LongJim

S/he was there, yep.

Yeah, I think you're probably right.

This is not a gripe, but I felt like UNT's pep band got overshadowed by Texas State's band last night. That should NEVER happen. TSU did have a bigger band, and were augmented by low brass that UNT didn't have, but I thought they were tighter and it just wasn't UNT's best showing. On the bright side, UNT's cheer and pom >> TSU's. Felt kind of bad for TSU regarding that aspect of the presentation. This is important stuff. Worthy of concern.

Enjoyed the hell out of the game. Glad I was there. Quit reading game threads years ago.

So do I.

This war is the perfect example of why the second amendment is so important.

What would make it "move the needle" for you? I'm open to your thoughts on this.

I think his remarks were thoughtful and rational. In fact, I'd say his is a much better and more open-minded viewpoint than those that several spineless leaders of universities across the country have taken during the past couple of years.

I think you'd be surprised at how many folks have experience with what you describe. And who those people might be. Different suggestions or ideas about how to address the issue don't necessarily mean that people don't have compassion or desire to help in some way.

Mixed feelings on the dollars for dopers thing. I think sensible methods to reduce the spread of disease is a good idea. In general, I think if a community has a need for it, and feels it would serve that community to have the service, then it should be financed at that level of government--if government must fund it at all. It's not the job of the federal government, and federal tax dollars shouldn't be spent on it.

I think as long as the athletes don't mention any issues regarding organ harvesting, prison camps, or forced sterilization, they'll be fine. I mean, it worked in 1936.

No disagreement from me regarding the absurdity contained in the article and regarding the event you reference. But that's politics, so can't get into it here anyway.

I agree that the BMI is an outdated, semi-useless measurement. I think the cards themselves are a bit wussy, and over the top, but people are different and I'm sure they are necessary for some, and that's ok, if so. And this place shouldn't ever be a place where we can't disagree. Sometimes forcefully. To have a conversation, you have to risk being offended. If you can't handle that, then you probably need to sit it out. It's when things get personal that there's a problem.

That was great!

It's un-American. For me, it boils down to--do you want to be in control of the information you take in and the ability to act on that info as you wish, or do you want someone else to be in control of that information, and what you do with it?

Cinnamon Girl is my jam.

Yeah, I've never listened to the guy. Our grandfathers told us: "Don't listen to that guy. He's a fool." I think that still applies today. At some point, people have to have some agency in their own lives. I disagree completely about the actual "issue", but I get where you're coming from.

Yeah, I don't disagree here. But I think there's probably a tipping point. And I say that as someone who could stand to lose a few.

This is not a comparable example. The theatergoers do not control the messenger. The theatergoers are a captive audience. They did not freely choose to hear the shout--and in fact, do not want to hear a shout of "fire", because there is possible immediate danger of death or injury. But they cannot avoid the message. Based on the undesirable but unavoidable message, they must decide to leave or stay immediately. The Spotify listener can decide beforehand whether to listen at his leisure, because he is in no danger of immediate death or injury, and he controls the messenger. He does have the same option as the theatergoers--leave or stay. The Spotify listener is not a captive audience, and makes the choice to listen in the first place. He does not control the message, but he can avoid it because he controls the messenger. The theatergoers cannot.

Interesting. The article states: "They’re a subtle way to send a strong message to medical staff: “Please don’t weigh me unless it’s (really) medically necessary. If you really need my weight, please tell me why so that I can give you my informed consent” Boy--You're Gonna Carry That Weight. Carry That Weight A Long Tiiime!

Another article in the Daily Beast about Young's "activism". I don't know. He's got his opinions. Some might argue that they're misguided, or that he's an opportunist. Or that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Which is status quo for most of us. ************************************** "For his stance, Young is basking in praise as a principled musician willing to sacrifice his own streaming revenue in the name of science, technological progress, and public health. This is the same Neil Young who in 2015 released an entire album, The Monsanto Years, that’s wall-to-wall songs from an anti-biotechnology point of view. Young’s anti-GMO rhetoric helped fuel a narrative that made it easy to spread fear and distrust about COVID vaccines, most of which used novel biotechnology methods and some of which use genetic engineering. A collective amnesia has set in amongst progressives regarding the left’s past pandering to the anti-biotechnology movement. Reactionary luddism—especially around biotechnology—was both politically correct and convenient for progressive celebrity activists. But that was in the “before times.” The anti-GMO movement—which rose to prominence in the mid 1990s and early 2000s—attained a key legislative win in 2014 when Vermont mandated GMO labeling of food. Activists insisted it was vital information for consumers to make informed choices, despite wide scientific agreement that they’re safe for consumption. In fact, not only were GMOs not a threat to human health, they’ve been a boon to it, much like the insulin that has kept Neil Young alive for most of his life. Vitamin A-enriched golden rice, for example, could have saved millions of lives and help prevent child blindness, were it not stymied by anti-GMO activists." Well I heard ol' Neil put her down.

I don't think anyone is arguing your points. I'm certainly not.

The dude wrote Ohio. Kind of a turnaround for the Old Man. Young basically reminded us that he's a lot like we are. Spotify don't need him around, anyhow.

Do you think this happened because of good coaching, or can it be attributed to everything SL learned from Graham Harrell?