Jump to content

27-25

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 27-25

  1. 1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

    Uh, no. He was widely castigated by progressives during the primaries because he was McKinsey trained, white, and because in reality he isn't really all that progressive, he's a centrist

    He just seems progressive compared to Republicans. 

    One of the reasons I love him (no homo).  We could use some more centrists around here.  Of course many such people are still labeled socialists, so it's hard to tell sometimes.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. Just now, gmr548 said:


    I eagerly await the day you put a seven figure contract at risk for a meaningless one off project in your profession.

    I didn't say they couldn't make that choice.  They did.  But if they wanted to be in the game, they would be.  I'm not blasting them for their choice.  I'm just perplexed by the phrases used to paint this as something beyond their control.  It's not.  It is a risk, sure.  Simple enough.

    And if the game is meaningless, then why are ANY players on the field?  Hell, if one just won the Doak Walker/Heisman award AND their team were in the playoffs should they play?  I mean, it's "meaningless", right?  That player will be get a fat NFL contract regardless.

  3. 18 minutes ago, Alphie Solomons. said:

    Say what you want about the players on the sideline.   I'm pretty confident that they are there to be with their crew for the 'passing of the torch' and are now watching this shitfest and NO ONE ANYWHERE wants Bijan/Rochon in this game more than Bijan/Rochon at this moment and that will be audibly expressed during this halftime break. 

    promise you that. 

    They may want Texas to win and I suspect they do fervently.  But they don't want to be in the game.  They chose not to play.  If they were injured or barred from playing then that's another story.  If they wanted to play they would be suited up and our run game would at the very least be improved, if not serviceable.

  4. 1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

    does the runoff contain enough lead to cause concern?  i hadn't heard of issues with the old roof but maybe all the lead had leached out over 700 years?

    The video above mentioned the problem with lead dust.  It's one of the things holding up other restoration work.  I read elsewhere that the powers that be who decided to go with a lead roof to maintain historical consistency boasted that the new runoff system will have some mechanism in place to catch and filter water.

    So everyone seems to agree that lead is a health problem.  There is a slight runoff risk that will be mitigated.  The fire showed there is a great lead dust risk should another fire break out.

    We don't generally insist on asbestos when renovating structures that used that in the past.  Historical accuracy should have limits of some kind.

×
×
  • Create New...