bigrod

I remember when many, including myself, thought that we got the better coach of the 3 that came in to the Big Ten four years ago. Definitely hasn’t aged well...

My CEO always says he want's 20% growth, year after year, but never has a plan on how to do it. I always think, "yeah, who doesn't?" Wonder if this is the same. To say, I want us to score in transition, I want to shoot 75% from the free throw line, I want to shoot 40% from 3 - everyone wants that. The guy in charge has to come up with a good, executable plan on how to achieve those things. If he has, I haven't seen the players get it yet.

Archilles heel

I remember at the time that it was one of his assistants that threatened to have him deported if he didn't go to Baylor. It was one of those "common knowledge" things, but I'm sure it couldn't be proven. Instead, he had to sit out 8 games for bumper stickers. I guess he never recovered from that...

I figured this as well. In fact I told several people that we need to get used to mediocrity until his contract is up. The only thing that makes me wonder is that next year he would only have a year left on his contract. That makes recruiting even harder than it seems it has been for him lately. Who wants to play for a coach on the hot seat with a year left on his contract?

For sure - this needs to be the norm, not the exception. This means very little if they go out and lay an egg against Rutger, but it is definitely something to build on. Let's hope that is the case.

Maybe some others can expand on this, but the rumors I have seen have to do with mandating how he is allowed discipline the team and how he can talk to the team, etc. I personally have no idea if any of this is true. I think there was also stuff about not allowing him to remove anyone, but that could have been more because of the mess Crean left.

I think we have a long way to go before we say we are no better than last year. Having said that, I too am tired of seeing some things that are consistent issues every year. This is kind of where we are though. I do think the administration is not doing the coach any favors, but it does seem to be a tough argument when the football team has the same administration, and they have managed to build on success year after year. Maybe I'm being over simplistic. There is no way I would say the writing is on the wall though. I don't see a change made after this year unless it just totally falls apart. As much as I want to see the basketball team return to the elite status, I don't think I want a change made at this point. What coach would want to come here knowing they have 3-4 years or they are out? I'm afraid we have to see a few more years of mediocrity before a change is made. Or better yet, maybe we start seeing him build on success and its a moot point.

We have the All Airport team. Can't remember if that was Vitale or McGuire that used to say that.

I agree. Tons of talent and physical ability, but I couldn't ever figure out if he over-thought everything or didn't think enough. Much of the time he (mentally) seemed to be somewhere else.

I think the rule is a year out of HS.

I didn't really understand the move to get rid of the OL coach who had them playing really well 2 years ago.

Awesome! How much do you sell them for? I've had several people ask me to make one for them.

There are many direct quotes. I guess the "fact checkers" can say whatever they want when someone isn't around to defend themselves. Look, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm simply pointing out that some tend to act like this is totally scientific and airtight. It's far from either. Many, many scientists and doctors disagree with what is happening from diagnosis to treatment. At the end of the day, even if you believe the numbers they are putting out there, this has at least a 99.6% survival rate, with many people experiencing very mild or no symptoms at all. If you look at people under 70 years of age, your chances of survival go up drastically even from that number.

Since Mullis passed away a few years ago, I guess we can't get his direct words, but have to rely on quotes or people who knew him. I think this is reinforcing what some here are saying about testing, but also the problems with the PCR test: David Crowe, a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics explained the problems with the PCR based coronavirus testing: “The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.” He continued: “PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.” Regarding Kary Mullis’ intention for the PCR, this is what he said: “I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique. Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

You're right. I guess I should have said SUCCESSFUL vaccine. Look into that vaccine a little and you will find at the end of that last "scare," they quit collecting data because the only people who were getting it were people who were vaccinated.

So you are saying this is a conspiracy?

Thanks! Yeah, so far I've only been able to get a few bad photos with my phone.

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares. Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown. Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized. Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out. Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.

I made this squirrel feeder a couple weeks ago, really just messing around. I had some leftover 1" boards that I was basically just using for kindling for bonfires. I had seen versions of these, so just made this one just eyeballing it as I went. My wife says it's the cutest thing we own, so there's that.

This test has been around for decades. I know it's not intended to be used for diagnosing anything, but how long does it take? This doesn't make you wonder at all why they have chosen this test as the standard?

So they overturned 14 randomized, controlled studies with one that "suggests" the opposite? Call it what you want. Now you are suggesting that it is ok for the experts to lie, but we should believe them because they are experts.

I couldn't care less about FDA approval. I do, however, care that they have not bothered to validate the test. Seriously, how can any educated person put any faith in a test that hasn't been validated? You seriously don't think the possibility exists that asymptomatic positives could truly be false positives? What good is it to use a test that gives you results that you can't quantify?

And yet, we still haven't been told the rate of false positives on this test.