MaxFly

I fullheartedly agee with everything AJ said. Great advice AJ. I couldn't have said it any better.

Lol, Cozmo beat me to it. I was gonna look for the VHS tape. I actually remember seeing it in the movie theater... I swear people in the audience cheered with the characters on screen shortly after the speech. ID4 was a great movie for it's time... You know what movie really drops some knowledge... Sound of Music...

I'm saying... Why is Trey (the first child) being mistreated? He hasn't been in any movies. He's not pulling down paper like Jaden. This is horrible. I'm outraged!!! Trey did have a brief cameo in MIB2 with Jaden. They were the two kids standing on the street when the car flies overhead. Plus Trey is 'making paper' as you put it as he has done some pressenting for the kids choice awards on the red carpet and actually interviewed his dad. He also has done some modelling for Tommy Hilfiger when he was younger. Plus apparently Jaden didn't like being in the limelight when he was younger. Plus Willow apparently bugged him to have her in a song and make a song about her because Trey had one about him. Lol, I was being sarcastic.

I heard that they are downplaying it, but I never heard it in the first place. That's why I was like...?????

There are various numbers, all of which have more than 50 zeros after it. You make a good point in that the equations must regard things as happening sequentially. However, when you add the probability of the destruction of nucleic acids, amino acids, and proteins, you get even higher numbers than some have put forth. Also, the manufacturing of proteins is sequential, and most amino acids readily bond. The problem is will the 20 that are only found in living things manage to bond and at the same time, leave out the other 100 amino acids that would destroy the entire process...

Yeah, I agree... In fact, thats what I said. In 1980, NASA scientists showed that the primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen that would amount to anything. They showed that the earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. It is impossible to get the same experimental results as Stanley got with that mixture. There have been recent experiments to confirm this. No, this is false. Methane Hydrate couldn't have been formed on a primitive earth in any area where the chemical reactions necessary to create life would take place. Methane Hydrate is methane locked in ice. For ice to exist, an area must be cold, but we know that for the necessary chemical reactions to take place in the creation of life, there must be ambient heat to act as a catalyst. Also, for ice to exist, we would have to shift the location in which initial evolution took place a lot further north or south. That would invalidate so many other theories of evolution, it would set the movement behind a number of years; the theory would break down. It is impossible for life to sucessfully originate in an area where ice exists, and in an area where methane is trapped in ice. It's too cold. It is important to note that even with the most ideal of conditions, Stanley Miller was only able to yeild a result of 2% amino acid (and no chains) in his experiment out of all the other molecules that were formed in the reaction... that's with an abundance of the necessary gasses and surrounding conditions. Other experiments since have had similar yields (with no amino acid chains). The University Colorado's experiment was predicated on the theory that there was a great deal of hydrogen in primitive earth's atmosphere. The problem with their experiment is that hydrogen is a very light gas, and earth's gravity would not be able to hold it. Hydrogen would escape into space. Because hydrogen is a light gas, it would not be abundant in the troposphere of earth and on the surface, where origin would have to take place. It's ironic that they would point out that NASA's experiments were flawed only to have their flaws pointed out and NASA's results bouyed. Also, hydrogen cyanide was one of the organic molecules that Miller produced, but it is not belived that there were any significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide or ammonia on a primitive earth. Hydrothermal vents under water... This is what scientists have turned to as of late. The problem here is that too much heat destroys organic compounds, and too much cold will stymie chemical reactions, so there is only a narrow area between the warm and cold water where it would be suitable for chemical reactions to take place... The second problem is that chemical reactions tend not to like water... Water is the universal solvent and tends to disolve, or rather, disassociate molecules from eachother because of it's polar properies. Water is a huge, huge hinderance.. The question is, if the Miller experiment was completely invalidated, why is it still taught in schools as one of the many ways that life could have commenced. It shouldn't me mentioned, it was shown to be wrong... Actually, it is as wild and significant as I and others make it sound, and there are scientists that try to downplay it as an anomaly because it contradicts the theory of evolution... Notwithstanding your argument, it is undeniable that there was an unnatuaral explosion of life during the precambrian period, and no impetus for this explosion to occur. Also, macro and micro evolution are terms used by scientists in general, not just people who believe in intelligent design. The breeding of dogs for example would be classifies as micro evolution by almost any scientist. A very large number of successive micro evolutions would lead to a macro evolution. However, you would need to question the need for divergent evolution for living things that undergo or endure similar conditions. Actually, his theory hasn't been refuted and whichever website you got that from needs to update that. Here is a viable example of "irreducible complexity." The avian lung is different from other lungs, such as the reptilian lung (which evolutionists believe it evolved from). Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that the transition from a reptilian lung to a bird lung (avian lung) is unlikely since intermediate stages would be a detriment to the organism. Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (Michael Denton) I read the other critiques of the scientists. The probelms you cite with almost everyone of them is that they either have religious motives or they have irrelevant fields of study... I urge you to actually go back and dig deeper. It is apparent that you carried out a cursory internet search of each. Try finding excerpts of their publications before you are quick to discredit them. For example, you discounted the mathematician without knowing how he has applied math to his support of intelligent design. Others who's fields were obviously relevant, you pegged them as having religious motivation without taking a look at how their research led to their support of Intelligent Design. You entirely missed what I said. I'll clarify. If a field can be applied to life studies, it is important. Do not underestimate how much a seemingly irrelevant field is crucial to the study of life and life processes. Again, you dismissal of the mathematician is telling. I've spent hours in the lab mathematically analyzing the structure of DNA. It's astounding how something like math or chemistry applies to the life sciences. The same is evident with the chemist. Do some research on how crystal structures may be related to life sciences... you'll be surprised. I should revise that. Any scientist that is honest. If you know the questions to ask and the points to make, they'll either stop talking to you, or simply admit that not only are there may holes in the theory, but direct contradictions that can't be worked around. No. Potassium-Argon dating which is used to date mineral deposits has issues as well... When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 it transformed the surrounding terrain dramatically in a short period of time. The lava that was spewed from this volcanic event was dated twenty years after the fact, using Potassium-Argon dating. Mount St. Helens should have tested out to 20 years plus or minus a year or two for a margin of error. Instead, sample results came back ranging from 1/3 to 3 million years... This is absolutely false. Let me explain why. Without the qualifications of macro and micro, the breeding of a dog or horses would be equivalent to the supposed evolution of birds from reptiles. I'm not sure any scientist would actually agree that those two processes would be the same. This is why micro or macro has to be added. You make "micro" and "macro" out to be a terms used soley by those who put forward the theory of intelligent design. This is absolutely false. In general, scientists agree with the use of these qualifiers. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Churches and other nonprofit organizations pay taxes when they buy goods. They may pay reduced taxes, but they do pay taxes. Also, if you don't have a job, please explain why you would need to pay an income tax or how you would pay an estate tax. I can't go further with this analogy until you clarify it. Well here's the problem with your assesment. If Bob gave you a gift of 10,000 dollars, he can claim it as a deduction if it is charitable in nature. The catch is that you don't have to report it and it won't be taxed when you do your taxes because it was a gift, and gifts of 10,000 or less aren't taxed. Bob giving you 10,000 dollars would have the same effect as Bob giving the church 10,000. In fact, if this is the argument you want to go with, everyone that gives money to charity and claims it as a tax deduction raises your taxes. In essence, you're covering everyone that gives to charity. If no one gave to charity, your taxes would be a lot lower... You're forced to pay for charities... Also, the complexity I added is needed. Lets say that by implementing an estate tax, you discourage more and more churches from building because it becomes too expensive. Churches after all survive off of "donations"... Fewer after school programs, soup kitchens, post prison programs, pregnancy counseling, marriage counseling, drug counseling, etc... Guess who would fully take on those responsibilities... Guess who's taxes are going to pay for them. In fact, your taxes may be even more expensive because we know how the govenment likes to do things big... Like I said, it's complex... Well I'm not sure if you're being satirical, but you've missed the premise on which intelligent design is based... again. Intelligent design doesn't say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up." That's what people say who want to ridicule the theory or aren't bothered to give it thought... Intelligent design is this... The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied. For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?

Am I the last person on earth to hear this? Is Bow Wow really engaged to Ciara? The world is falling apart ya'll!!!!

Haha, someone actually did the math. As rawad_m has shown, there is actually a level of scientific logic behind intelligent design. A lot of people want to make it out as "Oh well, life is too hard to explain so we'll just attribute it to an Intelligent Designer for the time being..." That's not the case at all. What rawad_m has presented, though already compelling, is just the beginning of the argument. Let's say by a pure miracle all the proteins necessary for a cell to function are made. The probability that they would be properly configured in a cell to create the necessary organelles, all working to sustain the cell... it's hard to imagine... the numbers are that big... And then you have to incorporate DNA that actually has viable code... This is why some scientists are saying that scientifically, it is a viable theory that there was intelligence ordering and manipulating the creation of life. At the very least, if scientists want to be honest concerning the teaching of evolution, they should cover the probabilities and the evidence that contradicts evolution as well as the things they believe point to it. Even if people do not want to acknowledge intelligent design, they should acknowledge the pitfalls and shotcomings of the evolutionary theory.

How many citizens of the Soviet Union were paid millions of dollars to play ball and represent their teams?

I'm not saying that creationism should be taught, but I do think that at the very least, it should be acknowledged that there are other theories and that evolution is very very far from conclusive. Evolution is being taught as fact right now even though scientists acknowledge that it is only a theory. What's more, only things consistent with evolution are presented, and even things that have been refuted are still taught as true. As for God not being scientific... I don't think he can be constrained by science, but if one were to believe that he is responsible for creation, why wouldn't it be possible for us to see his hand in design. Why wouldn't it be possible for us to see intelligence behind creation.

I think that's the main hinderance to the theory; a lot of people will accept it as religious and discount the scientific overtones. But really, the debate isn't that we can't understand it because it's too complex, so it must be God's handiwork. It's more that life is far too complex to have evolved by chance, even in the most ideal of situations. That's the crux of the scientific intelligent design theory. Imagine this. The basic building blocks of living things are amino acid molecules and DNA. So lets say an amino acid came into existence on primitive earth. There are about 120 types of amino acids, but only 20 are found in living things. All proteins in living things are made up of upwards of 100 amino acid molecules from the 20 variations. The chance that the amino acid molecules would bond in the proper order to form a viable protein with a proper structure by chance would be astounding. It would be even more astounding if the same protein was formed twice, or three times, or 4 times... To get a protein of significance, it would likely have to take place hunderds of times... all by chance... If someone wants to do the math... The only other option then would be that DNA, which holds the information to code proteins, had to come first. But there's a problem here too... Nucleic acids which compose DNA are highly reactive with other molecules and compounds that would have existed on a primitive earth, and would have been more likely to react with these other molecules than to form DNA by chance. Also, DNA needs proteins to both make copies of itself and to make more proteins... I said all that to say this; the idea of an intelligent designer or God doesn't have to be soley religious. Many people think that a belief in God is faith inspite of science. That's not the case. I'm not saying that it's more important because some scientists believe it. I'm saying that the idea of an intelligent designer doesn't have to be contrary to science.

There was a prior thread where people were calling him a leader in the black community. This is sort of an add on to that one.

This isn't true. Again, as I stated earlier, though most religions acknowledge some form of intelligent design or more accurately, creationism, the theory of intelligent design is not soley limited to religious groups or institutions. The number of persons in the science community that acknowledge that intelligent design is a viable theory is growing, and this growth has nothing to do with religion. You asked a lot of questions. I'll focus on a few. Show me theories that "lack any evidence at all and are still being taught." Russian biochemist Alex oparin theorized in 1924 that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evoled from simpler molecules that preexisted on the early earth. A few years later, a British biologist named J. B. S. Haldane theorized that ultraviolet light acted on the earth's primitive atmosphere and caused sugars and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans, and this formed the primordial soup that is believed life emerged from. Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey also suggested that the early earth's atmosphere would have made it favorable for organic compounds to emerge. Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago, actually performed an experiment to ascertain whether the theory is true. In his experiment, he recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth and shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. In the course of the experiment, he was able to make amino acids, a basic building block of life. The science community and evolutionists embraced this as proof that life could arise by itself on earth. This was taught and is still taught in schools as evidence that evolution took place. What you will likely never hear in school is that the experiment was invalidated. Miller used ammonia, methane and hydrogen in his experiment to recreate the atmosphere of a primitive earth, however the deck was stacked. He wanted to get a chemical reaction that was favorable, so he proposed that the earth's atmosphere was rich in these gasses. In 1980, NASA scientists showed that the primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen that would amount to anything. They showed that the earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. It is impossible to get the same experimental results as Stanley got with that mixture. There have been recent experiments to confirm this. Also, a lot of evidence for macro evolution is based on the fossil record and it is taught widescale that the fossil record firmly supports macro evolution. What you won't hear is that the fossil record also refutes macro evolution. Macro evolution is supposed to take place very slowly over millions of years but scientists have found that there was an explosion in the fossil record during the precambrian period. This means that there was an explosion of diverse life at that period on earth. This isn't supposed to happen in macro evolution. In fact, it's supposed to be impossible. However, it is still taught that the fossil record firmly supports evolution even though there is this and other huge inconsistensies and evidence against evolution. The support for this is from scientists not in the appropriate field or studies carried out 50+ years ago. Here are a few scientists who support the theory of some level of intelligent design. All are respected in their fields as all have carried out exemplary research or have contributed to their respective fields. Many have had their work published in peer review journals and in other forms. biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho Walter Bradley, PH.D at Texas A&M University chemist Charles B. Thaxton biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia Also, there are a number of fields that may seem incompatible with the life sciences, but surprisingly have a great deal to do with them. Most fields of scientific study have some relation to the life sciences. While organic chemistry seems to play a more important role than mathematics in the life sciences, mathematics is important in studying the bonds and structures of DNA and RNA, or the bonds and structures of amino acids in forming proteins for example. Until you fully understand what a scientist is studying or how he or she is approaching something, it would be premature to call their field inappropriate in the study of living things. Your statement concerning physicists is an example. Physics in its most simple definition is the basic study matter and energy. If a physicist is studying how primitive earth radiation would affect evolution or mutation, it's an appropriate field. It depends on what they are studying moreso their field is. Everything that you said is not correct is actually true. I gave you two examples earlier. You really have to press some scientists if you want to get them to admit that there is evidence contradictory to macro evolution. If you bring up one of the examples I gave earlier, scientists will admit that these are major contradictions to macro evolution. Incidentally, just because the earth may be between 4.1 - 4.8 billion year old doesn't prove or even provide evidence that macro evolution took place. In fact, the scientific version of intelligent design doesn't rule out an older earth. You are referring to religious and biblical accounts of the earth. Also, there have been proven issues with radioactive dating. I'm not saying this to refute the process, but radioactive dating isn't as accurate and definitive as one might think. It dating is carried out in general by relating ratios of radioactive and non radioactive elements in a material, and determining by the half life of that radioactive element the age of a given material. The problem is that scientists are dating materials with current known ratios in our present world as they are unable to determine the ratios that would have existed millions of years ago. We would have to believe that the ratios that exist in our present world are exactly the same as those that existed millions of years ago. Also, selective breeding is not macro evolution. Many make that mistake. Breeding is micro evolution. No widescale changes are taking place. Remember, macro evolution is supposed to take place over milions of years, not hundreds. Churches in general are non profit organizations. Non profits aren't generally taxed because there is no profit revenue. Taxation is a concept that applies to entities that produce wealth. Because churches consume wealth rather than produce it, taxation is not applied to them. If you were to tax churches, you would also have to tax educational, medical, charitable, and welfare organizations. Now taxing educational and medical organizations would instantly raise your taxes, but as it is now, would you also say that you pay for charities? Concerning the govenment needing to collect the same amount of taxes... it's a little more complicated than that. One can easily argue that the money churches collect and use for charitable purposes (after school programs, counseling, soup kitchens) offsets the money they don't pay in taxes, which in turn leaves your tax burden as is. Why? Since I'm strictly negative to people trying to get me into something thats totally bullcrap.. all my other school subjects are logic in some way, and I want it to keep it that way. You think scientists are being illogical when they propose intelligent design? I think the thing is that a lot of people look at it as strictly religious in nature when it really isn't solely about religion anymore. There is a scientific side to the argument; mainly that life processes are too complex and too ordered to have arisen by chance, especially when conditions were not predisposed to produce life. It's not a scientific theory I would describe as illogical.

Players are what market teams, not the cheerleaders or sex. As I have said, this is a cosmetic and negligible change; small in the scheme of things... but there is nothing wrong in wanting your players to dress more professionally when they are on your time. Especially when you're paying them millions to be on your time and to represent you. Incidentally, I really can't take anything Iverson says too seriously. He also though "practice" was too intrusive.

I strongly disagree. The problem here is that many people associate intelligent design with religion or religious beliefs largely because various religions teach some variation of intelligent design, and as a result, people are quick to dismiss any teaching purported by religious groups as having nothing to do with science. This is a false mindset since science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. The truth is that a large number of scientists have arrived at intelligent design outside of any religious influence, chiefly on their observations of life processes and order. Many experiments have been carried out and while there may be a number of theories, many of them have been proven wrong or lack any evidence at all and are still being taught. Again, that is to say that many scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design outside of any religious teachings based soley on their observations and their studies. As a result, the debate has gone beyond religion as these scientists claim that science supports the theory of an intelligent designer. Also, macro evolution is not necessarily sound. If you question any scientist at length about macro evolution, they will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting it and that there were countless conditions in a supposed young earth that make many of the claims of macro evolution impossible. However, macro evolution is taught almost as fact in many schools even though there is not nearly enough evidence to support its viability. Also Schnazz, I can confidentally say that churches are not the reason your taxes are higher and that you are not paying for churches.

Yes, rappers/singers do represent their labels, but not to the extent that NBA players are associated with and represent teams. Also, having a record contract and having an NBA contract are two different things. There are specific rules in the NBA that have to be followed, and an NBA player agrees to follow these rules when they sign a contract. There aren't as many rules and guidelines to follow in music. Also, lets say a music artist were to sign a contract specifying a dresscode, they would have to dress in whatever manner they were asked to. The NBA is basically trying to control the image of the league. Remember, many of you guys have argued that Sony forced Will to do party songs and to dumb things down. If you really believe that, it may not be a dress code, but it is control over the image an artist.

Why?

Basketball is a form of entertainment, but basketball players aren't singers/rappers. They aren't individuals representing themselves; they represent their teams and the league when carrying out team or league business. As a result, both teams and the league as a whole have some say in how they are represented. This is where the whole concern about image comes in. Iverson makes a good point in implying that clothes don't make the man. At the same time, clothes do play a role in how people portray themselves. Murderer or not, how you dress will affect how people regard you. This dress code is simple cosmetics. If the NBA was to truly go after the characters of players, many players would balk and complain about the NBA intruding in their personal lives. Suburbia isn't really into the "hood lifestyle." Most are simply spectators. It's entertainment for them, it's not their reality, and the ones that do enjoy the hip hop culture are not the ones the NBA is attempting to pander to. Incidentally, if business casual is too out of touch for general NBA fans, the NBA is in more trouble than they realize. A lot of these players should be ashamed that the NBA has to tell them to dress better in the first place.

Tim, how is the subject handled down under?

Intelligent design basically states that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life. By intelligent causes, one is to infer that God or a higher power was involved in creation. People also refer to intelligent design as creationism.

The NBA wants to get away from the "thug/hood rich" imagery that they deem has become prevalent throughout the league... It doesn't matter what the fans in the stands are wearing, they aren't the ones getting paid. Players represent their teams even though they may sit in the stands and not play. Stern is trying to open up the market base to more of suburbia, people who may be turned off by some of the image issues the NBA has had to deal with. It's more about ticket sales and image than anything else as Stern is trying to make these players more widely marketable. Legally, players don't have the right to wear what they want if the league specifies otherwise. While they are on league business... their "image" belongs to the league. It's part of what they give up when they sign multi-million dollar deals. These rules are pretty specific. It probably would have been better to just ban chains, doo rags, caps, baggy jeans and messy clothing in general as a first step and then see how things progressed.

As many of you know, trial hearings are being carried out in Pennsylvania concerning whether intelligent design should be somehow acknowledged in science classes in that state. Any thoughts on the issue? I realize that many on this forum hail from different countries. How is intelligent design handled in your respective school systems. Is it even acknowledged?

NEW YORK - David Stern wanted to come up with a dress code that wouldn’t restrict his players. So he picked one that wouldn’t bother his owners, either. “What we came up with is a dress code that even Mark Cuban could comply with — if he wanted to,” Stern said Tuesday. But the new policy is taking some heat already, with Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson telling ESPN that the league ban on chains worn over clothing is "a racist statement" from the league. Jackson said he had no problem with requiring players to dress better. But he drew the line at players being told their chains and necklaces can’t be visible over their clothes. “I just think that’s attacking young, black males,” said Jackson, who wore four chains to the Pacers exhibition game against San Antonio on Tuesday night. “The part about wearing suits, I think we should dress up. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress and I have no problem with that. But the chains, that’s going a little too far.” Jackson told ESPN that the policy on jewelry was "a racist statement because a lot of the guys who are wearing chains are my age and are black. I wore all my jewelry today to let it be known that I'm upset with it. "I'll wear a suit every day. I think we do need to look more professional because it is a business. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress. But it's one thing to [enforce a] dress code and it's another thing if you're attacking cultures, and that's what I think they're doing." "I know a lot of guys on my team are upset and I have no problem speaking up on it," Jackson said to ESPN. He did say, however, that he wouldn't openly defy the rule because he didn't want to pay fines. On Monday, the NBA announced in a memo to teams that a dress code will go into effect at the start of the season. Saying players must dress in “business casual” attire, the league banned items such as sleeveless shirts, shorts, sunglasses while indoors, and headphones during team or league business. The policy also requires players on the bench who are not in uniform to wear sport jackets, shoes and socks. And while Stern knows some players will be critical of the policy, he said there was no reason to be, as even jeans are still allowed. “As it’s properly understood, it will be embraced,” he said. “The union’s fine with it. It’s quite liberal and easygoing.” Cleveland star LeBron James was among those who saw the reasoning behind the new rules. “Sometimes you feel lazy on a flight and you don’t want to put (dress) clothes on,” James said. “But this is a job and we want to have fun, but it’s a job and we should look like we’re going to work.” Stern pointed out that when the topic was brought up during collective bargaining, the teams “preferred that we do it as a group.” Even so, many NBA players are more comfortable dressing like the fans they cater to. And Cuban, the maverick owner of the Dallas Mavericks, often dresses in T-shirts and jerseys. “We don’t really sell to big business,” Phoenix guard Raja Bell said. “We sell to kids and people who are into the NBA hip-hop world. They may be marketing to the wrong people with this.” But, as Stern pointed out, the reputation of the league’s players had fallen to a point that was “not as good as our players are.” That’s why he believes — and insists — the players will readily go along with his policy. “We have a minimum standard that we’ve set that reflects on the professionals in our sport and you’re going to do it,” he said. “We’re certain that it will be complied with.”

If we're gonna count the theme song... I'll have to go back to like, 93... lol

Lol, I don't know about that. We'll see. Boozer is injured for the time being. Hit me up again in about a week. I just want to make sure Boozer's hamstring isn't a serious injury.