AtTheDriveIn

Of course, I remember that you liked the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I went to buy it one day and they were unfortunately out. Another series I'd like to have a look at, though. I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the romantic prose novels. Hugo is too romantic in his writing style for me, which is a shame because the next course I'm doing is ninteenth century romanticism so it's going to be a bit of a problem to pay much attention. I also feel like Les Miserables was too obvious at times and that it pushed too hard to end a chapter a little bit too fast while the rest of the novel seemed to drag. A lot of people like Hugo for his 'take' on French law and justice during the period, but as a story, reading from a twenty-first century perspective, it didn't have the same affect on me as it might have if I were reading during the current context or even a few years later. I must admit though, if I had ever finished it, I would be proud of myself. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to actually do it. Loved it. The Tralfamadorian's take on time will always, always make me believe that time is man made and we would be so much better off without it! I have the book laying around somewhere. Must give it a re-read sometime soon. I went with a few actually. First I re-read Nabokov's Lolita, which never ceases to amaze me. Nabokov is an author I would have loved to have a conversation with. In my opinion, his writing style wont even be matched. He was just fantastic at drawing out every single detail and yet keeping you interested as well. Many have different opinons on the greatest writers: Orwell, Huxley, Tolkien, Lewis, Joyce, Woolfe.. I think it's Nabokov. As for new books I had a look at. I read Phillip K. Dick's 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,' which wasn't overly wrong, but definitely a favourite of mine immeditately. I also had a look at 'The Hobbit' and 'The Silmarillion' from Tolkien. Having previously read 'The Lord of the Rings', I was interested in the others. I have to say, for all his praise, I always end up being disappointed by Tolkien. I'm currently reading Gibson's 'Neuromancer,' (admitedly for university) and am hating every bit of it. It's so recent in it's dialogue and context that it disgusts me that authors like Gibson are even allowed to be published. Apparently, Gibson does have good insight into the similarities between humanity and technology. I just see garbage, to be honest. If you have any other good 19th/20th C books you want to throw my way, please be my guest. I have holidays coming up and am always looking for new stuff to have a read of. My novel collection is ever expanding. Currently, I've read about 40 novels in the past two years.

It'd be mine too, but it's just so boring. I feel like I've spoken to you about this before. Speaking of books, one quick question (can be a sentence answer, but a rationale would be great), favourite 20th century novel?

Because he doesn't lift weights, he's not going to be a good player? Oh my goodness. With a 6'10, 292lbs body, you don't need to lift weights. He's already shown he's strong enough not to have to. Being a gym junkie isn't an indicator of anything. I don't know how you think it is.

^ Good eye, detective. It's because I haven't given any. I said I wasn't going to argue this.. quote, "You can never really win an argument against a fanboy, anyway."

No, no, he gave real evidence like 'Beasley is so good' and 'he plays a basketball position.' You know, real proof.

No you don't. You're reasons are.. 'oh man he's so good. he dominated high school and college!' sighh.

Conference Finals not enough to be regarded as a contender. The only real 'contenders' are Boston and the Lakers and both have 80+ million dollar payrolls. It's not exactly reasonable to assume that either team will pick up Stoudemire anytime soon.

I'm not sure how you define 'myth.' Regardless of how this series finishes, I think Howard will still be an elite defensive center, I think that Gortat is as good a back-up center as you will find, and I think Orlando is still a great rebounding team. Like when everyone overreacts to a great performance by a player in one game, one series does not define what a team will do for next season or the season after. As has been shown by the Mavericks and their team being based around beating the Spurs, the Magic can't build around trying to beat the Celtics or the Cavaliers because there are still twenty eight other teams to beat. If they're considered third best in the East, then so be it, but being third best doesn't mean that all Howard is no longer a great defensive center, or that Orlando can't rebound or that Gortat isn't a great back-up, because Howard is a great defender, Orlando are solid rebounding team and Gortat certainly is a great back-up. I have more to add, but I've unfortunately forgotten what I wanted to say. Maybe next time.

From DraftExpress: I'm well aware that players cannot be judged until they can do something worthy in-game. Nevertheless, what's the fun in the draft if you don't have a player who you would like to see succeed even considering their actual capabilities? Whiteside isn't as big a prospect as Sene was, by the way. Sene never appeared to have any resemblence of an offensive game even when he was drafted. Sene did start his career very late at age 17 or 18 if I recall and was drafted by 19/20. He never really had much opportunity to work on his game. Being thrown into the NBA with such limited experience was harmful to him. Meanwhile, Whiteside from what I understand has been playing basketball for at least a while considering that he was fairly accomplished coming out of high school. Really, the only thing that Sene (and this can apply to O'Bryant too) is that their bodies are relatively similar, with Sene being rail-thin 7'0 with a 7'7" wing span. From simply watching though, their skill set and the way they play is completely different. I honestly don't think Sene ever really grasped the game that well. Whiteside looks very different in his basketball mentality.

And this is why it's pointless arguing with you. You live in a fairy world.

Considering that it's on the NBA Hall of Fame but rather the Basketball Hall of Fame, being the most successful foreign player would certainly put him into the Hall of Fame. If that's not enough, 1 MVP trophy and 22/9 averages for a team who for a whole decade scored fifty straight wins with said player as the main player would be enough to get him on at least second ballot. But, if you include both discourses, Dirk's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

A lot of guys measured out really well. Whiteside's body is crazy. 6'11.5, 5.5 percent body fat, 7'7" wingspan. I think I found my favourite player for this draft!

From his first to his second year, I saw literally almost no difference in his play which suggests a far reaching ceiling. I'll just disagree because I'm not in a mood to argue about Beasley anymore. You can never really win an argument against a fanboy, anyway.

Musn't be a hard working team, then. And with players like O'Neal, Richardson, Alston and Magloire, it seems to only back that up. Although I'm still taking Beasley in this comparison, I don't understand the fanboy-ism for Beasley. He's not that good. He's not even half of that good.

Fair enough. I wasn't aware he could jump so high is all. I thought he would have been between 31 and 34 inches. Brackins measured out quite well according to those numbers and he has a good body as well. 6'9.5", 225 is definitely solid vital numbers. If he were a year or two younger, he would have been top fifteen material (Last year, I recall him being top twenty).

Craig Brackins Vertical (inches): 40 That seems wrong.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CqDk4jAv_Y4/S_N5Rc1IERI/AAAAAAAADUA/MXFBG23s3O8/s1600/18.jpg Problem = solved if Lewis could shoot this series.

I walk around in Spurs/Lakers/Dallas/Chicago/Denver jerseys in Brisbane, Australia. Man, I'm lucky I don't get bagged out . Maybe outside of the ~15-20,000 that go to games, people don't actually care about what you're wearing? The state of Arizona, as far as I know has more than the aformentioned number of basketball fans living there. And besides the 200 or so actual fans in the stadium, basketball games are usually an entertainment based event where people looking for a good night out go. They, like the guys on the street who don't care, probably wouldn't care either on what you're wearing. People are too busy to pay attention to (and even busier to comment on) what you're wearing today, sunshine.

If only our shooters could make shots as well. Lewis' confidence has shrunk in a big way this series. He attempted a total six shots in this game. I think for him, it was all mental. Last game he couldn't catch a break, went 2-10 and 0-6 on threes and this game it's much of the same story. I saw Matt Barnes more offensively (and cringed every time he took a contested shot) than I did of Lewis today. When the Magic payed him 120+ million dollars to have him around, I understand that it's one or two games, but I still expect a consistent performance, not a disappearence. The guard play today (tonight for the Americans) was atroscious as well. 9-27 from the starting guards and 3-9 from Reddick was more the deciding factor than Howard was. Offensively, Howard was great, and I'm a big critic of his offensive game. We just couldn't make shots. Boston's defense was great, yes, but Nelson, Carter and Reddick (Reddick had about 3 missed wide open shots that I think even I could have made) all had wide open shots that they could not make. It just looked like all the Magic perimeter guys were shaken by the Celtics in the first game. The Magic haven't experienced a good defensive effort in the playoffs yet so it's been an awkward adjustment for them, in some ways. I'm hoping they turn the shocking performances around soon and tune out some good shooting games.

Artest just missed two layups in a row. That was shocking.

Whoever called Artest going for 25. Good prediction. He's nearly half way there, haha.

10 mins, 2 fouls. It's a good thing we still have Gortat though.

^ well first of all, it actually is more than 1000:1. Second of all, do you really think one person could kill 1000 people before the 1000 kill the one? really? No matter what weapons who has, a marine can't shoot and protect himself from 1000 other forms of ammunition coming his way at the same time. Marines aren't invincible. You're obviously failing to grasp that.

yeah, it's just so easy to kill 112,000 people. I could do easily. Each marine would have to kill 1,000+ other soldiers without being wounded. 1,000 to one. Good odds for the marines obviously. My God, the idiocy shown by some of you is amazing.

Shocking that the only player you've made mention of is Montiejunas. It's only bias when you say stuff because everybody knows you have a weird agenda against European players.