Friday, August 3, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[bpmod]

Why do you insist on trying to push your alternate universe onto us?

Brian

It is NOT an alternate universe, bpmod! It is what I thought when I initially watched those shows in 1995, long before boards like this one came into existence, and it has been implicitly backed up by sports commentators, especially the Australian rules football commentator who mentioned Collingwood's kick that should have been called a 1-point behind rather than a 6-point goal. (He said that if Collingwood were to have won the match by six points or less, that mistake would have cost Collingwood's opponent, Geelong, the match. That has essentially been my viewpoint on J! matters like this, and none of you will ever move me from that viewpoint, and if you try to do so, I will rebut those arguments vehemently. And you'd better treat other people who have views about this similar to mine the same way you treat me; otherwise, I will say that you are practicing a double standard.)

So, tell me again how many points were wagered in that (Australian rules football) game?

To the best of my knowledge (I don't follow sports), points in football, basketball, baseball, etc. are made at face value. I don't know of a game where the team can wager some or all of their points to gain (or lose) more.

Brian

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

[econgator]

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

YES IT IS!

[bpmod]

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

YES IT IS!

Good rebuttal

Brian

[mbclev]

So, tell me again how many points were wagered in that (Australian rules football) game?

To the best of my knowledge (I don't follow sports), points in football, basketball, baseball, etc. are made at face value. I don't know of a game where the team can wager some or all of their points to gain (or lose) more.

Brian

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

Six points were "wagered", if you will, in that game. The official's wrong decision gave six points to Collingwood, and as I said earlier, if Geelong were to have lost the match by six points or less (what the commentator said), that official's mistake would have cost Geelong the game. It's much like David Siegel's mistake; he wagered $800 on that DD, and forgot to phrase his correct response in the form of a question. I do not project future outcomes from the point of that mistake; I kept it in mind throughout the rest of those finals, and just totally lost it when I found out Ryan Holznagel's margin of victory. Do not consider incorrect responses when thinking about this; if you forget to phrase an incorrect DJ or DD response properly, you will be called wrong regardless. It's forgetting to phrase a correct DJ or DD response that always gets me worried.

[bpmod]

Six points were "wagered", if you will, in that game.

So, what were their wagering choices? What was the maximum and minimum they could have wagered?

Brian

[econgator]

Six points were "wagered", if you will, in that game.

So, what were their wagering choices? What was the maximum and minimum they could have wagered?

Brian

I don't know about all that (actually, I do -- I like ARF), but I can tell what wasn't wagered: that someone would take a comment completely out of context and use it as "justification" for a completely incorrect analysis of totally different situation on an American game show.

[Volante]

... I kept it in mind throughout the rest of those finals, and just totally lost it when I found out Ryan Holznagel's margin of victory. ...

Because every single thing that happened following that DJ would have transpired in EXACTLY the same way. Ryan would have wagered $500 exactly like he did on the second DD (despite being further behind) and, entering FJ with the exact same $7,100 would have wagered $3,003 (again, despite being further behind) against David's now $10,400, who would have stuck with his losing $3,300 (despite being farther ahead) wager, just like before.

You cannot begin to make a similar comparison in sports except, possibly, in the case of debating an extra point or two point conversion after a touchdown in the NFL, and even THEN you have to take into account that even a one point shift can result in an entire change of tactic. (For example, turning a 3 point gap into a 4 means the opposing team WILL push for the TD and not play for a tie, for example.)

You're flapping the butterfly's wings but refusing to accept the resultant tornado.

[dhkendall]

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

YES IT IS!

I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

[alamble]

I'm going to be really disappointed if it is never revealed that mbclev is actually an alternate personality of seaborgium, created by his deeply disturbed psyche in order to be able to have inane arguments with himself in a public forum.

While I will acknowledge that I chuckled at this notion, I'm failing to understand why a group of otherwise reasonable and intelligent individuals allows themselves to get sucked into this ridiculous argument time and again.

[seaborgium]

I told you, no criticisms about this, seaborgium! SIEGEL WOULD NOT HAVE LOST IF HE HAD NOT MADE THAT MISTAKE!!! And furthermore, those other people that you mentioned who made big DD wagers and got it right probably knew a lot more about the category (-ies) that DD was in, and where the DD was on the board.

Nope!

Six points were "wagered", if you will

I will not. Where does that leave you?

P.S. Death was the best way to write Constance McCashin's character out of Knots Landing.

[bpmod]

While I will acknowledge that I chuckled at this notion, I'm failing to understand why a group of otherwise reasonable and intelligent individuals allows themselves to get sucked into this ridiculous argument time and again.

I would have added mbclev to my ignore list ages ago, but I want to be around when his head explodes, and I hate to admit it, but I hope I can help speed that up.

Brian

[bpmod]

ETA: Shouting NO! over and over and over is not the same as rebutting.

YES IT IS!

I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

Neither. If you want an argument, you're gonna have to go elsewhere.

Brian

[Paucle]

I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

∞, apparently.

[mbclev]

P.S. Death was the best way to write Constance McCashin's character out of Knots Landing.

NO, IT WAS NOT!!! David Jacobs should have not given in to the vendetta that a certain producer had against Constance when it came time for him to cut the budget. (Constance's own son, Daniel Weisman, said on the Knots message board that "a producer/writer" had a vendetta against his mother, and I then said that that person might have been one of the people who were hired to replace the four writers that left the show for producing jobs on other shows after the 1985-86 season. Constance did not deserve to be fired.) Her character should have been sent overseas to drum up business for Lotus Point, IMO.

[boson]

I missed the show on Friday. Good thing, or you would have had me complaining that there should never be questions on the length of a coastline interspersed with the interminable argument between seaborgium and mbclev.

Instead, I come late to the party and just get to insert my standard links about why this type of question is misleading and useless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
http://users.math.yale.edu/~bbm3/web_pd ... ritain.pdf

[Vanya]

I'm going to be really disappointed if it is never revealed that mbclev is actually an alternate personality of seaborgium, created by his deeply disturbed psyche in order to be able to have inane arguments with himself in a public forum.

While I will acknowledge that I chuckled at this notion, I'm failing to understand why a group of otherwise reasonable and intelligent individuals allows themselves to get sucked into this ridiculous argument time and again.

I think it's a pretty good indication they are not all that reasonable or intelligent.

[dhkendall]

While I will acknowledge that I chuckled at this notion, I'm failing to understand why a group of otherwise reasonable and intelligent individuals allows themselves to get sucked into this ridiculous argument time and again.

I would have added mbclev to my ignore list ages ago, but I want to be around when his head explodes, and I hate to admit it, but I hope I can help speed that up.

Brian, I'm sorry, but no one has any hope of doing anything to speed that up unless they are seaborgium and they can posts wit like this:

P.S. Death was the best way to write Constance McCashin's character out of Knots Landing.

(*bra-vo*, Stefan!)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we really should not feed the trolls around here ("trolls" are defined as anyone who will stubbornly refuse to listen to the majority - and Sage, TPH, and mbclev aren't the only regulars here that fit), unless you are a trained professional like Stefan.

[seaborgium]

P.S. Death was the best way to write Constance McCashin's character out of Knots Landing.

NO, IT WAS NOT!!! David Jacobs should have not given in to the vendetta that a certain producer had against Constance when it came time for him to cut the budget. (Constance's own son, Daniel Weisman, said on the Knots message board that "a producer/writer" had a vendetta against his mother, and I then said that that person might have been one of the people who were hired to replace the four writers that left the show for producing jobs on other shows after the 1985-86 season. Constance did not deserve to be fired.) Her character should have been sent overseas to drum up business for Lotus Point, IMO.

Considering the brain tumor, I don't think she could have done that.

[alamble]

I'm going to be really disappointed if it is never revealed that mbclev is actually an alternate personality of seaborgium, created by his deeply disturbed psyche in order to be able to have inane arguments with himself in a public forum.

While I will acknowledge that I chuckled at this notion, I'm failing to understand why a group of otherwise reasonable and intelligent individuals allows themselves to get sucked into this ridiculous argument time and again.

I think it's a pretty good indication they are not all that reasonable or intelligent.

They fake it pretty well the rest of the time, then. Given the argument's devolution into debate of Knots Landing, I'm now more inclined to believe it to be a very weird piece of performance art.

[Vanya]

unless you are a trained professional like Stefan.

Professional troll feeder?