Indiana Fever - Caitlin Clark
- Thread starter Ohio Guy
- Start date
Let me ask you a question. If have two people in the home and they disagree, then who makes the final decision? In my home it is me. I am responsible before God as to where my family is lead. Now maybe you think that means I pick all the restaurants we eat at or what shows we are gonna watch. Maybe you hear, "tyrant" by this subject. But the reality is I adhere to my wife's wishes in many areas. I serve her to the best of my ability and support her financially and emotionally. She actually trusts me if I make the final decision because I have earned it.
I lead the family spiritually which means what we stand for as a family before God and oversee we are financially alright.
I don't gamble. Read my discussion about what it means to lead. It doesn't mean I am a tyrant.
If it's important to her and not so much to me, then she gets the final say.
If it's the opposite scenario, then I do.
If we both feel strongly about something, we talk and then will come up with a plan together.
There's not just one voices in my household that holds the final cards. She works, pays bills and takes care of the kids, just like I do.
She's earned an equal share in the household just like I have earned it to her.
Prided myself on being organized when running ( ?) a business.
Now in my retirement and assuming some domestic duties, I have come to realize some things. Work was fun compared to domestic chores. Furthermore, running a home takes plenty of organization.
Can now understand why more women are less likely to become a housewife, let alone being both a worker and homemaker.
OK guys, the gig is up.
Last edited:
Not that big of a fan beyond she's fun to watch and is now playing for the Fever.
Just some of the criticisms of her have been silly, even the milder ones like shot selection.
What if it is important to you both and your family's direction will go one way or the other? Who makes the final decision then?
We both do.
We sit down, talk out the pros and cons and go from there.
We have a conversation because we both have an equal voice in our relationship.
That only means you married a woman who believes as you do. The problem you have is if you try to apply beyond your home, as well as your reaction to those who don't live like you do.
It's kind of sad to think people need to be 'led' in the home.
I have no doubt she's very good at letting you think you're making the final decision.
#cocksman #onestepfromgod #god’swill #dreamteampastor4life
I've probably told this story before, but I'm getting old, so indulge me.
My first year of practicing law. A reverend's wife (late 60s/early 70s) had a botched surgery (something in the abdomen). Sued for med mal. We're defending the doc. My boss tells me I'm deposing her and her husband, in our offices. They've made a loss of consortium claim. Boss tells me I have to ask them about their sex life.
Of course, both answer that they have sex 5 times/ week. (industry average when a pltf atty answers interrogs in Houston at that time). So I ask a series of uncomfortable questions. Very detailed: "So it hurts your stomach during missionary? Have you tried, well [pauses to think up medical/technical term for doggy style]. Do you have oral sex? Who does what? How often?"
Smoking-hot court reporter looking at me like I'm a total degenerate asshole. Pltf atty just staring holes into my head.
Go the bathrooms on a break near the end. At the urinal, and the reverend comes in and pees in the one next to me. Ready to keel over in embarrassment. We finish, and he says "I know you're only doing you job. But I won't lie, that was difficult."
Afterwards, I tell my boss about it and he and the sr. associate just start dying laughing. They tell me they're settling the case, probably the very next day, but just wanted to get me some experience.
One of my jokes with people is that I am a very happy man. How do I know? I just ask my wife.
I had one not long out of school defending a doc. Lady looked like a librarian. Her hubby ordered some wire online and talked her first into stickin it up his ass then through his urethra to tickle his prostate. Reluctantly she did. He got sepsis and died. The expert testified that your ahole is full of shit and best to avoid. ER doc resigned not long after. Who needs it. Depo was awful
Brad and MM66, yikes. Did you guys takes courses at the Kinsey Institute along with law while at IU?
was doing depos of a medical examiner that same week who incidentally had mentioned he had peyronies. i had pages of questions on that that were totally unrelated to anything and my boss was pissed when he got the transcript. but i wanted to know know know. bent pecker was more impt than that legal crap
If I were God the boss would get peyronies and find out what is really important.
Spring '94 I had a Feminism and Marxism class at IU. For extra credit, we could go to Kinsey and they had selected pornography there we had to review and write a paper on (selected by our prof). No child porn, thank god, but some really out there stuff.
I was reviewing with a rather attractive lass from our class one day, and she shows me this ad in one of the mags of a closeup of a nose with a nose ring. One side of the ring was through the septum of the nose, the other through a piercing on a penis directly opposite the nose. I said "damn, I hope that dude didn't sneeze" and the girl and I had our first date the next night.
It's very good. But not exactly apples and oranges, IMO. Apples and Pears, maybe
Take some time to go to the bathroom and get your panties out of that bundle they are in right now.
The shot as a whole is a bad shot by all accounts. I don't watch enough of her or any other women's game to know if it is a shot many women take I just know very few on the men side take it because of its poor success rate.
I have a very good clue when it comes to basketball. I watched the final game (well about 20 minutes of it) and could easily see that the Iowa inside game was average at best. Their inability to rebound was evident, the good looks they did get were directly because of Clark.
I have zero knowledge of who Hannah Stuelke is, but would almost guarantee she would have struggled to be "All" anything if not for Clark. I'm very sorry you got so butt hurt over some of my posts, it must be very frustrating trying to make a point to someone who doesn't give a shit like me.
So hitting 39% when the shot is worth 3 points is now a bad shot? You stand by that statement, Oh Wise and Knowledgeable Basketball Lord?
Brad, your ending up with a date sure beats my experience.
After a Carl Rogers lecture in a psychology course which I never grasped, I admitted my frustrations to a very attractive lassie.
Upon listening to my tale of woe, the Roger's advocate of living each moment thoroughly, responded as follows, "Your lack of daring and rigidity will leave you with a life lacking adaptability".
In other words, my conservative ways of living makes me a complete bore.
Got a similar review after taking a psychological exam for a job in banking. Where do go when you discover you are too conservative to work in a bank?
By conservative, don't mean a political conservative. Mean someone who avoids taking risks.
Hence I put in "on average" you should try to do better or at least read all of my post it would help you understand and not get so upset. I do like the title "Wise and Knowledgeable Basketball Lord" though. I think I will now have all my friends who are well beneath me when it comes to understanding the game call me this.
Hitting 33% of threes is equivalent to shooting 50% from two point range.
That's why a lot of coaches have basically gone away from the midrange game and it's either get a shot on the block or its a three.
I complete understand and agree, my point was the 28-30 foot three. Clark does it well, but it still seems like a poor shot that most shooters can get at any point in a possession. I always say the 3 is the great equalizer or divider of todays game.
No better proof than the Pacer's game last night. Lillard when nuts in the first half many from 3 he turned a 10 point game into a 20+ point game in a matter of minutes.
Probably I'll have one of them reach out to you so you can join them.
I typically keep my circle small!
Oh well you watched 20 minutes of the final game, so yes, you have very good knowledge. If you don’t know who Hannah Stuelke is, then no, you DON’T have very good knowledge. You base your knowledge of Iowa’s game on 20 minutes that you saw? And them playing against a 6’7” All American?
We're not talking about the game as a whole. We're talking about Caitlin Clark.
And as long as you keep thinking success rate is solely tied to your arbitrary percentage of acceptance, the more you prove you don't understand how the game is played. You have to guard her out there. Period. In that you have to guard her out there, it provides more space for others to get shots or even her to get into other shots.
I'm not guessing on this.
This isn't the game you grew up with.
Am I the only one who thinks he's been left hanging when there's a uncontested breakaway and they don't finish with a dunk? I just get ready for it and then... I realize it's wimmins.
That happens, what, once a game at most?
And even in the men's game, I'd guess 1/3 of those breakaways end in layups rather than dunks. Dunks in games aren't super exciting to me unless it's an alley oop or a putback.
Would you move this travesty to the hoops forum.
Yep I'm still able to see after all these years and it only took me 20 minutes. Whether I know a player or not has zero impact on my knowledge? I didn't know several on the UCONN mens team but I knew by the half they were light years better than PU.
I get that the girl from SC was 6'7 and was completely playing above the rim that is probably why the Iowa team looked a bit weak underneath. I actually thought the sophomore on SC's team was way better than the tall girl. I bet she was at least 6'8.
Similar threads
