Wait...sorry...I have to stop laughing.

Ummm, just throwing this out there...but could Maui'a being confusing the two people. He meets a lot of people and gets them mixed up. Maybe Tuisasosopo later told him that the girl that he had met was Kekua? Occam's razor here folks.

I am sorry, most wealthy people I know didn't achieve their success by being the most miserly and frugal people on the planet. I am sure you can reach some level of wealth by being fantastically frugal, but I don't really see the point.

That was my first thought. This is just too stupid to be a publicity stunt. This sounds like the type of thing one might do to cover the tracks of another relationship.

I didn't say it was all or mostly luck. Just saying that trying to attribute the outcome of any specific game (or small group of games) to skill and ability alone is insane and that luck will be a dominant player in the overall outcome.

Its a small sample size of only 25 games because it is rare for college teams to play each other twice in the same season. It is far more common in the NFL, but you apparently don't want to allow even the slightest comparison between any two things which are slightly different. Clearly the idea of an analog is lost…

Point being, have the same team play each other on two different days....what are the odds of an identical outcome. According to you: very high. According to me: not much better than chance.

Statistically, that just isn't true. If that were true, we would expect to see many more sweeps in multi-game series. We almost never see sweeps, in fact a sweep is considered the sign of a far superior team.

Playoff games are just glorified exhibitions. You would need to play a best-of-23 series in any close contest just to prove that it wasn't random luck. To be really fair you would also have to play in a menagerie of weather conditions and locations too.

What the fuck are you smoking?

That is an advantage, as the article points out

What is your point dispencer? That I am as backwards as a backwoods Australian philosopher who disputes the theory of evolution? I take it you come to this conclusion because I made the remark that homosexuality isn't inherently a self-defeating mutation? …

Hey, its all good. Beer nerd to beer nerd, I was just trying to have the higher alpha acid.

Only going to count their beers I have drank(which are not belgian):

Ommegang is strictly Belgian? Maybe loosely inspired by Belgian Strong Ales is a better phrase.

There is a problem. Most gun-owners are people. People are generally considered "irrational actors". States are generally considered "rational actors". This is very important.

I am saying that I get to selectively ignore facts for the purpose of my analogy. It is a convenient escape. I wouldn't normally do this, but I felt it was fair since the author of the article essentially employs the same tactic.

Right, and the Chinese are having a much larger problem with random school violence.

Hang on, this counts as an article? Crap, I can do this.

Which begs a greater question: Should legal judgements be used to "set a precedence"? When copyright infringing downloaders are fined $100 Trillion, we all complain about the concept. Why is anyone ok with it? Because you might potentially be the target of his attack?