Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ED Davis' FG% Ranking... If He Qualified: 2nd In The NBA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joey
    replied
    heinz57 wrote: View Post
    FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!!!



    awwwwwww...
    Just trying to keep it civilized.

    Leave a comment:


  • DunkinDerozan
    replied
    heinz57 wrote: View Post
    FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!!!



    awwwwwww...

    hahah I think wwe is still around. I bet our fight didn't last long enough for your enjoyment.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinz57
    replied
    FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!!!

    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Perhaps that was out of line. I apologize.
    awwwwwww...

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    DunkinDerozan wrote: View Post
    Your clearly the one who called my comments stupid and to add even more insult to injury you claimed i only write them so people would talk to me which is the equivalent of saying I have no friends.
    Perhaps that was out of line. I apologize.

    Leave a comment:


  • DunkinDerozan
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Not at all actually. You seemed to know what you were talking about, or at least pretending to know, so I figured I'd entertain your argument and see where you were going with it.

    But since you just called your own comments 'stupid', I suppose that is where I stop entertaining your argument.
    Your clearly the one who called my comments stupid and to add even more insult to injury you claimed i only write them so people would talk to me which is the equivalent of saying I have no friends.

    Leave a comment:


  • DunkinDerozan
    replied
    heinz57 wrote: View Post
    AGGREGATE is an adjective. you can't add the -ED string to an adjective. the -ED string can be added to a verb to convert it into a past tense adjective.

    but adding -ED to an adjective it the equivalent of a double negative. it's like saying "That chick is beautifuled"

    (sorry... i was also good at english)
    lol sorry didnt catch that spelling mistake. Just woke up!

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    DunkinDerozan wrote: View Post
    Oh wait unless you just wanna become one of those overrated poster who likes to keep padding his post totals by responding to stupid comments.
    Not at all actually. You seemed to know what you were talking about, or at least pretending to know, so I figured I'd entertain your argument and see where you were going with it.

    But since you just called your own comments 'stupid', I suppose that is where I stop entertaining your argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinz57
    replied
    DunkinDerozan wrote: View Post
    In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories
    AGGREGATE is an adjective. you can't add the -ED string to an adjective. the -ED string can be added to a verb to convert it into a past tense adjective.

    but adding -ED to an adjective it the equivalent of a double negative. it's like saying "That chick is beautifuled"

    (sorry... i was also good at english)

    Leave a comment:


  • DunkinDerozan
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    What?! 0/0 = 0%
    Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
    Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.
    you must clearly be finding my comments intreguing since you seem to have a response for each one of them.. Oh wait unless you just wanna become one of those overrated poster who likes to keep padding his post totals by responding to stupid comments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    DunkinDerozan wrote: View Post
    In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories
    What are two different Theories?

    'Increasing Relative Cost' and 'Diminishing Returns'?
    If you go here, you will see they are very much one and the same.
    I see what you are saying, but it just doesn't work when it comes to basketball.
    Last edited by Joey; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DunkinDerozan
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Which is actually known as 'The Law of Increasing Relative Cost'.
    Though relevant in manufacturing, has NOTHING to do with Basketball.
    In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories
    Last edited by DunkinDerozan; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinz57
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    ... My brain hurts.

    But, Yes!
    i was totally the kid in high school who was surprisingly really good at math even though he had no business being good at it at all.

    i failed grade 9 science twice though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    heinz57 wrote: View Post
    the argument for 0% - ZERO by definition, has no value.. so regardless of what the sum is, the percentage of NO VALUE from ANY sum would be 0%

    the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:

    if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2

    see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%

    and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.
    ... My brain hurts.

    But, Yes!
    Last edited by Joey; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinz57
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    What?! 0/0 = 0%
    Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
    Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.
    the argument for 0% - ZERO by definition, has no value.. so regardless of what the sum is, the percentage of NO VALUE from ANY sum would be 0%

    the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:

    if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2

    see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%

    and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    DunkinDerozan wrote: View Post
    lol your clearly not understanding my sarcasm ... im just trying to point out the obvious the less shots you take the more likely you are to shoot a higher percentage..
    Probability doesn't work this way. You would be just as likely to have a bad percentage.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X