Real Deal

Well, I went ahead and restarted because I sort of had to. Not sure what went wrong, but it kept sending me to a Celtics/Cavaliers playoff game, and I'm on the Spurs. It would freeze up, I'd restart, and run through the process again. But this time around, I'm going to do much, MUCH better...and I'm trying to get on the Cavs right now. Second game so far... http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs462.ash1/25377_382591191652_502396652_4370155_5647561_n.jpg PS - Look like me?

Jess recorded the first episode, but I'm not sure if I'm even going to watch it. I hear it's pretty dumb.

Then your restriction has no point, as I said earlier. What's the difference if it's made "official" or not? I don't have "Christian papers" or a tattoo saying I'm a Christian. You don't go report it to the government. Saying parents can't make their kids "official Christians" yet they can teach them the Bible and take them to church...doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you have an atheist card to prove you're officially an atheist, or do you just say you are? How does one become an official Christian?

The number change doesn't mean much at all. LeBron is still making his mind up (according to most), so he had to change his number, or else he wouldn't have the time to do it if he did indeed end up re-signing with Cleveland after a long wait. And whether he will or not (leave Cleveland), just don't act like it's impossible, either way. New Jersey isn't a reach. If they get John Wall, or if the Knicks do, that's a huge reason for LeBron to pack his bags. If New York somehow raked in Bosh and Wall...you really think LeBron would decline a contract to join those two and form what could be one of the most dominating trios in NBA history? Come on.

Yep. Spurs won the head-to-head 3-1.

I'm done talking religion. It's disrespect saying a Christian family can't raise their kids as Christians. Maybe I should slap atheists in the face for not teaching their kids about God...same thing, really. But on a personal level, I don't care what they do, and I'll mind my own business. I guess that's the difference between you and I. I'm accepting two angles, and you'd be dead set on eliminating one. Not my problem.

Maybe a female has a kid and has to stay home with it. Maybe I have sick parents, who I have to take care of. You took what I said the wrong way. As an adult, if you feel as if you don't have time for it, you'll make that judgment and really don't need to think twice. "This stuff called religion doesn't have anything to do with my career? Fine...no need for it." Some don't have time for college just because they don't want to go, simple as that. They don't make time, and they don't care. Apply it to anything, even work. Some don't work...they choose to live off the government as long as they can. But that's all beside the point.

You do realize you're suggesting something that sort of finds itself similar to a demanding Christian telling you that you better believe in God, right? I mean, non-believers go nuts over super-religious people, but what you're saying is pretty much on that same level, telling two Christian parents that they shouldn't declare their own flesh and blood Christian. Jesus is a historical figure, proven by historical writings. Science is written. Asking your kids to believe in God, or asking them to believe in nothing...really doesn't matter. When your children ask you how the world just happened, out of nowhere, and why things just don't appear while we live in this world (due to particles clashing), I hope you have answers. Atheism is a belief as well. Some die-hard Christians won't even accept it as such, but it is. However, it's in the same boat as any religion in that regard. Scientific findings...what scientists can really, truly tell the age of the Earth? It's always "believed" to be so many years old, but we all know that will change over and over again. Any ideas as to how old a particular galaxy is? Any reason why planets don't just create themselves in our galaxy anymore? Kids have questions. Whether or not you teach them is up to you, but there should never be a restriction on that. It's ridiculous. Leave it alone.

OKC will have the money to make a play for Bosh this off-season, and if not him, another big man. So, assuming they get one that's a legit threat in the post, it's the Thunder, hands down. Durant's defense is slightly improving, and if he becomes an above-average defender, the Thunder will be very, very tough to knock out of the playoffs.

Some people don't have time for college, either, so maybe we should just remove all colleges throughout the country.

If kids weren't taught religion, or weren't exposed to it, there would be much less of it. Same with sex. Same with alcohol, until they were adults. Same with science, same with math. I don't see the point. And if you're going to take a kid to church, he's going to wonder why. The parents would need to tell him that it's because he should believe in God, which is practically declaring a religion for him. Saying you can't declare a religion for your own kid, you'd have to keep them from religion, period. Otherwise, it's useless to even use a restriction of that kind.

So you're telling me that a child can't go to church anymore? Anyone under 18 isn't allowed in church? Basically, the parents make that decision, and you're taking that away. That would be one of the worst ideas ever. No 10 year old is going to drive themselves to church, so you're putting a ban on them going. And even at that, nobody would be baptized until they were adults, and that would be insane. That's a fantastic idea for an atheist, though. It would be the ultimate attempt to knock religion off the map, because kids wouldn't be introduced to it, and wouldn't be able to learn anything about it from a church until they were in school and working so much, they would have little time for it (and probably wouldn't care, since they'd be less interested and curious to know). Maybe we can decline to teach them any science, because of how inaccurate (and ever-changing) it can be. Let them turn 18, then ask them if they want to learn about the Earth and take basic K-6 science in college.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kobe is limited the entire series. Not only is he injured, but Thabo is a top defensive player in the NBA. THAT may lead to a Lakers doomsday...but I won't go that far and predict it against the Thunder.

MVP: LeBron James, but Durant needs major consideration 6th Man: Jamal Crawford DPOY: Dwight Howard ROY: Tyreke Evans Most Improved: Sonny Weems (or George Hill) Coach Of The Year: Scott Brooks All-NBA 1st Team: G - Steve Nash G - Kobe Bryant F - Kevin Durant F - LeBron James C- Dwight Howard All-NBA 2nd Team: G - Deron Williams G - Dwyane Wade F - Carmelo Anthony F - Dirk Nowitzki C - Andrew Bogut All-NBA 3rd Team: G - Rajon Rondo G - Brandon Roy F - Chris Bosh F - Amare Stoudemire C - Pau Gasol

It's a series win, not really worried at all. There's too much size in Los Angeles. I'm just pissed because the Thunder won't be going past the first round, like I wanted.

Fan-[expletive]ing-tastic.

One more day.

ESPN.com

You ruse?

I'm starting over Tony Parker on the Spurs, and we're getting killed in the second round of the playoffs. I just realized that, no matter how hard I try, Tim Duncan puts up some of the weakest post shots in the game (no reason why), and Manu Ginobili would rather slash and get blocked at the rim versus passing me the ball. Ah, and not to mention...Theo Ratliff allows 40 PPG, and so does Magloire...so there's no way we'll ever win it all.

@LakersReporter

Drop the personal attacks. The next time it happens, the offended member gets to decide how many days you're suspended.

I understand Ben's cashing in, but I think a lot of teams would love to have him. Do you actually think the Steelers would deal Ben if he was making $1 million next season? My take is, the Steelers have fought to keep a clean slate in terms of its players, so why not put Ben on the block?

That's quite a few "usually" statements inserted into what should be a justified award. In every single year of the Lakers' dynasty season, I wouldn't say those East teams that made the Finals were the second best, maybe not even third best teams in the league. The Spurs, Kings, maybe even the Blazers would've beaten them. Plus, the Finals MVP is typically given to the guy that scores the most in the NBA Finals. Parker got it over Duncan in 2007, although we all know who the MVP really was for the Spurs. Billups got it over Ben Wallace and Tayshaun Prince in 2004, the two guys that mainly contained Shaq and Kobe (while Billups took advantage of a gimpy and old Payton). It's pretty easy to figure out who's going to get the Finals MVP. Wait until the Finals, then look at the match-ups and decide who's going to score the most.

Steal for the Jets. A fifth-rounder for Holmes isn't much at all. If they are going to treat their SB MVP that way, why not deal Ben for the same reasons (off-field issues)?