Jump to content

ImissWallyPryor

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ImissWallyPryor

  1. 8 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

    It was poor form by Major. First of all he should have sat down with Oliver sometime before it came to this blowup and said you're either going to play because your knee is healthy enough to play or you're going to sit for the draft. If it's sit for the draft then you won't be traveling with the team and won't be on the sidelines. It's just a slap in face to the teammates that are playing that he's there jumping around on field before games and on sidelines healthy while quitting on them. 

    Also, it was late 2nd quarter right before half. He should have just waited until they got in the locker room away from TV cameras then have the confrontation. 

    If Opie wants to be able to recruit top guys in the future he needs to learn from this and avoid these kinds of public issues with top players. Unfortunately with the monetary model the way it is players who know they're getting drafted high just aren't going to finish out their last few games anymore going forward. Just have to deal with it better. 

    No one would have noticed if Oliver didn’t go all ‘roid rage. Major didn’t make a big scene about the parka. 

  2. 1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

    I made it through about two minutes. Thanks for posting, but I realize that I really don't much care.

    A summary of why it's shitty to play for Snyder would be welcome, but that's asking you to accommodate my laziness.

    I made it through the first 3 minutes of the hour and a quarter. Watching the whole thing would be my definition of laziness.

    Synopsis please, Pam’s Cumming?

  3. 4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    actually, to be totally pedantic, it was camp creek road. could call it that. camp creek fire. or creek fire. 

    it's just a strange thing for me to focus on. i know that.

    it just seems weird to call a catastrophic fire "the camp fire"

    The name was given long before they realized it was going to be catastrophic. However, you’re correct that a better name could have been chosen. 

  4. 6 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

    LOL at people wondering if Herman will get 3 or 4 years. The guy is about to win 8 (possibly 9) games this year after winning 6 last year. He’s showing improvement and beat a highly ranked sooner team this year. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. I agree that he definitely needs to work on in-game management issues (I would argue that he’s learned from some mistakes last year and is better about taking points in the form of field goals than he did last season) and the defense needs to get their shit together. The offense is leaps and bounds ahead of where they were last year, we have a competent kicking game. Give him a little time to pull it all together.

    41JAPWTAGcL._SY300_.jpg

    Remember where you are.

  5. The My sister, wife, BIL, and daughter were in Cleveland for the US Figure Skating Championships about a decade ago (I had to miss that one, lulz), and they decided to tour the house where The Christmas Story movie was filmed. 

    My wife and BIL both had to use the restroom, and my BIL let me wife go first. Big mistake, as she takes forever even to tinkle. He started getting an attack like the reporter in white pants, but as anyone who knew him could predict, there would be nothing dainty about his blowout.

    He not only shit his underwear, he leaked copious amounts of diarrhea on the floor. It got worse when the worker came with a wet mop and started smearing it around.

    I can’t recall how they improvised to get him to the car without wearing his soiled pants, but I’m sure it was disturbing.

    He was a big Democrat and USC fan, fwiw. Just thought I’d throw that in because I know he’d appreciate it. 

    • Haha 1
  6. 1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

    Totally agree on your first point, not totally sure where you’re headed with your question but I’ll address it to say I think those situations are equally bad.  

    That’s basically my point. Single mothers (or two mommies) can’t show by example how a man should behave. A father who consistently exhibits poor control may be worse than a single mom, but most fathers show control most of the time. A father who can almost always control himself offers something no single mother can offer. I will go out on a limb and say that often a good single dad (rare as they are) can do a better job with daughters because most fathers (not all) can control their daughters better than moms can control their sons once those sons realize that they are stronger than their mom.

  7. 9 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

    I wasn’t correlating that to mass shootings.  It was in response to someone’s comment about “these young men need to be outside, active, and throwing rocks against trees, etc”.    

     

    Im relating it to the point that from an early age now, we are telling our sons that they need to be calm, inactive, indoor people.   They need to be outside playing and expending energy rather than over-medicated.  

    Society is telling them from an early age that being a boy is frowned upon.  We want everyone the same.   Our nightly news is telling men the same thing.  That’s not to say it’s ok by any stretch to treat women with disrespect and intimidation...not by a damn sight.   It’s to say that boys and men are different.    They’re rambunctious when they’re young.   Men are still going to be more aggressive, just have to learn to harness it.   But the more we isolate them and Medicate them, the more they will drift into this modern world of introvertedness and depression.   

    All that is complicated by the fact that far too many boys are raised without fathers. That’s how they learn to control their testosterone-fueled behaviors. Is having no father really that much better than having a father who has trouble controlling himself?

  8. 6 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

     


    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. BUT making it harder to get guns would presumably lead to a reduction in gun access. Is it a solution? Not at all. But if it prevents access for 1 out of 100 crazy people, then I’d say it’s worth whatever additional hoops the rest of us have to jump through.

    Now for his dude...former military, no known history of mental illness (per early reports)... I can’t imagine any type of gun control measures could’ve prevented it. Extended magazines on a glock probably shouldn’t exist, but if the reports are to be believed, his first two rounds were kill shots (bouncer, cashier, whoever). So maybe it’s a slightly lesser death toll? That’s a pretty depressing thought. On the other hand, we don’t know yet (and maybe never will) if he tried to get an AR but couldn’t. If that were the case, then maybe we’re looking at a death toll of 20+

     

    I know you don’t mean literally 1 out of 100,  but we’d never know even if it was 1 out of 10. There were roughly 20 listed in the Twitter link posted above.

  9. 52 minutes ago, BlueGreySky said:

     

    +rep You should post that as a lead-in to a separate thread. It would get lost in the regular millennials suck...no, olds suck shitfest threads.

    My first reaction to that was that this guy has a very punchable face, and I don’t want to listen to his smugness. But, I’m really glad I listened to all 15:01.

    He nails so much of what’s “wrong” with millennials, but spreads the blame around fairly. And the blame is mostly on my generation and a blind corporate world.

    I’ve come to realize that my kids became teens and young adults at the exact worst time for me as a parent. Social media, smart phones, etc. went from nothing to everything right before my eyes, but I was always a step or two behind. Parents of young teens and pre-teens now have no excuse for not being aware of the pitfalls of technology. I know I’d raise my kids differently five years later. 

    My oldest didn’t get his first smart phone until midway through his Freshman year in college, and he was behind most of his friends. My youngest had hers much earlier, and it’s clear that her earlier exposure has affected her in a much less positive way compared to him. The middle two are somewhere in the middle.

    I heard recently about a prominent private school in Silicon Valley that is popular with tech execs. However, the school is basically paper only with little or no computers. And smart phones are banned. It’s like tobacco execs not allowing their kids to have access to cigarettes, except the SV execs are practicing a moderated use of technology. 

  10. 50 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    First, hording would tighten up supply making everything more expensive.  Possibly out of the price range of a nutjob.  Second, a seller would be committing an illegal transaction when selling a weapon.  So right now, when they track this shooter's gun purchase, it traces back to the store, and the store has 0 liability.  One thing you will notice when mass shooting events occur is that every single time, investigators have no issue finding the point of sale or transfer that put the gun in the shooter's hands.  If these same mentally unstable individuals are forced to attempt a black market purchase, they'd be leading investigators right to the seller's door.  So the black market seller would be an accessory to mass murder once we change the law to put some liability on the seller.  This purchase is different than the typical black market gun purchase for intentional use.   A gang member isn't going to talk and isn't publishing twitter manifestos, and I don't think changes in the law will stop those targeted types of murder.  It will severely reduce the chance of random mass shooting events, however.

     

    Guns are not equivalent to drugs.  A drug addict is going to be a repeat customer.  Always going back to get a fix.  A mass shooter is a one time customer who will bring the police to the dealer's door.

    You’re right that guns aren’t drugs, and the black market wouldn’t be the same. My point wasn’t that it would be the same, just that it would exist. 

    I still think that once restrictions on gun sales reach a tipping point, there will be a black market for currently legal guns and accessories. There is already a black market for illegal weapons, ammunition, and explosives, and I think that market would explode (figuratively) if we outlawed items that people can now freely purchase simply because of the massive increase in the number of potential buyers. 

  11. 27 minutes ago, Constant said:

     

    That trend pretty much mirrors the proliferation of social media. 

    Speaking of which, my New Years Day resolutions are going to include spending less time on Surly...right after NSD. 

×
×
  • Create New...