I'm not sure myself, but I would assume that there are ALOT more rational bad guys than crazy ones.
Repealing the 2nd amendment would stop emo mfers from shooting schools. But it would make life so much easier for the rational bad guys. Now they can rob gas stations and jewelry stores with knives and have no fear.
Which of these would you rather stop? A rare (but getting more common) incident of public shootings, or the everyday occurence of non-reported crime? The big shootings get more attention, but do you think the family of a slain gas station clerk are any less devastated?
People who are extremely liberal would eliminate citizen firearms in the hope that everything becomes better. Admittedly alot of things would get better, but many things would also get worse.
No opinion is stupid, only the people who refuse to listen to all sides of debate. Rational compromise only starts when the yelling stops.
My solution: make guns extremely hard to get - legal and psychology background checks, family friends and employer interview, and a gun shooting test (like DMV test). All these costs would be beared by the gun buyer, and not other taxpayers. But I would also allow those same people to have conceal carry in public. Hopefully this can cut down crazy shootings AND normal crime. Any private business has the choice to put up a "no guns here" sign if they want, but is anyone that brave?
This looks really bad out of context. The context is that I needed faceshots of everyone to create the An Phong basketball picture. HS kids didn't have facebook yet, so I needed to ask for pics. As you can see, I never did find a picture.
|Monday, June 23, 2008|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:15:01 PM):||hey do you got the link to andy's myspace?|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:15:14 PM):||i havent been tehre forever so i cant find his lol|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:15:31 PM):||lol i dont think i have it|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:15:39 PM):||sorry >< dont u have his number tho?|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:15:47 PM):||nah i dont want to talk to him|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:15:51 PM):||just wanna get a picture of him|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:15:52 PM):||lol|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:15:54 PM):||lmao|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:15:59 PM):||i'll try to find it|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:16:00 PM):||hold up|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:16:01 PM):||you have any pics of him?|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:16:04 PM):||if you do i'll take it|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:16:14 PM):||nopee lmao i dont take stalker pics of andy|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:16:14 PM):||;[|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:16:19 PM):||maybe u but not andy.|
|BABY x LUUKiiS (10:16:20 PM):||LOL jks|
|Monday, June 23, 2008|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:22:22 PM):||hey do you have any pictures of Andy?|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:22:27 PM):||i just need his face|
|iishort86 (10:30:11 PM):||check Nhis emails over the weekend|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:30:11 PM):||I am away from my computer right now.|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:30:21 PM):||why|
|iishort86 (10:30:22 PM):||u can prob find a few shots of andy from camp|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:30:25 PM):||oh|
|iishort86 (10:30:29 PM):||she has links to pics|
|phAt fAt pAndA (10:30:46 PM):||ok thanks|
|iishort86 (10:32:18 PM):||np|
I reformatted my hard drive because playing League of Legends was laggy on my old Pentium 4. Guess what, still laggy. I realized then that this computer was built the summer 2004 (before my HS senior year). This damn machine is over 8 years old! Anyway, because I reformatted I installed old programs that I always keep in my separate partitions. This is why I've been able to keep files from 2007. Unfortunately I don't have anything from before that because the HD wasn't partitioned yet, so lost it all during reformats. I don't really game anymore nor download random torrents, so I have no need to reformat. This is my first reformat in over two years. Back then it wasn't rare for me to reformat every break between college quarters. I lost nothing because all my music, pictures, program files, documents, etc are on the non-windows partition. I only have to re-install programs.
I highly suggest that you partition your hard drive as soon as you buy a new computer, it also gets rid of all the stupid unnecessary manufacture installed trial programs. Another tip, if you notice your computer startup slowing down over time, it's because of your programs running in the background. Here's something that will help. From the Start button, "Run" msconfig. Go to the startup tab and uncheck EVERYTHING. Now your computer is fast again.
I took a gamble and updated to Windows 7, and luckily all my drivers still work (I was prepared to give it a try, expecting to have to re-install XP). Networking is so easy on Windows 7. Now all the computers in the house have 7 and sharing is so easy. Compare that to XP, where connecting to a wireless router was easy, but network sharing was a pain. Compare XP to Windows 98/ME where connecting to a wireless router was a pain. Stuff keeps getting easier. Technology FTW!
Measure B also passed, the San Fernando Valley industry will likely suffer due to out of state competition. Even worse, tax money will be used on the state for an office of people watching porn to make sure rules are followed. I can see it now: tissue boxes labelled "your tax dollars at work".
It makes no sense to me that the death penalty was not repealed, but voters decided to ease up on the three strikes rule. I'm against the death penalty in theory, but it happens rarely in California (13 executions since 1978, less than 2% of convicted murders) so it's not a big deal. But changing the three strikes law will cause more criminals to be on the streets. A felony is a felony, why should it have to be violent crimes? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, fuck you. If they don't learn after two felonies, they don't deserve to be in society. Just think from a economic point of view. The two-strike-criminal's fear just went down by ridiculous margins. He can now resume selling meth and stealing cars FOREVER.
So I guess only Jon knows so far, but my aim this year is to show the struggle of good versus bad, and how good will win in the end. Scene 1 is the war in heaven, which Michael fighting against Lucifer. You must surely know by now, that if I am in charge of Christmas, there will be a battle lol. Anyway, Scene 2 is about the beauty of creation. I am dead serious about this scene, and I will put all my personal effort into this. I will be playing the role of God, and create the world while dancing with creation. Each day I spend a little time daydreaming about this scene, so by the time practice starts I will know exactly what I want.
Other than story line, I try to do four things as director: change expectations, give big roles to less represented families, helping actors help themselves, and make practice as efficient as possible.
1) Change expectations: I've done a "liberal" interpretation of the Gospel in past plays, where I create scenes that have not been explicit described but had to have occurred. Also, I do stuff differently just for shock value. In the past I made a stir when I cast Gabriel as a boy, but this year I'm changing it to have Gabriel a girl in the war scene. It's nothing political, I'm just bored and I'm sure the audience is too.
2) As far as family power goes we (Jon, Bryan, Lisa, Tony, Chris) and our younger cousins dominate Thieu Nhi in HT positions and also Christmas roles. This is the main reason why I want this year's Joseph and Mary to be Chris Nguyen and Monica. Their families deserve to be in the spotlight.
3) Just by giving the script to actors and telling them to learn their lines and the emotions involved, they will do a better job.
4) Practice will be efficient this year. I learned from my initial attempts in the past, and definitely remember last year's debacle. I fit the scenes and casting into the schedule first, not the other way around. If you cast people first before looking at practice schedule, you are screwed.
There will be four practice sessions, and all the scenes are covered i those four sessions. In addition, almost everyone is in four scenes so there's no downtime for people to mess around. Au Nhi and Thieu Nhi only have to stay for the first session. Nghia Si can leave after the third session, only Hiep Si and Huynh Truong have to stay until the end.
There's going to be four dances, and I already know people at the meeting will say "that's too much! we won't have time to practice!" Well yeah... if you cast a same girl in three different dances like they did in the past. Instead what we're doing this year is have four groups: older/younger boys, and older/younger girls all practice their dance at the same practice session. There is no overlap of cast or dance directors so everyone only needs to learn one dance, while still giving more entertainment to the play itself. Hax.
Brain fart for about the first 2 months and work for the last of break. Made awesome softcore with the boys and of course, LOTS OF AIRSOFT =]. Back to school now =[. Good luck and best wishes to everyone on their work/school years!
Wow! What a great movie. 10/10 (for reals). There is a lot of comedy and drama with little segments of face paced action. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone but let's just say that only AKs can kill cops... Go watch it if you haven't.
Anyway, beyond just musically entertaining, this show gives me hope for Vietnam. Look at the judges, you have a cool guy, a gay guy, a prima donna, and a party girl. There's so much variety that it encourages teenagers to be who they want to be, and not to be afraid to use their "voice" for music and life. Maybe when the current teens become 30-40 years old, Vietnamese society will change to allow more freedoms. It's still not likely, because the Communist party is also a criminal organization, at the lower levels the supporters are brainwashed. But the leaders know what they are doing is unethical, they just want the moneys. There is always hope however. Although no one ever thought the Soviet Union was going to fall from within, that's exactly what happened. I'm rooting for you Vietnam.
This one's been in my head for a while. Are guns good or bad?
If you could uninvent the gun, would you? I'm not even sure how to answer that question myself. Guns make killing alot easier, but that same power allows weak and old people to protect themselves. It allows me to hold off multiple assailants in my own home. But I agree that guns are dangerous and can be very bad. So I won't bother to answer that question, so I'm answering this in light of the fact that guns will never be uninvented and that we live in a country where there is almost one gun for every person. So keep that in mind.
I realized the more important question is "are people good or bad"? For both political arguments, the answer is they are bad.People who are anti-guns and pro-guns don't trust other members of society, it just depends on which part of society.
Pro-gun people don't trust criminals, while by logic they HAVE to trust fellow lawfully owning gun citizens. The reason is because they know criminals don't follow laws, but must believe that fellow conceal carry citizens will use their weapons appropriately (avoid conflict) and accurately (if conflict cannot be avoided). Obviously in a state where conceal carry is easy like Arizona, there will be more "good guys" carrying than criminals. But liberals fear normal Joe Gun Enthusiast.
Anti-gun people obviously fear criminals but in addition are afraid of normal gun people. By outlawing guns, they hope to prevent mass shooting crimes from happening. I would agree that stuff like the theater shooting and Virginia Tech would decrease dramatically. They use legally bought guns because how is an unsocial college kid gonna find an illegal gun? You'd have to know shady people to tap into the black market. Sounds like the type of crowd that gangsters know.... leading to my belief that bad guys can always get guns if they really want them. They have to get it through the black market because any convicted felon would fail the security check. So by making guns illegal, you're only stopping good people from buying. Of course this also stops the lunatic mass shootings at least. In addition, you'd be stopping belligerent gun carriers from turning a bar fistfight into a shootout.
So the bottom line: is a person more afraid of regular criminals or mass shooting crazy killers?
An anti-gun policy enables criminals, while a pro-gun policy enables crazy killers.
There are basically three responses depending on the states:
A) No one can buy guns: New York city, Chicago, Washington DC banned guns before the Supreme Court made overruled and states like Massachusetts makes it a pain in the ass to buy one.
B) People can buy guns but not conceal carry in public: moderate-liberal states like CA.
C) You can buy and conceal carry: most states in America.
Which one would I like to live in? Find out below.
Both criminals and good guys like me would like to carry a gun around freely, but only a criminal does so. Concealed Carry permits are nearly impossible to get in California, the only people carrying right now are cops, gangsters, and super paranoid people who are doing it illegally. But they are already criminals for breaking the law. If CC was made legal, you're only adding people who respected and followed the law in the first place. Basically the number of guns in the right hands will rise, while the number of guns in the wrong hands stays the same. Selling guns legally but not allowing CC is asking for trouble. This allows crazy people to get the means to shoot people, while not allowing said people to defend themselves. In this view it would be better to not sell guns at all.
But if you don't sell guns at all, people can be assaulted in their homes by criminals with black market guns. And honestly, you could ban guns in 2012 and criminals would still have them in 2050. Cars and other products were embargoed to Cuba in the 1950s. Guess what? Cubans are still using those same old school cars. They're banged up but they work. And guns last way longer than cars. Forget new black market inflow, there's already millions of guns in existence in America.
In light of the two points above, having legal conceal carry makes sense. Of course, this permit should be given only after a thorough background check and passing grade on a mandatory shooting exam. The only downside here is if a killer starts shooting and three guys have CC guns, all hell will break loose because it's not obvious who is the bad guy. I've heard many stories of mass killings, and a few stories of a good guy stopping a bad guy (westminster store owner and that 19 year old with a baby are two examples) but not yet one story of a good guy shooting another good guy in such situation. It could happen, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to live in such a society. But I don't want to live in a society where bad guys are the ONLY ones with the guns (outside of cops).
You can now see that I am pro-gun. It makes sense to me. But even among gun enthusiasts, there's conflict.The bottom line is a fight between one's liberties and one's securities.This is where I'm middle of the line. There has to be some sort of compromise that allows one of protect oneself with a gun while also protecting those who don't want to carry guns.
Hardcore gun supporters don't want magazine limits. As much as I'd like to have 30 rounders at the range, I'll happily trade that for a fair fight between my 6 round CC revolver and a killer's 10 round pistol/rifle. Or if I'm not carrying, at least I have a better chance of running away or to charge during a reload.
On the other hand, I'm against things like caliber restrictions and banning tactical add-ons. No one has ever robbed someone else with a .308, why the hell would they use a .50? As useless as Barretts and Ferraris are, they should be legal because this is a free country.
To sum up my opinion, I would like to give an example.
Some stores/restaurants have signs that say "this place is gun-free". Would this make you happy to go in there? Then you are anti-gun. I would avoid the place. It's not because I don't respect their political views, they can think however they want. It's because that sign says "Rob this place please" to criminals or "you can get alot of victims here" to crazy killers.
Thieu Nhi < Pratt < Half Windsor < Full Windsor < Triple Windsor (my creation)
BTW, I am inviting all of you with video cameras to do random vlogs. you can directly record onto youtube so it easy. Continue using whatever number the last person used and tag the post with the label "vlog".
Teachers who don't know how to read a crowd...or a clock.
I had a professor that not only taught monotone but, also had no regard for her student's time. She would always say one line that made me soft and it was "Ok, we have three minutes left so let's go over one more example". Of course the example was never done in three minutes and we would get out five minutes late...TF DOOO!? 3 min left = 5 min late = haul ass to next class. No bueno yall. The point is if you can't get it done in the time given then don't fk'n make me run to the next class!
Before I get into my main point I would like to answer the rhetorical questions: Is pirating a sin? Is it okay to pirate?
Answer is yes and yes, because we are human. We like to get things free, even it would have only cost us a dollar.
Just like in natural selection, the relationship between seller and buyer is a struggle. Whoever comes out with better tactics and strategies wins, until the other side retaliates. I will not get into morals, only law and enforcement. We know the world is a place where not everyone follows the rules for the sake of it. I admit that I avoid my phone in the car only out of fear of a ticket. On the other hand, I keep my car at 70 because I derive my excitement on turns, and I like to save gas. If I was more crazy, I'd probably drive at 85-90 and tell the law to suck it. My point being is that we follow some laws out of natural inclement, and others because of fear of punishment. That's as far as I'll speak about morals. The only thing that matters is what video game makers and players can do.
Here's my own life memory of video game protection:
1995ish I remember after you installed Doom it was able to run off your hard drive.
1997ish I remember playing a flight simulator game that required you to run the CD in the tray, even though all data files are installed.
The gamer solution: make CD copies and pass them out to friends
The maker solution: CD encryption
2000ish Sim City required the real CD, it would know if you were running a fake.
the gamer solution: hacked EXE files of the program no longer required the CD aka "no-CD cracks"
the maker solution: STEAM digital distribution
2003 or 2004 is when Steam came out. At first I thought it was just for CS to convert online CD-keys into accounts. Boy was I wrong. Steam allows makers to release games that had to be activated by Steam. Once a new CD key was locked into an account, that's it, it's useless. This made even single player games unsellable.
Even with all this anti-piracy action, most gamers are playing pirated single player games. Hackers found ways to bypass Steam logins.
the maker solution: force the game itself to work only after connecting to the company's servers.
Starcraft 2 can't be played on LAN, and apparently Diablo 3 single player won't load unless you connect to the internet.
The piracy issue was pretty isolated to PC games but it's being targeted in console games now.
Gamestop makes billions of dollars off used games alone. The video game industry wants a slice of the pie but Gamestop pretty much gives them a middle finger. How ironic, I thought game makers and Gamestop were best friends when I was a kid. Games make nearly all their money in the first few months, then people buy the used versions. Apparently this is a reason that games cost so much now.
It all comes down to whether you think buying a PS3 disc entitles you to property or a license. The gamers say it's their property and that they can sell it. Makers say that it's a license, but they have no power to enforce that. The only thing they can do is to force registration.
BF3 was the first console game that made you enter a CD-key and lock it into one account. If you buy a used BF3 at Gamestop, you will need to buy a $10 license fee to play online. I think most online games will do this from now on, pretty much ensuring that I will never buy a Call of Duty game again. And there are discussions about making the next Xbox or PS4 game discs just data, and having to pay full price for licensing.
Alot of gamers got pissed at this but I thought it was pretty smart. I support what people do for their own interests in business. If hackers can get around it, good for them. Makers want to make money, and the people want to be lazy and steal without punishment. Of course the most moral people won't steal software, but like I said, we all have different morality standards for different things. This is where force comes into play. We are all thieves of opportunity, it depends on how easy it is.
At least I admit when I pirate. There are those who claim to be liberating files from capitalist overlords. Or those who claim they do it out of necessity. Stealing a piece of bread is a necessity for Aladdin, playing video games is not. They are not heroes of society. They are not the only ones trying to get by. Gaming programmers have grueling schedules and it pisses them off that they are only getting a fraction of their earned money.
It's good to see both sides because although I like free stuff, I know companies won't survive if they make no money.
So here's the conclusion:
It makes sense to pirate things if you're not sure if they're good or not (while knowing it's "bad" no matter what). But if you like a game or movie or band, go buy a new version or watch in the theaters or buy a CD. If you're not supporting things you like, then its your fault if they die out.
Note to self, try to watch some episodes on TV instead of using hulu all the time...
By the way, when you first buy a computer you should re-format it so that at least 50% of it is backup. For example on this old P4, there's 160 GB. I dedicated 100 GB to pictures and music and programs, and the other 60 is for Windows. I keep everything backed up like Office and drivers. That way when the computer gets laggy after a year, I reformat and re-install everything. I get a fast computer again, and don't have to worry about files being lost. Also, if there's a virus, no problem, just reformat.
Sadly my digital album stops after 2008-2009, when I realized pictures will always be on facebook.
Anyway, click any of the thumbnails for a larger picture, or open in new tab.
Counter Strike was the most revolutionary game in my lifetime. It was the first addicting online game for the non-nerds. I remember the popular jocks knew me for being one of the best at CS in my grade. It was easy enough to pick up, but difficult to master. Add in the fact that this game became popular before DSL meant that kids were going to PC Lans which defined the new arcade of the 2000s.
Teamwork was essential too, it's pretty non-existent in console games now because there's only dumb kids blabbering on the mic.
I'm not sure if another game replaced CS as the online king, but at my high school it was pretty much nerd-status by 2004-2005. But COD 4 didn't come out until 2007, so I wonder what people were playing 2005-2007.
I became a godfather on Saturday with Ti's confirmation.
Also, Khoa and Lisa played ball 1v1. Khoa is actually stronger than someone. Well done Khoa.
Also, Khoa said a joke that made everyone laughed. We proceeded to clap for him. Well done Khoa.
My Got! Slugs in one tube, buck in the other!!!
The place: Route 66 Auto Service. 525 E Route 66, Glendora CA 91740
This place will give you a $20 rebate voucher for your oil change, all you have to do is fill out a form during your oil change and they will mail it out and everything, so this means:
First Full synthetic oil change: $50
Oil changes from then on: $30!
and every oil change comes with a free car wash!
"According to Piaget, you are as conceptually smart as you will ever be at the age of 21. From then on there you will only advance your intuition"
How do you guys feel about this? I know that when I heard this in class, being 21 myself, I had a big "fk" run through my mind. I don't consider myself conceptually inferior to others but I definitely see myself as below average. Maybe that's why Math is hard...mudama!
Compare this to the Knicks this year, they post up Carmelo against a set defense. Amare doesn't help here because he's a fast paced player, not a post up player. This brings me to the point of this post:
The other way to counter set defense is to shoot the ball before the defense can set up. This is what the Denver Nuggets are doing to the Lakers. But the best team to ever to do this is the Suns from 2006-2010.
They were fast because they were playing out of position:
Center- Amare Stoudemire (a natural PF)
Power Forward- Shawn Marion (a natural SF)
Small Forward- Raja Bell (a natural SG)
Shooting Guard- Leandro Barbosa (a natural PG)
Point Guard - Steve Nash (a white guys shouldn't be this good)
All of these guys outside of Amare could shoot threes very well
Note: Fast paced offense is called full-court offense, whereas slow paced like the Lakers is called half-court offense.
As you know, a team has eight seconds to cross the half court line. Therefore teams were usually prepared to set up their defense within eight seconds. That's why Coach D'Antoni wanted the Suns to shoot in seven seconds or less (they are called the SSOL Suns).
This team will be the most fun team ever in the history of the NBA. Unfortunately that small size also meant that their defense sucked. But they were so good at scoring that they routinely went deep into the playoffs. Check out this crazy clip:
Anyway, I saw the last quarter of the Clippers-Grizzlies game at the gym, and I have to say the Clip's crunch time offense is pretty stale. They give Chris Paul the ball, give him screen or two, and hope he makes a shot or drives and kicks to the open man. The problem is that the other 4 Clippers just stand in place, it makes it hard for CP to find anyone. CP made crazy shots in game 4, but Grizzlies adapted for it in game 5, so Clippers offense was stagnant in the 4th quarter.
Lakers commentary: Steve Blake and Matt Barnes need to hit half of their open shots, or else Lakers lose the series. Bynum and Gasol get outhustled by McGee and Fareed. Dear God, they will go up against Perkins and Ibaka next. That's like McGee and Fareed on steroids!
The Lakers offense right now isn't terrible, but it's not great either. The isolation calls for Kobe and Bynum result in the other four Lakers standing still. I really miss the Triangle offense. While never completely understanding it's mechanics, I understand that its a system that tells players where to go based on where the ball is, where they are on the floor, and where the defense is. This results in two things: tons of options for any play based on what the defense gives them, and it forces role players to be active in moving around, instead of relying on a superstar. By the way, it's called the Triangle because three people set up so that any of them can pass to the other, resulting in post-up, a three pointer, or a cut to the basket. For example, the Fisher-Kobe-Gasol triangle was very efficient. But not as deadly as the Kobe-Glen Rice-Shaq triangle. HAX!
Check out this video from the 2010 Finals. Don't look at the player with the ball, just look at all five Laker jerseys and see their movement. Not only is there great ball movement, it was made possible by how there are off-ball screens and cuts. Beautiful basketball. The Knicks are trying to sign Phil Jackson for next season. This is exactly what Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, and JR Smith need.
Reporter: "So you and coach Brown got caught up on Saturday about practice?"
Iverson: "If I can't practice, I can't practice. It is as simple as that. It ain't about that at all. It's easy to sum it up if you're just talking about practice. We're sitting here, and I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we're talking about practice. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we're talking about practice. Not the game that I go out there and die for and play every game last it's my last but we're talking about practice man. How silly is that?
Now I know that I'm supposed to lead by example and all that but I'm not shoving that aside like it don't mean anything. I know it's important, I honestly do but we're talking about practice. We're talking about practice man. (laughter from the media crowd) We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We're not talking about the game. We're talking about practice. When you come to the arena, and you see me play, you've seen me play right, you've seen me give everything I've got, but we're talking about practice right now. (more laughter)
Reporter: "But it's an issue that your coach continues to raise?"
Iverson: "Hey I hear you, it's funny to me to, hey it's strange to me too but we're talking about practice man, we're not even talking about the game, when it actually matters, we're talking about practice."
Reporter: "Is it possible that if you practiced, not you but you would make your teammates better?"
Iverson: "How in the hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?
Reporter: "So they can be used to playing with you."
Iverson: "They should be used to playing with me. Those are my teammates. So my game is going to deteriorate because I'm not practicing with my teammates? Is my game is going to get worse? I'm asking you, is my game going to get worse? So what about my game? Is my game going to get better because other players are hurt on my team, I mean, do that hurt me? Do you think that hurts me? I'm being honest, people are hurt on my team but do that hurt me? Does that hurt me when I go out there and play 48 minutes, does that hurt me as a player? Does that hurt me if this person is hurt or that person is hurt? Do it hurt me?
Reporter: "You don't need it as much as they do."
Iverson: "What do you mean by I don't need it as much?"
Reporter: "Because you're the superstar"
Iverson: "What do you mean I'm the superstar?"
Reporter: "Because you're better than they are. One of the best in the NBA."
Reporter: "May I respond to that?"
Reporter: "There are people that have suggested, myself included, that instead of shooting 40 percent, you...
Iverson: "What do you know about basketball? Have you ever played?"
Iverson: "I don't know Phil, I don't know you as a basketball player. I know you as a columnist but I have never heard of you as a player though.
Reporter: "Why is that an issue?"
Iverson: "Why is that an issue? Because we're talking about basketball."
Reporter: "Let me ask my question."
Iverson: "Go ahead, Phillip."
Reporter: "Supposed you shot 44 percent..."
Iverson: "I don't know about that. That is in God's hands. I do not know if that will help me or not. That's God. God does that, It ain't up to you to say if Allen Iverson does this then he'll do that. That's up to God. It ain't up to anyone in here. That is up to God. He handles that.
Iverson thinks that practice is for increasing individual skill only, so he thinks he doesn't need it, because he already gives 100% out on the real games. Because you know, basketball isn't a team sport. Also, his low field goal percentage is something he can't control, from deduction, he is saying that he shoots the ball and God determines if it goes in.
I don't even blame ballhogs anymore, most of the time they don't know that what they are doing is inefficient. I actually think it's a bit unfair for coaches and broadcasters to say that teamwork and passing to the open man is the "right way to play". It's unfair for the ballhogs with tremendous talents. So let's just say that the "right way" is the one that leads to the most win probability. Teams with high assists ratios have higher field goal percentages. That usually leads to better chances of winning. But ballhogs refuse to look at the numbers and see what they're doing is inefficient.
How does this relate to real life? I respect people for giving it 100% effort, even when they do something wrong or short sighted. Unfortunately, it's bad when they don't see mistakes. Worse it's when they refuse to admit mistakes to themselves. The famous quote goes something like this: "When you start to think you know it all, you stop learning." And when we stop learning, GG.
Moral of Iverson's career: stay humble and keep learning.