MGoDC

February 1st, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

I don't have anything personal against RR, but the way that he is perceived nationally probably makes him a very unlikely hire. Compare Urban's resume to RR:

Meyer: 2 MNC, coached media darling Tim Tebow.

RR: Run out of town with torches + pitchforks, name dragged through the mud by the Freep.

justingoblue

February 1st, 2011 at 1:05 AM ^

Won't disagree on the perception, but a name is a name. When it comes to celebrity, it doesn't matter so much what you were talked about, as long as you were talked about.

RR is still a big name and will get hired by someone this season because of his ties here and because of suspicion about where he will go next. It's a good story all around for them.

BlueDragon

February 1st, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^

It is impossible to prove something does not exist or that it never existed at one point in the past.  However, we can look at all the available data (the U.S. was founded in 1776 and didn't start minting nickels until the 19th Century) and conclude that while it is not impossible that there were nickels in Jesus's day, it is very very improbable that even ONE nickel graced the Holy Land during his lifetime.

/scientist rant

justingoblue

February 1st, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^

There was science there? Wow I always thought looking in the past and finding out what happened there was history?

/mind blown

(Sarcasm if anyone has a meter down)

PS- BlueDragon you're one of my favorite posters and have been for a while, this is the beer talking.

JBE

February 1st, 2011 at 1:21 AM ^

Most recorded history has an agenda.  Perhaps the nickel was in reality invented in a vastly different circumstance than has been readily recorded, possibly Prague 100 BC.  You have to deconstruct personal histories of that time and place and look for simulacra.  

BlueDragon

February 1st, 2011 at 1:36 AM ^

I'd be interested to see how the citizens of Prague would create the metal alloys used by the U.S. Mint of the purity and composition 2,000 years before the fact.  Not to mention Monticello and Thomas Jefferson would not be born/built for another 1,800 years.  Perhaps a holy vision of some sort, or ancient astronauts?

BlueDragon

February 1st, 2011 at 1:49 AM ^

I think "Occam" is also an acceptable spelling of the word.  I use "Ockham" because that's how they spelled it in Medieval: Total War.  They also spelled William Wallace William Walayce, which I thought was pretty baller too.

Oh, and don't worry about accidentally negging me that one time.  We're still all shooting BB's with the up- and down-votes so it doesn't matter one way or the other.

justingoblue

February 1st, 2011 at 1:53 AM ^

If we weren't shooting BB's I'd be posting this as a travel guide. I'd be a full fledged Bolivian nationalist by now (f MGoBlog and their politics rule!)

But yea, apparently Ockham is the Michigan way to spell it, so Ockham it will be!!!

As to accidently negging you, I honestly thought points were back in full at that time and I would be in big trouble. Though I still stand by my promise of posbanging you with or without your consent.

JBE

February 1st, 2011 at 2:05 AM ^

My argument is sound. Sound, I tells ya. Speaking of sound, did you know there is no such thing as absolute silence? Even if you were to put yourself in a sound proof apparatus you would still hear your organs churn. The word silence is a relative word, and the concept of silence is a lie.

JBE

February 1st, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^

I am a postmodernist, and despite your fancy probabilities and pragmatism, I will not definitely say that a nickel did or didn't grace the Holy Land because there is no way I can experience that particular time and place, and therefore have no frame of reference and can make no truth claim.  It is very probable you're correct, but remember Bell curves have outliers, and one of those outliers could maybe possibly have been a nickel that predates historical record.

justingoblue

February 1st, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^

Not trying to offend you here, but your posts always rubbed me the wrong way for some reason (maybe because your avitar did the same thing back in the day) but this post won me over.

Imaginary +1 to you sir, and a new fan (until next time...do do do do do de do do...).

BlueDragon

February 1st, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^

But agnosticism is agnosticism, and you are welcome to doubt the power of probability.  That's what Christopher Columbus did 500 years ago, and now he has his reward:  being named after the worst city in America.  As for needing to personally experience ancient Judea in order to make a truth claim as to whether there were nickels there or not, that argument is, to put it mildly, vacuous.  One could doubt the existence of Washington, D.C. simply by never having been there, or doubting the fact of Jimmy Carter's presidency by being born after 1980.

In summation, your argument would never pass muster in a scientific, cultural, or historical journal of any reputation, but you sir are welcome to your God-given personal opinion on the matter.  And yes, there just might have been a nickel that underwent quantum translocation and traveled backwards in time (but not location) to ancient Judea, making your argument valid.  But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I await the day when an American nickel is radioactive-decay dated to ~2,000 years ago.  Until then, you and I must part ways on this matter.

JBE

February 1st, 2011 at 1:56 AM ^

I am only playing devil's advocate with an exaggerated argument. But honestly, do you find any serious problems applying probability to human beings? I have a tough time observing human beings through probable outcomes because the deviancies are almost as interesting as the mean, and for me as important. The trajectory outcome of a rocket, probability good. The outcome of human beings, probability insufficient. I have thought about this a bunch recently. Honest question.

JBE

February 1st, 2011 at 2:21 AM ^

That's interesting. For me, the question becomes: Has human action historically exhibited the same fundamental patters, or has it been more a product of societal influences, and therefore deviate just enough to discount any definitive picture of human behavior? In other words, are we gonna be stupid assholes forever, or is there hope that we won't destroy each other?

justingoblue

February 1st, 2011 at 2:47 AM ^

My economic answer would be that I do not know without a price mechanism. However, I believe human behavior is generally the same; with the caveat that some people are genius and some people are absolute idiots: you can decide which is which, I've made my decision.