TxHoops

At least.

Yep. Gotta learn how to close those games. Can’t give up leads like that when you are in a position to get a crucial road win in the nation’s toughest conference. On a side note, classy move by OSU [Hidden Content]

And his head up his behind. But seriously, at this point I guess some blame should be placed on his foreign policy advisors. I don’t know if you can tell your boss not to go off script but this should have been vetted beforehand. It’s not like he has shown a strong grasp of global events. On the upside, at least he didn’t blame Frederick Douglass.... [Hidden Content]

Will Wade is doing a really good job with that program.

That alley was a thing of beauty. Perfect set up for Bush as well. Bush shot the ball really well last night but the first thing he asks after the game is if we saw that pass. Love to see that. And yes, Barnes is a certified freak!

Not going to say I predicted it You guys finally convinced me last week and it was the first time in several I didn’t have PC #2. Back up they go!

Again, not going to engage in the ridiculous. Read 90 percent of your posts talking to people you are arguing with. Again, I not only know it, many of the conservatives on this board know it as well. I won't call anyone out but it's the truth. The rest of the jibberish above is childish "no you!" that is your calling card. Sorry not going to engage. The mental competency you question in making such a bet merely shows you're an amateur at this psychology you seem so focused on. Why would someone's competency be an issue on a test that they KNOW they are likely to not miss a single question? I would question the competency of someone who would be unwilling to take free money, which is exactly what it would be. Quite simply, you were drawing dead to a push before the test even began. And as for me being scared, I put in one of the posts exactly what I was proposing to wager but not surprisingly, that flew over your head (i.e., i didn't exactly spell it out but simple math would have given you the answer). And I could have that in cash to the money holder today. But again, it's all hypothetical. Now I'm done

Valid point about "third world." Same meaning I believe when most people use it. Sounds better obviously and a little less harsh, especially considering who much of your base is.

You make a valid point and most everything you mentioned above is equally displeasing to me (the jokes about pleasuring Putin are just funny though). I find most of that highly offensive as well. I obviously don't agree with much of what he does (and I know you don't agree with some), but to behave as some have is juvenile at best. However, we have to expect more out of our President than we do Kathy F'in Griffin. We all know she's a clown, we don't expect our leader (and the leader of the free world to be one). And to be honest, I am not as offended as some by what he said. It was dumb (and I absolutely think he's lying about it now) but it's far from the dumbest thing that's come out of his mouth (or his fingers while typing). And I know how you're an anti-PC guy (and I am as well to a certain extent) so I can completely see how you (as well as others such as PhatMack) simply see it as calling a skunk, a skunk. Again it was just dumb and had the appearance of other undertones in the manner in which he said it.

Amen. And I don't know if it's just me, but a lot of time it seems to me that it gets chippy because of poor officiating to begin with. Most of the time inconsistency. A good example is the game I observed last night. As is almost invariably the case when you play Silsbee, the game will be physical. The refs last night for the most part let the kids play, but they did it consistently on both ends of the floor. They missed a few REALLY easy calls (one of which was referenced in that game thread), but that is understandable. They are human too. But the tenor of the game and the manner in which they were calling the game was very consistent. As a result, there was no issue with any of the kids and it was a good clean, game and there were no chippiness that I observed on either side. The kids had a lot to do with that, but I think refs contribute heavily as well.

No interest in taking it for funsies. Done that before. And since apparently you can add reading comprehension to your list of deficiencies, I was clear from the get go it would be for a substantial amount of money (worth my time). I thought reading comprehension was my weakness since it dropped my score from the 99th to the 98th percentile when I took the test (OMG - that's where those numbers come from!!!). So based on my original proposal and your aversion to a wager, it was never going to happen anyway. That was my supposition but glad I wasted several minutes of my life in this discussion. As to your perplexity, you are the one who constantly wants to deride my "analytical skills (as you have done on several occasions), despite the fact you continually demonstrate a severe deficiency there to anyone who understands the concept. It's okay, you also seem to be absorbed with "psychological testing" since you "took several classes in college." Kudos for that and I could happily put you in touch with my nephew who is a professor of psychology so you can further your "intellectual stimulation" there. The bottom line sport is you continually run your mouth and insult others while claiming you only do it because they do it to you. I, on the other hand, and quite friendly with many of the posters on this site who happen to hold some philosophical differences to me (I could name them but if you are able to read between any lines, which is maybe questionable), you probably already know who they are. We've never insulted one another, enjoy each other's company, and I consider them friends. But you have difficulty doing that for some reason, and feel the need to constantly deride anyone who disagrees with you. It's a decidedly sad existence and I actually pity you for it. I once thought you were an asset to this site; I have come to realize I was sadly mistaken. But continue to deflect and project, which you not only continually do in your ramblings, you have consistently done that ITT. It's boring and tiresome and it's obvious to many, even some on your side of the political debate. As for me, I'm done with this conversation. The only reason I ever started it was to see how confident you were in your analytical superiority, and was quite content to issue a financial punishing for your over-confidence. We won't ever know because you aren't interested in that and to be honest, that is an exceedingly wise choice on your part. Continue posting your verbal assaults on this board and pat yourself on the back because "you are only doing it because the libs do it." Very mindful of arguments my children gave me when they were much younger, and neither is out of high school yet. How sad. I will let you have your fun and have no intention of engaging in this mindless oneupmanship anymore. In the end, that's all it was apparently going to be anyway. Some people's mouths are bigger than their willingness to prove it, or maybe bigger than their wallets. Either way, I could sincerely care less

So no to my proposal. Got it. And likewise, I say no to the kiddie test. But thanks for playing. See that was easy! (And it would have accomplished more than amusement. It would have made mine and the money holder's pockets significantly heavier. But like I said, if you didn't back out beforehand, you would have backed out when that part of the wager came up.) So no worries - like I said, no shame in just saying you're not interested. I, and some others, aren't surprised. Have a good day, champ!

You truly are a clown. The GRE doesn't even have an analytical reasoning section. It has one section that is quantitative reasoning (which is the closest) and the other two are irrelevant to our argument. The LSAT has 3 sections on that skill alone. I proposed the bet, not you. You obviously don't want to do it, and you would have backed out anyway when we discussed amount and depositing of cash in advance. It's okay. We all know you bloviate with the best of them. So continue to condescend (and then accuse others of doing it when they bite back), bloviate, etc., all the while knowing you can't back it up. (Hint: most of us knew it anyway, sport )

So the answer is no, you won't bet me on the LSAT. I don't have to ask many, I've taken both (albeit 25 years ago on both) and the LSAT is by far the more difficult test. Thanks for the clarification. There's no shame in just saying no, though. Smart move. I thought I was going to school you in negotiations along with analytical and logical reasoning.

Both of those are incredible films, REB. And I'm right there with you on SPR. Gets me every time.

The bet is the LSAT. The pot shots you were taking (letting your large mouth overload your behind which you will discover soon enough) was about analytical skills. There is no comparison between the two because as you've preached, you shouldn't guess about what you don't know. I've taken both, and anyone who has will tell you the same. And I'm not wasting two Saturdays, I will one. So are we betting on the highest LSAT score or not? If so, I will PM you the particulars. If not, say you don't want to do it, which I have a feeling you might anyway, and we can move on. That's why, I guess, someone might want some clarification on "bring it on" which you have so aptly demonstrated in the quoted post...

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.