Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13701
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Lol wut?  Where do you get this  about change of heart?  Perhaps there is some context I am missing here, but Constant's "change of heart," whatever that refers to, was not in my mind in any way shape or form when I posted.

    I was referring to this post:

    4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    In Constant's defense, he laid out what should be in a narcotic search warrant:

    The problem is, there was only a single "informant buy" there, and that even apparently was bullshit.  I think Constant made that post before the contents of the warrant were made public.  I imagine that he would admit that that was a suspiciously skimpy search warrant affidavit.

    This is where you made an assumption about how Constant would now view things differently based on additional information. I think the miscommunication here was based on the fact I only quoted one of your replies in my initial snarky post but was actually replying to more than one reply's worth of content.

    1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

    Twice and Huck..

    If you don't mind, let's focus on the real issue here, which isn't a single Surly poster.

    My anti-WOD rant is being interrupted and got dayum I like my soap box to be the center of attention.

    You can't tell me what to do, copper!

  2. I offered a small defense of a specific statement, not a universal one of his character or motives or of police generally or him specifically.  I take issue with your last sentence.
    What I get testy about is people mischaracterizing what I said because they think they understand where I am coming from or even what I actually said, when they apparently do not.  Also being called a "troll," which is the current de rigueur for anyone espousing a view contrary to the orthodoxy and daring to persist in it. I have posted the same way on Texas boards for 20 someodd years without being called a troll.  Granted, in that interim, some of my views have changed and hardened.
    I try to be consistent, I don't claim to always be.  I am, after all, human.  And some cases, like the Guyger case pit someone acting under color of government authority (Guyger) against government authority (the DPD and the Dallas County DA), and, in that case, you kind of have to root for government authority, while also being skeptical of their motives and actions.
    I appreciate the response but to be accurate you didn't simply offer a small defense of a specific statement, you also hypothesized a change of heart on his part based on new information and then defended his disappearance from the discussion and failure to actually indicate that change of heart on his own behalf.
  3. 4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    It always amazed me how in Austin you’d be on a road with say a 45 mph speed limit, and then it would have a stretch with a 20 mph school zone, and then a sharp curve or something else that reduced the recommended speed, and 90% of the drivers would just go a constant 35 mph through all of that.

    Yes, this is what I'm talking about. Austin drivers have always seemed to just pick some random speed 10-15mph under the speed limit and just travel that speed regardless of conditions or traffic changes.

    The school zone thing extends elsewhere, though. Seems like lots of drivers just don't take those things seriously. I go through four school zones on the way to work if I take surface streets here in the Houston suburbs and frequently see cars make zero speed adjustment for them.

  4. 15 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    Curious as well.  I think the natural differences are stark and it's not exactly a fine line in between the two.  I don't think there would be any natural blending where low T males test as female and high T females test as males.

    Caster Semenya is a very difficult case (similar to Dutee Chand). Her situation was handled terribly with leaked information and an invasion into her privacy. That being said, I'm not sure what the situation should be for competitors like her. The natural testosterone level for females is 0.5 and 2.5 while for men it is between 10.5 and 34.5 or so. Based on results they had from testing it seems there is overlap among Olympic athletes, though, much more than those normal ranges would seem to indicate. That is apparently based on this article:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen.12445

    although unfortunately the bias of the authors is readily apparent from the introduction, although to they're credit they are open about that bias. Either way I don't have access to the full text so their statement that there is "complete overlap between the sexes" when it comes to testosterone levels could mean lots of different things.

  5. 31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Eh.  While making an appearance on this thread would be a bold and brave thing, I'm not sure I'm going to fault him for not doing so.

    I thought your claim was that you always distrust governmental authority. You've whined about how you get flamed because you are so super consistent. Here you're defending a police officer and fighting to assume that he's pure and good and defending him from others questioning his motives.

  6. 8 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

    Should there be weight classes in boxing and wrestling? What about age limits for professional football? They are there for a specific reason. I know you may not be arguing the pro on this, but it becomes a safety issue before we enter into the politics. Women don’t play in the NFL because they would get killed. I remember a story about 10 years ago when Serena Williams lost to the (Don’t quote me) #400 ranked men’s tennis player in the world. The reason the WNBA struggles isn’t due to sexism, it’s the quality of play. The Sparks vs. The Mavericks wouldn’t be much of a contest.

    Further, how do you deal with anti-doping? If shooting up testosterone is forbidden, it should be forbidden across the board.

    Yes, they are there for competitive reasons. All you're doing is reinforcing my point.

  7. 16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    I think you're just hoping to stir up trouble by ironically supporting the criticism of Navratilova. 

    I think the stand that most tolerant people take regarding transgenderism is that the evidence shows that the sexual spectrum is not a neat and tidy division between between black and white. This untidiness is what, in my opinion, mysteriously alarms most intolerant people.

    The issue of competition in gender separated sports illuminates a place where the emergent realization of sexual complexity disrupts the belief/desire for a clear line. 

    Navratilova raises a valid issue that sprang up with Rene Richards decades ago. I don't know what the answer is. Trans persons who started with a female frame wouldn't have an advantage among elite female athletes. A trans person who started as formidable male athlete would seem to be unfair on the playing field. On the other hand, you don't want to stigmatize someone who was born in the untidy part of the sexual spectrum.

    I can only guess that if I, a man who when younger was a powerful football lineman with speed, were to align my identity to become a female, I would feel like I had an unfair advantage over other women in many physical contests. I wouldn't feel that way if I were 5'10 and 160 pounds.

    How do you work the rules and laws to accommodate that? I have no idea.

    Finally, I want to be clear that my use of untidy in no way implies dirty or wrong.

     

    14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    Your logic is flawed. Ultimately, gender is a set of behaviors. And there is  evidence that gender itself (like many behaviors) has a biological/developmental link (for instance exposure to certain hormones at critical times in development) and is established early in life. While the vast majority of males (sex) are born as men (gender) and thus have the behavioral attributes of men, some do not. The a similar pattern is true of females (sex). There is no harm in recognizing that same males are born as women and that some females are born as men, nor in using that taxonomy in social settings.

    Sports are a different matter due to the importance of testosterone. While gender is a social classification, sex is indisputably grounded in biology, in particular the presence and level of the sex hormones. And the male sex is equipped with an abundance of testosterone, resulting in greater physical strength.  Using sex as the primary classification for sports makes sense given that distinction. That doesn't obliterate the usefulness or necessity of using gender (as opposed to sex) in other social settings.  

     

     

    1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    This is really the only answer.  If we're saying gender is a social construct, then it should have no place in sports.  One gender for everyone.  Football, basketball, soccer, et al.  

    If we're all truly equal, let's quit dividing up the field. 

    This is the entire problem right here, and I'm pretty sure it's the entire problem with all transgendered discussions these days. That's the inability to differentiate between sex and gender. As Dahobbs alluded to, sports are not divided by gender for social reasons, they are divided by sex for competitive reasons.

    The inability to understand that gender and sex are different things creates conflict where there should be none. Transgender rights supporters cause more long-term problems than they do good because they are just as bad about conflating the two.

    There should not be men's and women's sports, or boys' and girls' sports in high school and below. There are male and female divisions. There can be women in the male division and men in the female division. Testosterone level is a reasonable measure at this point but it's my personal opinion that if you developed into and or through adolescence with testes and the associated levels of testosterone then you should be ineligible for the female division in sports. Your physical development was significantly aided by testosterone and there's not really a good denial for that that I've seen. If there is scientific evidence or literature indicating that being below a certain threshold of testosterone for 12 months reverses all previous musculoskeletal benefits I'm certainly willing to read it. They certainly regress in their performance but I'm not sure I believe that their performance regresses to where it would have been without the testosterone boost.

    But now it is a political minefield specifically because everyone always has and even more importantly still refers to them as men's and women's sports. The IAAF has made efforts to change that and now refer to the testing as "female classification" instead of gender verification.

    • Like 5
  8. Lulz. This was a ridiculous setup of self-serving questions. Tyler won’t be depth in 2019 and we don’t really need extra depth help in 2020. 
    He’s Relevant to the 2020 guys in terms of numbers. We have limited scholarships and are also looking to take a class of 5 OL in 2020. My point is, I’d much prefer all the 2020 guys over him. I doubt he’ll provide depth in 2019. He’s literally played OL for all of one year. 
    by 2020 we’ll have Cosmi, Kerstetter, Moore, Jones, Johnson, Shepherd and Hookfin all as OTs with at least one year in the program, just like Tyler. My point is, Tyler’s not some experienced guy ready to play. He’s much more akin to HS prospect than a two year JUCO or GT because he’s played OL for one season in his entire life. I’d rather use the spot for 2020 HS prospects
    It was one question and your sensitivity kept you from seeing the point. 2020 OL should have absolutely nothing to do with the Tyler decision. They are 2 years apart.
    • Like 1
  9. Do you want 2020 recruits playing on the OL in 2020? Of course not and probably not in 2021 either, so if the staff thinks Tyler could be a contributor in either of those years he still might be a take. He should be compared to Moore, Ghirmai, and Jones in terms of timelines. 2020 OL shouldn't even really enter the equation.

    • Like 4
  10. 4 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

    Total speculation but I wouldn't be shocked if Drayton is gone. His twitter has been completely dead for over 2 weeks now. He's not following recruits, he's not tweeting anything, he's not liking anything. 

    Hand has also been following a lot of RB recruits like he's taking over that recruiting effort. 

    The lack of activity from Drayton is odd if he's staying on staff. 

    Drayton's twitter has 253 tweets all time. Has it not always been dead? Serious question.

    • Like 1
  11. 11 minutes ago, Machinator said:

    The irony was not lost on me. That said, Mack's initial staff at UNC is very good and they're doing work on the recruiting trail early on.

    I think Brown will be successful in Chapel Hill, at least for a little while. I think he has a lot of pride that was hurt pretty bad by the way things ended here. I am certainly not calling him a victim in all that, but I think that Brown realizes that there is no ghost of Darrell Royal equivalent in North Carolina and that he has the ability to retire as clearly the best coach in Tarheel history if things go well. Heck, with his 4th win this season he will become the all time winningest UNC head coach.

  12. On 2/16/2019 at 1:16 AM, gsoda3 said:

    since 2000 includes the year 2000.  after 2000 would omit the year 2000. 

    I disagree, since means in the intervening time between the moment in time mentioned and now. If it's since 2000 I would interpret that as starting in 2001, but I understand both interpretations.

    If players on the 2000 team are eligible then anyone who doesn't answer Casey Hampton is a fool.

  13. Unfortunately, the idiotic Big 12 Championship game is going to continue to be a fucking Texas-OU rematch for the foreseeable future. We will need to beat those sister fuckers twice, which is very fucking difficult. 
    They didn't need to beat us twice.
    • Like 3
  14. satyanash prefers physically sculpted 17-year-olds who have refined their diets and weight-lifting techniques to reach their maximum physical peak before their senior year of high school starts.

    You know, because that would be fantastic for the college that signs them. Really good from a prospect perspective.

×
×
  • Create New...