "That sounds scary... but on paper only." This, on the surface, is patently absurd. Rather than making some dig at you that you aren't "knowledgeable about subjects," once again I and others tried to point out to you that there is reasonable danger from the KPA, especially (as I pointed out) considering the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. To this you respond, "Even with American forces in South Korea, the Norks could still level Seoul anytime they wanted." OK, great. You've now caught up to what the rest of us have known and discussed since the conversation started. Yet this is a flip-flop from the dismissive tone of "They have almost no ability to invade South Korea and occupy land, all they have is alot (sic) of artillery to shell cities" and "That sounds scary... but on paper only." Carlfense once again points out the dichotomy of these two statements, and you respond with a nonsensical, "Carl, you are playing stupid again" and tell him to go read the thread again. Problem is, Carl has quite clearly read the thread, as have I, and more importantly your posts in this thread. It seems as if the person not reading the thread - or, at least, your posts - is you, because your comments are at odds with each other. This is, once again, pointed out to you, and you respond with the laughable "Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects." Perhaps you are. But if so, you are not projecting that in your posts here. Here, you're vacillating between extremes, and when it's pointed out to you, you imply that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about. With all due respect, you may be some kind of military expert, but your comments in this thread make no sense. And they do not form a cohesive thought pattern.

Can we just have one Senator this cycle and leave the other seat empty? I don't like any of our choices. AT ALL.

First off, way to be ignorant on contraception. There are millions and millions of married women who use them, sometimes for birth control and family planning. Othertimes for issues involving the the female reproductive system. Two, 100% bogus arguement for anyone who does not follow your religion. Three, at what point in human history did everyone (or even most people) waited for sex til after marrige? People are just more honest and willing to talk about it, and not hide it like they were in past. Four, don't fool yourself, the main reason the Bible preaches no sex til marrige is about property rights in a patriarchal society. The rich and powerful men wanted to make sure only thier offspring would inherit. Its not what they will tell you in church, but its the truth. First of all, this whole arguement is based on the amendment Freedom of religion and dirrected right at one religion in particular. So no it is NOT 100% bogus for this arguement. It is pretty simple really if you don't like the beliefs of your employer leave. The reason that that the Catholic religion believes you should not have premarital sex is because sex is suppose to be for creating life. I do no that married people use contraceptives to be financially responsible and other medical reasons, but this is why they say premarital sex is sinful. I know that's the party line, but I believe the real-world reason has far more to do with strigori's (correct) comment about property rights in a patriarchal society.

Carl, you are playing stupid again. Go back and read the posts in this thread. I read it again. Your statements are still at odds. I asked if North Korea would quit militaristic posturing if we left the Korean peninsula. Somehow you tried to say that NK has plenty of of artillery but little ability to invade or occupy. (Side note: Your answer doesn't really address my question.) I replied with the size of their forces. You said that NK forces sound scary . . . but on paper only. Then you admit that a city of 10 million exists only so long as NK wants it to exist. What am I missing, exactly? I saw the same conundrum and almost commented on it, but realized I'd get the same response you got.

They've done it before. Granted, they didn't do it while the U.S. had such expressed interest in the region, but they had a much wiser leader back then. Today... who knows? I wouldn't have put it past Kim Jung Il to invade, and we really don't know what we're getting with Kim Jong Un.

Well, this is true. I have met with physicians who earn twice that in a year, and another colleague worked with a physician earning five times that per year, not including bonuses (not sure if there were bonuses). But that is not the norm.

That sounds scary... but on paper only. Seriously. A million-man army, no matter how poorly equipped, can make a hell of a mess and cost a lot of money and lives before it's contained. Pretending it's irrelevant is some major-league silliness. Seoul is what? Ten miles from the border? Less? It makes a LOT of sense to keep a close eye on the N. Koreans.

There's a Title IX angle to consider. If you add a Hockey team, what female sport are you going to add, and what will that cost? We've already got inexpensive female sports in Bowling, Rifle and Soccer (also Swim/Dive doesn't seem that costly once the facilities are paid for), so to add Hockey you're going to have to add an equal amount of female athletes, and the most-readily available sports that would be relatively inexpensive are already taken up.

Two hundred thousand dollars for a degree is too much, even for a medical degree. In that respect, I agree that the benefit is (likely) not worth the cost. Here's a +1. It's not much considering your pay-down debt, but it's something.

Honestly, I think a lot of the reason most countries prohibit drug use is the fear that it will have a negative impact on GDP. Stoned workers are less likely to want to work, or produce quality work. I just watched some show where they talked about a country in Europe that had legalized a lot of hardcore drugs, and there wasn't much of a discernible effect. Am I misremembering or did anyone else watch this, or does anyone else know which country this is? I'm thinking Denmark or Switzerland or some northern European country. Not Holland, but maybe, since they've already got the legal pot thing going on.

Yeah, but those people were all degenerates.