Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Recordless? Errrr..don't think so!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jamartinjr wrote:
The 1972 Dolphins are classless.
I can't wait to see them recordless too.
Well, you will wait til hell freezes over. They can't be "recordless". They have the record for that year and it cannot now be "taken away" from them. It's already in the record books, the most NE can do is match it.
Mercury Morris, on the NFL Network two weeks ago, actually made a good case for the Phins reminaing elite even if NE goes 19-0. The reason? So many different records broken by them that stellar year, including rushing yards (by Csonka, Kiick and Morris) that the Pats won't come close to in their wildest dreams.
Then again, as he pointed out, the schedules are much softer now with byes. In addition, in that era, the top team didn't get a "bye week off" like now. And didn't get home field advantage no matter how good their record.
If you recall, the Phins had to play the AFC championship at Pittsburgh.
So, even if NE goes 19-0 the most they will do is join the Dolphins in the record books, they absolutely cannot "take" the pre-existing record from them.
Btw, so you know, I am a Pack fan.
-
Pussies? Ah ...no!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Dolphins only played 14 games.....pussies!
Well, let's see who the real pussies are. First, there were no bye weeks back then. So teams had to play those games straight with NO breaks. Second, there was no "bye week" or home field advantage to the team with even the best record.
Divisions alternated home field year to year. If you will kindly check the records you will see that the Phins had to play the AFC Championship Game in a very hostile environment in Pittsburgh. And they still won.
Another thing:
They lost their then star QB Bob Griese for more than 7 weeks. I wonder how NE would fare if they lost pretty boy Brady. Methinks they'd come a crapper.....er uh cropper.
Nex thing: NFL rules in those days were much more favorable to the defenses. There weren't all these pansy rules that they have now like protecting the QB's with a veritable "aura". You could knock a QB on his ass almost any down and not get called. Hell, Cardinals' LB Conrad Dobbler used to bite the ears off QBs. Guys like Deacon Jones brought thumping, and bumping the receivers - not to mention assaulting them beyond the 5 yard limit to an art form.
So don't hand me any shit about the Phins being "pussies". They earned every win- unlike the pansies...err. patsies...who had a last minute fortuitous holding call at Baltimore two weeks ago present them with a pre-approved, referee gift-wrapped present.
Oh, btw, I am a Packers' fan.
-
@ sisyphus returns
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sisyphus returns wrote:
Well, Stephen Hawking thinks that climate change is a problem. By your logic, Hawking's opinions shouldn't matter. Or should we only disregard the opinions of people who disagree with you?
No, we should set out opinions on a scale spectrum of gravitas, with those who have actually made contributions given more. Has Hawking actually made an atmospheric science contribution? I don't think so. So we weight his opinions lower, and we also realize that when scientists in any area attain a certain prominence they will opinionate on just about anything.
And didn't you say that you were a research student of Akasofu? Then I assume that your field isn't climate change either. I think you can see where I'm going here.
Yeah, I see where you are going and it ends up nowhere. You see, I actually wrote a paper on atmospheric physics, long before I wrote any in solar physics. The first paper I ever had published was in atmospheric physics. That was in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, in its June 1980 issue, entitled, "Transient Optical Phenomena of the atmosphere'.
Hence, I have far more validity and basis in rendering comments and opinions than say, Hawking. At least on this subject. In addition, my office was right alongside climate sicentists and I had regularly exchanges with them at the GI. Further, I have kept up continuosly with the discipline - reading on average one paper a week. I doubt Hawking has the time to do that, since he's still trying to work out his black hole entropy (and loss of information) theory.
For those interested, this is the link to the Scientific American article that noted how Soon & Baliunas fooled around with their statistics:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF