It's the one that says Bad Mother Fucker on it....Part Deux

To: Negro
From: That's all you had to say

Missing out on the Prolific, but he is busy taking care of EMO and RAVI. Ill jump in.

Grossest thing? No idea, ¼ of chicks in America with STDs?

As for the Hall, Nash is going to make it the same reason he as Hollinger has repeatedly reminded us incredulously won the 2006 MVP award. People LOVE him, why is that? I think we can get a couple more curious guys out of that topic. People love him most likely for the same reason they love John Daly, they feel that they can relate to him for some reason. Maybe it's because he's only slightly taller than them unlike his behemoth teammates he's frail and tends to live a normal non bling life. As for his numbers, he has had great years in Phoenix but he's breaking down and if this is his last good year he probably does not deserve the HOF, but I assume he will make it anyways and be a first ballot guy. Let me put it this way, no one even considers him a HOFer before heading to phx. Were these last 4 years really worthy of a career of recognition?

To clarify the girl with dudes things I meant anywhere, bars and clubs just seem to be where they it comes up the most but I meant to a stranger. If you know someone to be goofy no amount of events are probably going to change your opinion. More so I meant you walk around and see some guy with a random hottie, whys he that much cooler than he would be without the hottie? A guy with a huge group of friends looks like us, so we don't notice as much. Oh he's the center of 4 guys wait, I was just telling a story to 8 of them. What actually tends to happen more frequently is we a beautiful woman catches our eye, and then we notice the gentleman to her right and think, "what's he got that I don't" and the actual answer is nothing but we always assume exactly what Deuce said. Cock, Money/Cool or the girl is dumb. I don't know it's sort of weird to me.

Steps Theory, it's basically correlated to nurture v nature. My main question is keeping all things equal outside of effort do we have limitations. I think we do because since time is finite, it leads me to believe effort is so as well, and if so we must have limitations. The actual steps concept has too many intangibles to re-elaborate on them. How does nature / talent actually help limit an individual's potential? I think talent/nature is the rate, the quickness in which your effort actually translates in to production. This model makes sense because given equal effort the individuals with the most talent will have the most production. Let me know if you guys would like to add anything to the new simplified model. I basically took out the multi-steps and just basically made one step for one individual without taking into consideration how his step overlaps with the other individuals in the world's steps.

Adderall, is something I would need to do more research on however, it has been describe extremely similarly to steroids to me and if that's the case it just says a lot about our priorities. Society loves to glorify public figures and hold them to higher standards than they hold themselves and this has been going on for quite some time.

As for the combo guard thing, Monta is good, my point is he's small, he's frail, he's not even as good as wade and we don't know what wade would have been without shaq. Arenas has the skill set to excel in the NBA but who doesn't. Marbury, Baron, and all those guys could have been the greatest pg ever but they were not and are not even close to being the best pg today.

Deuce and I love football, as for soccer and hockey keep it simple, Beckham and the ducks questions only. Haha, Jets or 49ers? Brandon Moore is their RT?

I hate to get all philosophical but what would you guys throw everything you have done thus far away for? A chance at what? A romance with who? Spitzer threw it away for Alexandra Dupré and while I think she's hot, beauty is common, especially in the city of angels.

As for the GSW-Suns tonight! Woot Woot! Ill have my jersey ready! I would go GSW +8. As for the actually winner I have no idea, the original Superman will save all his subsequent dives for the playoffs!


To: That's all you had to say
From: Negro

What's up Vanilla Faces and Chiggy,

I'm going to re-answer my question about Nash because I wasn't asking about Nash himself per se. I do think he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but I'm going to extrapolate the argument out a bit. In my mind, the Hall of Fame—and probably everyone else's as well—the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the "best" basketball players.However, the problem then becomes, "how do you decide on the bestplayers?" Obviously, the Michael Jordan's, Jerry West's and Magic Johnson's of the world are in. They had long and brilliant careers. But what about a guy that was just above average for a very long time. Does he deserve to get in because he's tenth on the all-time scoring list? I mean, who cares where he ranks on some list if he neverreally affected a team. Basketball, unlike baseball, isn't about stats so much as impact. And when it comes to impact, I think it is much better to burn out than to fade away. So, let's take Nash as a test case.
Steve Nash didn't really get a chance to start everyday until he was traded to Dallas. So, I'm going to omit those first few years from my analysis except to wonder whether or not anyone has ever come as faras he has, i.e. not playing at all to fighting over a spot with Anthony Johnson on the Mavericks to two MVP awards. Anyways, since 2000-2001 Nash has averaged about 17 points a game, and when he was in Dallas he averaged about 8 assists. Since he moved back to the Suns, his assists have increased dramatically up to an average of about 11,and he's been one of the top three point guards in the league over the last five years except, I would argue that he's been better than that for a bit longer. What is the true test of a point guard? Is it points? Obviously not, that's why we've hammered on Gilbert Arenas. Is it assists? Well, this answer is closer, but still wrong. Assists help to paint the broad strokes of the picture, but they miss the most important argument. To my mind, the best indicator of great point guard play, on the offensive end, is offensive efficiency. Incredibly, Steve Nash led teams have been the most efficient offensive team in each of the last seven years dating back to2001-2002. That is an incredible run.

Finally, I get that Nash's career hasn't spent as much time as otherpoint guards at this level, but I think the hall of Fame is about remembering peak performance, and seven years seems, to me, to be a large enough sample size to label him an elite point guard somewhere better than Bob Cousy and worse than Gary Payton. I mean, think about it this way, when people think of Mickey Mantle's career, do they focus on his early struggles and his late failings or do they focus on his best 10 year stretch?

On that note, I'm going to crib something from Bill Simmons. I think that there should be levels to every hall of fame. For example, we'd have media and such on the bottom level since they always votethemselves in despite the fact that no one cares about their busts. Then, on the second level, we'd have marginal Hall of Famer's. On the third, we'd have great players, and on the last level there would bethe all-time greats. That's where the Jordan's and the Bird's and the Johnson's and the Russell's would be. We could even limit the amountof all-time greats, that way we would have to be really sure that a player deserved to be remembered on the highest level. Of course,we'd also probably have to allow them to augment that level by two or three players per decade. It wouldn't be historically accurate to eventually kick Jerry West out of the inner room just because a younger generation didn't remember his prowess relative to the people he was playing against.

To Joey, Adderall is fucking wild. I took it twice in college, and then just didn't need sleep. I was not tired the next day and just went to bed at my normal time. It was so strange. It was like I just didn't need sleep for a night. If that's not a mental steroid then I don't know what is.

The step theory seems to me to be completely true. Though I think of it as more of a pyramid with way more people in the middle than on either edge. I mean, isn't the theory basically proven by bell curves? The problem people tend to have is that they believe that with hard work anyone can be anything, but what they fail to realize is that the ability to work hard is a gift in and of itself. I just don't have the desire to work hard to become a racecar driver. So, I will never become a good racecar driver; I'm at the bottom of the pyramid. But some people have a gift for driving and care to work their asses off. The lesson is, even caring enough to work hard at something is a gift. When natural talent and hard work meet, people make a lot of money.

Finally, with the Spitzer question, I think we're missing the point. In almost every case, non-famous people are only risking their personal, not their professional lives. So, I guess you're not really losing everything (Though you could still make the argument that you were). Anyways, the answer is that there is no woman alive for whom I would risk or lose everything I'd built. However, if Heidi Klum could become 28 again, that answer would change faster than you can believe.

Anyways, I think the most telling point of the whole Spitzer debaclehas more to do with hubris than any real knowledge that he was aboutto throw his life away. I mean, here's a guy who fought corruption on Wall Street when it wasn't perceived by the corrupt people as wrong. They were just going about their business like they always had, in most cases. They knew it was against the law, but it was the way they'd always done and always been allowed to do everything. Suddenly, Spitzer comes along and puts them behind bars using electronic paper trails. Now, Spitzer is in hot water because he used a service that hundreds of New Yorkers use all the time, but is against the law and he was caught via electronic paper trail. It's ironic, and luckily everyone involved gets what they deserved, except#9's wife, which brings me to my last question….

What the hell is going through a woman's head be it Eliot Spitzer'swife or Hillary Clinton or any woman when they have to stand next totheir husband as he has a press conference announcing he cheated onthem? Is it embarrassment as all of America knows that they're homelife was not lived as advertised? Is it anger, held in check byXanax? Or is it something else? And what about the wife of that Pennsylvania (New Jersey Governor, maybe) lawmaker when it turned out he was gay?

Have a great day bitches,

Austin