SCOTUS to Clarette: You got served!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to overturn a lower court's ruling that li'l bastard Maurice Clarette cannot, for now, participate in the 2004 NFL draft.
Clarette is a very talented young man who, unfortunately, lied to NCAA officials about eligibility violations in his sophomore year at Ohio State. He now wants to enter the NFL, where he's sure he'll become the next Jerry Rice.
Rotsa ruck, kid. I hope he does end up eligible to play in the bigs via a supplementary draft, and I hope he gets drafted. Because then he will spend a couple months getting chewed to pieces by the gigantic, fast, bloodthirsty men that play defense in the NFL, land on the sidelines with a dislocated knee or torn off head, and either come back humbled and mature or slide into obscurity. Either way, lesson learned for him, mad crazy entertainment for us.
on
| § 7
§ 7 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
OK, sidelined with "torn-off
OK, sidelined with "torn-off head" is funny.
I heard it takes months to
I heard it takes months to recover from that injury even under the best of circumstances. That could really be a career ender.
"It's only a flesh wound."
"It's only a flesh wound."
ROFLMAO I can't count the
ROFLMAO I can't count the number of times I've gotten chewed out for having just that attitude about Clarette. If he makes it, fine, but it would tickle me no end if he winds up just another footnote in NFL history.
Ted, I agree with you because
Ted, I agree with you because I am an OSU fan. Seeing as he screwed us with his arrogance, I wouldn't be unhappy to see him come to nothing.
As a long time OSU fan, I
As a long time OSU fan, I have two words to add (belatedly, of course):
"Art" and "Schlicter".
And Clarett is likely to become yet another unfortunate historical anomaly. Which is just fine with me. A wise friend pointed out the other day that he was good primarily due to the fact he missed so many games, nobody could figure out how to defend against him.
A left-handed compliment, at best.
I enjoyed your analysis and
I enjoyed your analysis and thoughts very much, but your ignorance of the facts concerning physics and real space flight doom this piece to insignificance.
Again, there is no stealth in space! The basic premice of your stealth argument betrays total ignorance of the subject. There is no prospect of getting stealth in the future and infact the future is certain to make stealth advances even more impossable than they are now.
Construction of space ships that are required to opperate with rocket technology as we know and envision it in the future, can be destroyed with a BB gun! Close examination of current and future ships/craft reveal that the skins are no thicker than "BEER CANS"!
Current weapons and other systems are so totaly overpowering as to make combat in space imposable! Period!!!!!
That space is such a forbidding environment that maneuver is impossable! No space craft using current or future technology that does not flaunt the laws of physics as we know them, could possably cary enough reaction mass to maneuver as many think! The "JINKING" about the base course maneuver that all think will allow space craft to "DODGE" bullets will amount to at most a few micro-radians of displacement. Not nearly enough to foil a BB machine gun little own a laser or any other beam weapon.
EMP is not and never will be that damaging a weapon. It is very easy to "HARDEN" electronic devices against it while still letting them function.
The persistance of thease idiotic ideas ( combat, maneuver and stealth.) persist because no one has forced the holders to do the math that goes with them!
Space combat with the technology we possess now or any time in the near future is impossable!
What I would like to see, really see, is your thoughts on how combat might work in a fantacy based context, like star trek or wars. By side stepping physics, we can have some fun and get a game together. Without that crevat, it is all over.