Just pay 'em what they want, who gives a shit? They aren't there for an education anyway!!

the minus is due to the fact that the paper was supposed to be about the Outkast song.

At some point someone needed to realize that this story was no longer about a quirky putter with a bizarre back story, and that instead it was about a tragedy. It was remarkably tone deaf even without the controversy regarding her being outed.

I met Greg Maddux when I was a kid at White Water just North of Atlanta. This was in like 97 or so. I went up to him and asked for a picture with him to which he responds "Sure kid, just don't fart in the water."

What a great performance by LeBatard, but his Deadspin HOF candidacy is tainted by the era in which he works at ESPN.

I think even "damn good" is overstating it by quite a bit. His career was up and down, really. Morris had a career ERA+ of 105. Just slightly above league average. He has longevity stats, which shouldn't be dismissed and have quite a bit of value, but he wasn't a "damn good" pitcher. I would say he was pretty good…

I plotted WR DYAR against QB DYAR, and they seem really highly correlated (R-squared = 0.66), suggesting that the value of WRs might be over-stated (or under-stated) if they have better (or worse) than average QBs. The opposite could be true, or maybe there is no causation at all, but based on highly this stat values…

How is my debunking your incorrect notion that re-election affected the DA's decision an example of my hating women? Please explain.

That the comment that I responded to is factually incorrect.

The DA wants to get elected again.

Whoa...chill back homie. I said "who knows" because I don't know what really happened. Neither do you. Don't project that "Oh it's a little fuzzy, let's assume she wanted it" bullshit on me, because that's not at all what I said.

I actually just read about that....

Folks should be aware that in "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins talks at length about the extended phenotype. And in his later book "The Extended Phenotype" even more so. The gene is still regarded as the focus of natural selection, and nothing Dobbs points to disagrees with that. Though his article is trying to create a new…

I really don't want to play the Devil's Advocate, and I know Dawkins can be immensely annoying, but isn't Dobbs just repeating stuff Dawkins already mentioned in his book? Granted, Dawkins' response was a bit terse and rude, but surely, if someone criticized a book I'd written by saying that I hadn't taken nuances…