Are you seriously giving an extreme singular example yet again? Are you stupid, or are you just trolling me? Your argument was the average 14-year-old soccer player. Are you forgetting this?

FACT: When the NYC Marathon began, there were only 127 participants.

Wow, you just pulled a Paul Ryan there.

Facts disagree with you. Only 40 percent of all marathon runners each year are first-time marathoner runners. So unless you think those 40 percent are all not training for their marathons — as well as the other 60 percent — you're wrong.

The fact that you seem to think these are people who aren't competitive runners is somewhat startling. Most marathon runners aren't doing it on a whim — they've either been running for years or have, at the very least, been training for a great deal of time specifically for a marathon.

As someone who ran track and cross country in college, coaches track and cross country athletes — I disagree with all of it. So you've seen some soccer-playing kids break 2:00 in the half? That's not a shocker; soccer athletes are typically in great aerobic shape, and some of them also happen to be fast as well. But…

And the last paragraph is just dead wrong. Your average 14 year old soccer player could run a 4 hour marathon on almost no training. If anything, it demonstrates that he has relatively little innate talent for running.

I actually don't care if the science is fuzzy at all. I just want an entertaining show that's well acted and at least somewhat original. To me it didn't seem like the show fit any of those criteria.

I had no doubts I was going to love this movie regardless, but it's still nice hearing confirmation of that.

Can't say I agree. All the sci-fi and genre shows that I've liked have had outstanding pilots. I thought the pilot was mediocre and cliched. Not horrible, but simply not very good. Weak premise, too.

With the Revolution letdown and Fringe ending, network television will be sorely in need of a good sci-fi show.

Exactly — we're on the same page here.

It didn't mention the problem, it mentioned they should have to undergo counseling. That's not acknowledging the problem. See my other response here: http://deadspin.com/5940735/?post=52453491

No, it doesn't mention it repeatedly. It mentions it once following the introduction, and only then does say they should take classes. It does not mention the incidents/allegations in question, what caused them, anything like that. Not having sexual assault prevention classes aren't what caused the incidents. Having…

I'm aware of that statement, see my post from a few minutes ago; it's mentioned in the introduction and then promptly ignored. The report was a necessity because of the rampant allegations of sexual assault by the team. It's a failure, however, from the stance in that it merely mentions problematic personal choices…

You're aware that you're arguing something I never argued against, right? My point was the report fails to address the issue properly, not that it wasn't made as a result of the BU hockey team's clear sexual assault/rape problem.

The implication isn't even made, however. And what legal liability issues? The report can mention that charges have been filed, but it doesn't even do that. And it doesn't even make the implication. It's a poor report if you're looking for some kind of solution to the team's rape and sexual assault allegations against…

Again: it mentions unprotected sex but not rape. Rape is the issue the hockey program has been in the news for, and I think we can all agree it's the more important issue. Why was it not specifically mentioned?

I'm well aware of what you're referring to, but I'm referring to the report this article is about. The report itself is disappointing in that it avoids that issue entirely, and instead merely mentions unprotected sex.

I'd agree with you if that's what the report said or was alluding to, but I'm not seeing that at all. Can you clarify where you're reading this?