Real Deal

They really had no idea why I had it. I wasn't born with diabetes, and nobody in my family has had it before me, so there's really no answer. That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to find a cure. The electrosensitivity idea just doesn't work, though...because you can take someone like me, a Type 1 insulin-dependent (absolutely no pancreas function) who has to rule out the hereditary idea, the overweight issue, and because my blood sugars are not connected to "dirty electricity," that as well...so does this lady have a fourth type of diabetes? Back to basics. One is insulin-dependent (like me...I take around 3-4 injections a day, 4-5 fingerpricks a day as well), the other has a somewhat working pancreas. That would be your two types. Any other "type" should have nothing to do with the causes of diabetes, because if these two types (three, in her mind) did...well, I'm the brittle diabetic that was left out in the dark. For all she knows, my pancreas may have failed me when I was 10 from a high amount of sucrose. Could have been tied in with another problem I had no knowledge of. I know she's among those trying to find an answer, but to me, it's a waste of time when she's doing these case studies so irresponsibly. A diabetes specialist would crush her theory pretty damn quick, especially if it takes a regular guy like me minutes to dissect her "findings" and every corner she cuts to sound legitimate.

I have never seen Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings either.

Nah...the sugar pill is probably a glucose tablet, in this case. I don't think anyone would eat 12 placebo pills in 4 days, or 125 in 16 days (eight a day). That sounds more consistent with trying to control low blood sugars. With that said, if the kid is eating eight tablets a day, he's getting rocked with low blood sugars, and once again, that falls in line with being much more active, yet taking the same amount of insulin the hospital put you on WHILE you were stuck in a room and on a bed for a week (and according to her, again, he actually increased his insulin, which sounds stupid).

Mitch first presented the offer months ago, wasn't with the same teams involved, though. Well before any of this was serious (and Orlando was attempting to get Howard to stay), Mitch gave the Magic a call and proposed the Bynum/Blake/picks deal.

No. Case #1: He was out camping and active. Sitting on your ass, in front of a computer all day, means no activity + stress...and that contributes to the high blood sugars. Simply setting up a tent will lower blood sugars. Case #2: Walking/running without any equipment is going to run your blood sugars down much faster. "Assisted walking/running" (treadmill) will not, and I would love to know what that person's blood sugar was before getting on the treadmill to begin with, and how much of an energy drink was consumed during both tests, as well as what that person ate hours before AND how much insulin was taken, as well as WHERE the insulin was injected. If the treadmill was turned up, and it was an intense workout...then adrenaline was created, probably too much, and that will bring your blood sugars up. Playing basketball at a VERY high level raises my sugars, then they plummet an hour or so later. Adrenaline is sugar in the blood. I'm going to stop right there...because the paragraph above pretty much explains why all of this is hilarious to me. If there was any outside interference due to "dirty electricity" relating to blood sugars, it would be consistent with all T1 diabetics. You have to understand just how insulin works, and how the pancreas operates, to figure that one out. I work all morning on my computer...and my blood sugars do not move unless I'm really stressed (and then, they elevate). At night, I'm playing basketball, and they will lower significantly. Now, with that as a constant (at least for me, given my routine...not everyone does that), I can take an insulin shot in the same exact spot (say, my leg), and that insulin shot does not work as effectively because of lack of absorption. ALREADY, I have no idea what's going to happen with my blood sugars. Then, consider the difference between eating carbs, and eating protein, for breakfast. Significant. For some people, a piece of candy (let's say two Starbursts) will elevate sugars quite a bit. For me, very little change, doesn't matter if I'm by a computer or running at the park. I love the Case #4 study, too...funny. So, she admits that the blood sugars actually decreased significantly while in the hospital, around dirty electricity. That's because those sugars were controlled by an increased amount of insulin. So what happens to this 12-year old when he gets home? His blood sugars fall even more...and do you want to know why? It's the same reason mine did: I started moving around. She even stated he was taking MORE insulin, which is funny. Eventually, I wasn't in a hospital bed for five days, being "regulated" by diabetes specialists. My bedroom was upstairs, and I was FAR more active in my second and third weeks of being home (because I was less nervous about my insulin)...which led to even more low blood sugars. When a hospital gives you a specific amount of insulin to take, they do it while you're on your back, at your least active point. Once you get home, you have to decrease every dose, or eat much more. It's that simple. He had more sugar pills (whatever those may be)? Sure he did, because his blood sugar was dropping to very low ranges at any given point of the day. Normally, diabetics don't eat sugar pills...they control their sugars by diet, insulin, and exercise. If your blood sugar is consistently good, you use protein to keep it at a normal range, and carbs (food carbs, from meals and snacks) to keep them from falling. This lady didn't even pronounce diabetes correctly near the end of her video. She didn't consider ALL factors that control blood sugars. She talks about brittle diabetes (which few people have, by the way)...but that's exactly what I have, brittle Type 1 diabetes, and as a person who has been "case-studying" for 19 years now (since I got this when I was 10), I'm pretty sure she's full of shit.

I'll start putting these up soon (team banners). I decided to wait, for obvious reasons...kind of glad I did.

http://mobile.philly.com/sports/sixers/?wss=/philly/sports/sixers&id=166009876

That's what I meant by the small window of opportunity. There were two teams (forgot which two) that were going to make an attempt to get Lopez to sign an offer sheet...so even if it was or wasn't a max deal, it wouldn't have mattered if Lopez would have signed. We see the way teams do overpay for big men now, so more than likely, yes...it would have been max from one of those two teams. As far as Humphries goes, nah...don't think he's worth a four-year deal for the amount of money he was wanting. Brooklyn got away with giving him what...two years? I'm not even sure if that was on the table for Cleveland. Talk was that it was three or four, and the Cavaliers only wanted him for one season. Those small things, though, are deal-breakers. If Cleveland and Kris had come to an agreement on a two-year deal (meet in the middle, basically), Howard may have been dealt hours before that "deadline" that was set last month.

Well, keep in mind that Hennigan wasn't the only guy that turned down the Nets in a trade for Dwight. At the end of the day, if Orlando found a way to get Drew back in the deal...well, that would have been better than taking Lopez and picks, because truthfully, nobody knew who those picks would be, and Bynum is three times the player Lopez is. Same with Houston. I would take Bynum over their three draft picks (Lamb, White, and Jones if already selected...or just the three picks given pre-draft). I'm just wondering if Orlando found themselves caught up after not being able to make that trade with Brooklyn (it seemed like, suddenly, they only had hours to make it before a team or two would hand Lopez an offer sheet and ruin everything) and not working out a deal with Houston for the picks post-draft (maybe having trouble landing Motiejunas, who knows really). If that was the case, the Magic had just one option left: trade Dwight to a team he will consider re-signing to, and do it before the season starts. That removes Brooklyn from the list (simply because they can't come up with the contracts to make that deal anymore) and Houston never did get Dwight's word that he would consider coming back. I know everyone is trying to speculate how this went down, but as it stands, what does anyone really know to begin with? Orlando just made a trade that nobody could predict would happen...not even me. They dealt Dwight without returning a franchise player (Drew), and the picks were all protected. Mitch Kupchak was patient, like he has been for years, and it paid off. He took a step back and realized that Brooklyn had a very small window of opportunity, and teams like Houston and other trading partners (ex. Cleveland) would swoop in and make a 3/4 team trade tough. With two vital contracts in the air (Lopez and Hump), and both needing to be included in the deal...that, alone is unheard of. I can't remember a time where two non-all star players were dealt in sign-and-trades and handed undeserving contracts, to two different teams, for someone else.

Not a problem. Once you're established, and I find some time to set up an affiliates page (or a link system on the board), we'll talk. Best of luck with your site.

That's fine. I was just curious, of course. OTR/DH has been up for 7 1/2 years now, so we've had our share of affiliates...and quite a few have broken ties with previous sites not only for their own good, but to damage another. I didn't see any indication of that going on, though, but I had to ask. Honestly, if you want a tip, I would cool off on the affiliates right now. Rake in your members, establish yourself on a social network(s), and take another month to do that. Then, start searching for smaller message boards that are on life support, maybe even asking for a merger (we've never merged with anyone, but it seems to be effective), or tackling HN before anyone else as far as affiliates go. Your first big one should be HN, anyway, since your community is most familiar with them. I won't name the two sites I'm thinking about, but they rushed into affiliations before, and now, neither of them are around. Instead of gaining members, linking back to the more established site brought less in and sent FAR more out.

We have dropped all affiliations over time, for many reasons I really won't bother getting into (has to do with our hack a few years ago, and about 200 total spam PM's over the last year). However, I have planned on adding new affiliates for a while. As of now, though, I don't have a page set up for affiliates, nor do I have requirements (ex. how long a board has been up and running). The requirements are specifically placed to assure us that we aren't touching base with a site that has broken away from another affiliate of ours, one that encourages spamming, has a history of ripping ideas/images/names, etc. It brings me to my sole question, though: what relationship do you guys have with HN? I noticed a handful of members came from there. I removed it from both the FB and Twitter accounts within two minutes, lol.

They could have sent Lopez elsewhere, but they also had to find a team to send Humphries to. That meant that the Nets would have had to send two oversized contracts out to two other teams aside from Orlando, and that would have been tough to do. I truly believe the Nets had it all in the bag at one point, but Humphries wanted that long-term deal from Cleveland or Charlotte (can't remember which team now), and that tanked the entire trade. Brooklyn was caught up in the moment, and found themselves in a desperate situation to do whatever they could to keep D-Will. Gerald Wallace may have been a good signing in your books, same with the Joe Johnson trade, but once the Nets lost even the slightest cap space, enough to demand a full salary-matching trade, that was it...because they had two assets (Lopez and Hump) that were also looking for those new deals, and it hinged on teams actually agreeing to those deals. Few teams would want Lopez on a max year, max money deal...and Humphries for four years (what he was reportedly asking for when he was on the verge of being moved) was out of this world for Cleveland and Charlotte. From the last deadline on, I always had a feeling that Howard to Brooklyn was going to be a sticky situation...never really had faith in it. I'd say maybe for one day, right before Lopez was given his deal, I was sold...but that's it.

Just going to point out how effective Pau Gasol can be when he's on the low block, covered by one player. What he was doing out there, against Chandler (and Love, and whoever else was defending him), was pretty damn impressive. He's going to see a LOT of that this season. I'm so happy Bynum won't be camping in our paint anymore. Hahahaha, this is hilarious.

It's really time to just give the ball to Kobe, LeBron and Durant, and everyone else can just spot up. No joke.

FLOPPERS.

Five total, actually, if you count the one he had this summer + the one pre-NBA. He had three of them over a course of three years, from 2008-10.

TIME: 10:00 PM ET TV: NBC

I don't know. If Boston goes in healthy (and yes, I realize Bosh missed the first five vs. BOS), with Bradley in there and Pierce not limping around, and Ray Allen not playing absolutely horrible (since it will be Jason Terry now)...Boston can beat Miami. I'm very curious to see just how much they expect to get out of both Fab Melo and Jared Sullinger, but not only that, they now have Courtney Lee, who will provide more defense at the two.

Well, I actually figured that Houston would be the third team, and the Magic were going to get a lot of assets from the Rockets (Bynum going to Houston), but that didn't exactly happen. I'm shocked that Orlando didn't go that route OR just take Drew. I just had a gut feeling D12 would end up here, though, from the start. Again, though...we still gave up Bynum. He's fully capable of putting up 20/11 for the rest of his prime, maybe even better scoring numbers...so it's not like we gave up Walton and McRoberts. If you consider the fact that Howard wanted out, we gave up more than Miami did for LeBron and Bosh combined. I understand the circumstances are a little different, but still. That's not saying Orlando wasn't robbed, though...but if Drew went to the Magic (instead of Philly), the trade wouldn't have been as bad as people think. He's not a proven superstar, but his ceiling is a productive franchise player.

Damn, hope Westbrook is okay.

Kobe with double-digit scoring in the first, Durant double-digits in the third, Melo double-digits in the fourth. WTF Argentina, lol.

NBC Sports Network, also...but I guess few have it.

Kobe is done [expletive]ing around.

Well, we're running the Princeton, so Kobe and Nash are going to have to accept other players on the floor making passes and other decisions with the ball. Howard can do that, Gasol does it VERY well (passing, of course), so as long as someone like Ron Artest doesn't take 15 shots a night, and Kobe doesn't turn into "2006 Pissed-Off Aggressive Kobe" this upcoming season, they'll look at it as a very similar offense to the triangle, and we should be fine.