Hogan Made Wrestling

Fischer personifies the "insane genius". People had a pretty good idea he was nuts when he refused to defend the world championship after winning it and ran off instead.

Just in case anyone was feeling burned out with this and needed something juicy to perk their interest back up, your saviour has arrived! JESSE JACKSON is now on the case: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/schiavo/index.html I suppose he was just waiting for "camera saturation" to reach an appropriate level.

If I remember things correctly, the main event was about to start. That would be a weird time to cancel the show, given that they didn't simply stop it right away.

A couple of ones that come to mind: Harrison Ford Alec Baldwin James Caan Russell Crowe

The sign on the right of the picture looks like something from maddox.xmission.com

Ten Years Gone Achilles Last Stand Tea For One Good Times Bad Times Kashmir

Physical Graffiti is a great album, maybe the best hard rock album of all time. But it could be an even tighter package if edited down. Here's my edited version: 1. Custard Pie 2. The Rover 3. In My Time of Dying 4. Houses of the Holy 4. Trampled Underfoot 5. Kashmir 6. In The Light 7. Down by the Seaside 8. Ten Years Gone 9. Sick Again Most of the cutting is from Side 4, which is decent but certainly the weakest part of the album.

Just a note: I am in no way attempting to disprove the existence of God, or whether or not "God got the ball rolling". I'm simply explaining that the Big Bang theory (which most scientifically attuned people, religious and non-religious, seem the believe - the Pope among them apparently, if you trust Stephen Hawking) is sensible even if you don't believe in God. Anyone who claims they can use physics to disprove that "God made the universe" is full of shit, because physics cannot explain anything that happened prior to the Big Bang, since physics by definition doesn't exist until the universe actually begins to exist. So scientifically, "what caused the universe to be?" is an unanswerable question.

I play online as well as a weekly live game. Some good sites (including their message boards) are Cardplayer Magazine's website www.cardplayer.com Daniel Negeanu's website www.fullcontactpoker.com Barry Greenstein's website www.barrygreenstein.com

I know a lot of people, particularly the music press, blow their load over Revolver, but I don't really enjoy it and think it's nothing special. Eleanor Rigby is a good song, but the rest of it does nothing for me. There are several Beatles albums I like better.

Will Bill O'Reilly announce a FACTOR-LED BOYCOTT against the device that's designed to boycott the Factor?

It's a simple equation. Matter exists. In order for atheism to be correct, matter came from nothing. That's spontaneous generation, disproved 150 years ago. Therefore, either there is or was at some time, a god, or, the universe always existed. That's totally oversimplified nonsense. A nice attempt at a false dilemma though, but not hard to refute using mathematical physics. Good. This is a simplifieded forum (in the broader sense of the word). As a mathematician I would expect such a response from you. It remains essentially true, however. I've been impressed with you, though I admit it's a bit strange doing this with a fellow called Hogan Made Wrestling (but hey, St. IDrinkRatsMilk isn't much better) But let's do it. Refute. I live for a challenge. The mathematical theory of singularities (as developed by Hawking, Friedman, et al) makes it possible to work coherently with points of "infinite density", where spacetime has dimension zero. When such a point "breaks down" it can "expand" (Linde, Guth, and others are the experts in this) releasing matter and space-time dimensions. Your claim about "spontaneous generation" being disproven only refers to within the universe (and in fact, only if one accepts Einstein's basic principle that the laws of nature are the same at all points in the universe); it says nothing about the universe itself. It's similar to the question of "what came before the Big Bang?", which makes no sense since the time dimension only begins to expand after the BB takes place.

Can't you just like, choose not to watch it? I can't imagine spending money just to able to go "hey guys, look at how my TV jumps from channel 47 to 49!!!" when your buddies come over. I do give this guy credit though, he invented a useless product that people will nevertheless spend money on.

It's a simple equation. Matter exists. In order for atheism to be correct, matter came from nothing. That's spontaneous generation, disproved 150 years ago. Therefore, either there is or was at some time, a god, or, the universe always existed. That's totally oversimplified nonsense. A nice attempt at a false dilemma though, but not hard to refute using mathematical physics.

Even if it did pass, I'm sure that the ACTIVIST judges in the Florida courts would overturn it anyway. What's an activist judge, anyway? Really ... Despite finding him to be pretentious and egotistical in general, I like Jon Stewart's definition here: "An activist judge is a judge that rules against you."

Has Bill figured out a way to entwine the Shiavo case with a new FACTOR-LED BOYCOTT? I was sure that would be the next step in this thing.

Well, Coulter has weighed in with some of her usual inane, insane ramblings:

I'd bother to respond if I didn't think this was a gimmick poster.

Here's an interesting one: if someone is "allowed" to feed Terri orally (water, jello, whatever) and she can't swallow, so she chokes on it and dies, does that person get charged with manslaughter?

It never happened in any class I ever took. When I took general Poli. Sci. as an undergrad my professor was about as neutral as could possibly be, other than a bit of subtle negativity towards neo-liberalism. Among the profs in my school's poly. sci. department, we had a conservative prof. (ran for office in fact) who is one of the school's most popular and won a teaching excellence award (nominated by the students), and a liberal prof. (also ran for office) whose one class (he's emeritus) was always packed and was a great place for discussion of the issues from all sides. I frequently took devil's advocate positions that contradicted with my own views, just because no one else would, and argued conservative positions, and got 100% on all of my essays.

Your field isn't subjective in the slightest, so I wouldn't worry. Actually that's not true at all. It's very hard to explain why though.

8 out of the 9 Republican appealate court judges are on your side, if that makes you feel better. And only 2 out of the 3 Democrats.

I'm a mathematics professor. Should I have to be worried about getting sued by my students when I inform them that their answers are incorrect because they don't follow the mathematical rules I expect them to use? They could argue to a judge that they have their own system of mathematics and I should respect it, and, as crazy as it may seem, that would be LESS extreme than some of the examples already discussed, because mathematics is a synthetic subject rather than one based on fact and natural observation.

The part about students being allowed to sue because of professors using Socratic questioning is particularly hilarious. Oh poor baby, being asked a question in class? Boo hoo hoo.

Jon Stewart defines an "activist judge" as "a judge who rules against you". Seems to fit pretty well in this case.