Yeah...he should probably be more worried that his average is Mendoza-ish and he's really not knocking that many guys.

Angel Hernandez is well on his way to deserving to be fired.

Initially I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt...watch the foot, listen for the catch umpiring cliché...but Moreland's foot wasn't even on the bag when the pitcher caught the ball!

The thing is...a call like this doesn't NEED replay. If umpires could work correctly...willing to over-rule other umpires, willing to change an incorrect call... we wouldn't need replay. Replay won't get everything right anyway. Using a call that doesn't need replay to fix it (like this one) is a bad argument for…

For reference...This is a joke about the multiples:

I know that deadspin is mostly jokes. But you can't try to hide behind that now. You're comment isn't a joke. (And even if it were, is based on a dumb, wrong premise.) You know how I know? All you did was say what you were thinking with incredulity, which I think was supposed to be the funny part.

You know nothing about the context in which this exercise was given. So you points are pretty hollow. Teaching (notice "drill" not "test"...sort of like "drill" not "game") is about building up a knowledge base. What you see here can be explained as part of that process in a couple of different ways.

Did none of the commenters attend elementary school?

It's a multiplication drill for 9 times tables.

Unrealistic expectation.

See Distinguished Male thread.

Do you notice anything similar about these problems...They all start with 9. It's a "9"s multiplication quiz.

Nah. When the ball is struck there is anywhere between 2 and 6 defenders behind the goalscorer (not counting the keeper). I mean the whole wall seems like it's keeping him onside.

I know you're trying to mock my post, but please remember all the stuff you wrote tongue in cheek in that first paragraph...I was responding to a guy who thinks that's all bullshit.

I only watched two parts...meh, not that interesting. I know you're arguing from a position from which this cliché doesn't really work literally...but the whole series is preaching to a choir. It's not very rigorous at all. Frankly, I've heard believers give more believable arguments against the existence of Jesus.

Yeah, if other atheists in these types of presumptuous situations were half as gracious as she was, we'd be a lot closer to no longer having to deal with the bs presumptions.

There is little doubt that he existed, except among the ill-informed. What's up for debate is things like...was he divine? what precisely happened? But the existence of a human being named Jesus, upon whom the Christian faith is based, has been well established.

It's not really a theological distinction, though. One has a dude hanging from it (crucifix), one does not (cross). The denominational difference is based on preference on which to use...not what to call the same exact thing.

Dear title writer,