Vaccine

whatithink said:
I have to disagree on the last point. Legacy is a great facility, but grass is king. My son said he'd take 7/10 grass over 10/10 turf any day. He's played at Legacy and would take Reach (excluding field 1) every time. He only cares about the field, not the facility.

I still play and would take grass over artificial every time also, the impact on my (admittedly old) body is night & day different.

That said, I do think more games will be rotated to Legacy - shiny new toy and all that, and everything in one place given the number of fields.
Click to expand...
They have grass fields going in as well.

I do like grass better vs turf as well.
 
Desert Hound said:
For those who are genuinely concerned about climate change, they should be advocating nuclear power. That is a power source for our factories/cities/electric cars that doesn't give off emissions. And yet most in the movement will not cross that bridge.
Click to expand...
We have too many Charlie Brown's with pantophobia and too many ideologues. It's not a good mix for reasoned problem-solving and my impression is that we have become less able to appropriately assess risk/reward. Of course, when those overseeing endeavors with risk fall short in their responsibilities of transparency, such as in gain of function research, some of it is justified.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I can accept that . . . with the exception of the “Hound and I” part. That is certainly up for debate. And yes when your links expose an opinion writer with a known slanted agenda or fabricated from whole cloth data, yes those don’t work for me.
Espola attempts to engage in meaningful debate of which is too often stifled when he doesn’t just accept that which hasn’t been vetted . . . and then the predictable name calling ensues. Dad tries his best to keep things above board but the trolls from your side of the pitch, and yes you at times, insist on insisting.
I’m just in the peanut gallery trying to understand how this country has swayed so far from being United. Many forces are trying to divide the US (and other democracies) for their own gain.
Thanks, rant over for now.
Click to expand...
Coocoos and nonsense are not meaningful debate.
if you want toknow why we are divided look in the mirror. You dismiss everyone that disagrees with you as slanted, condemn the bad behavior of the side you disagree with but are perfectly fine with and defend folks like espola or the repeated hypocrisy of dad4.
or as my Orwellian translator puts it: “I don’t like anyone that disagrees with me and if you disagree with my overwhelmingly right and virtuous opinions, you are a fringe lunatic and dividing us. Meanwhile those that agree with me can do no wrong because they are on the side of right and virtue”
And no you arent the peanut gallery. You know it, i know it and everyone here knows it. You are trolling but just aren’t as good as the others at it (even soccermavericky does it better). You are as transparent as glass.
 
Grace T. said:
You, the king of the subtle insult, just love to play the victim, particularly when your own behavior is called into question. Again don’t tell me it’s an emergency if you are going ahead adestroying the planet yourself. And it’s not just the having children thing. You do club soccer with the extra driving involved which is bad for the environment, are all for Arizona tournaments and let’s not forget the blind eye you turned towards the damage masks are doing let alone your takeout containers. But everyone else you expect to sacrifice a little.

and again just like the let’s just mask and do internal dining, you don’t comprehend the size of the problem or the time factor. It’s not a static problem. It’s one that gets worse since everyone wants to be the us and live the us lifestyle. Just having a single family home for all those families would be ecologically ruinous let alone a dog and hamburgers for all of them. The problem is under the water and you are just concerned with the ice berg tip.

and I posted the video for why on why electric cars aren’t as much of a savings as you think. You are better off driving an existing beater into the ground than manufacturing a new Tesla.
Click to expand...
2/3 of that was ad-homimnems. With respect the the policy points,

Better off fixing an old car than driving a new one? Sure. But old cars don’t last forever, so we will still make new ones. The question is just what type they should be. I’ll happily agree that the oversize battery in a Tesla undoes much of the benefit of having an electric in the first place. So don’t choose a Tesla. Choose cars that are actually efficient.

The world is in trouble if all of China and India decide to live on quarter acre lots and eat hamburgers? True. But there is room for each of us to have a nice 3 bedroom flat and a chicken sandwich.

Will the Kennedys complain if we put windmills in their view? Maybe. Put windmills in their view anyway. And raise the taxes on their aviation fuel while you’re at it.

The point remains that we can eliminate well over half of electricity and transportation emissions by changing zoning, upgrading long distance transmission lines and switching power generation to wind, solar, and nuclear. Expensive, but better than not doing it.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
We have too many Charlie Brown's with pantophobia and too many ideologues. It's not a good mix for reasoned problem-solving and my impression is that we have become less able to appropriately assess risk/reward. Of course, when those overseeing endeavors with risk fall short in their responsibilities of transparency, such as in gain of function research, some of it is justified.
Click to expand...
The criticism of the left is it mostly cares about feelings (and there is some data to back this up…Jordan Peterson is always throwing it about). The criticism of the right is that it is callous and lacks compassion. But if you are concerned with feelings, problem-solving is a different part of the brain (reason) and feelings don’t care about risk/reward. Feelings only care about being validated and satisfied.
 
Grace T. said:
Again your comprehension is lacking. The point is I’m just not the only one that holds you in such high esteem. If you are going to damn me, feel free to critique that I’m not clever enough to make it up myself…though I certainly enjoy being the one to shove it in your face.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension! Drink!
 
Grace T. said:
The criticism of the left is it mostly cares about feelings (and there is some data to back this up…Jordan Peterson is always throwing it about). The criticism of the right is that it is callous and lacks compassion. But if you are concerned with feelings, problem-solving is a different part of the brain (reason) and feelings don’t care about risk/reward. Feelings only care about being validated and satisfied.
Click to expand...

It's not always left v. right. Sometimes it's truth v. fantasy.
 
dad4 said:
2/3 of that was ad-homimnems. With respect the the policy points,

Better off fixing an old car than driving a new one? Sure. But old cars don’t last forever, so we will still make new ones. The question is just what type they should be. I’ll happily agree that the oversize battery in a Tesla undoes much of the benefit of having an electric in the first place. So don’t choose a Tesla. Choose cars that are actually efficient.

The world is in trouble if all of China and India decide to live on quarter acre lots and eat hamburgers? True. But there is room for each of us to have a nice 3 bedroom flat and a chicken sandwich.

Will the Kennedys complain if we put windmills in their view? Maybe. Put windmills in their view anyway. And raise the taxes on their aviation fuel while you’re at it.

The point remains that we can eliminate well over half of electricity and transportation emissions by changing zoning, upgrading long distance transmission lines and switching power generation to wind, solar, and nuclear. Expensive, but better than not doing it.
Click to expand...
A world where folks have a 3 bedroom flat and eat chicken sandwiches is not going to happen. You want Venezuela light I see. If you think such sacrifice is easy you can start by pulling your kid out of travel soccer and telling her you’ll only pay for a local school. My burger may be very well important to me (not to mention the cow bone to my dog). If you aren’t prepared to show we are in an emergency by changing your life, don’t lecture me about mine. And unless you are prepared to execute the bolivaran revolution to force that, you are preaching again (only this time doing it badly since you aren’t even walking the walking but preaching hellfire and damnation while everyone knows the preacher is going out to the Whore house on saturdays and Sundays). And what’s worse is you put a cherry on top of it all with your masks and takeout (which hopefully is all vegetarian or chicken).
And don’t decry “oh the ads”. Pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of urgency isn’t an ad (it’s showing you don’t believe your own message and just want to virtue signal to feel good about yourself). And you’ve lost that right anyhow oh king of the subtle insult.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
We have too many Charlie Brown's with pantophobia and too many ideologues. It's not a good mix for reasoned problem-solving and my impression is that we have become less able to appropriately assess risk/reward. Of course, when those overseeing endeavors with risk fall short in their responsibilities of transparency, such as in gain of function research, some of it is justified.
Click to expand...

Pantophobia? I had to look that one up.

I myself have a fear of misplaced apostrophes.

Don't fear the apostrophe

grammarguide.copydesk.org grammarguide.copydesk.org

Actually, it's more like a distaste than a fear.

And what is missing from the transparency about gain of function research?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
They use the “all or nothing” like a crutch.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of "all or nothing", its a matter of substance over form. The left is the king of virtue signaling. Paper straws for example. (and I couldn't care less what my straws are made out of but paper straws have zero green impact). Population control is a non-starter; whereas, nuclear power and battery technology would be a great place to start as opposed to crazy diesel engine regulations that only increase the cost of everything and provide little benefit to the environment. It's also the less privileged that are hurt the most by the token "green" regulations. It's easy to say drive a electric car when you can afford it and have charging access at your home. Not so easy when you can't afford one and live in an apartment.

To take a page out of Grace's book, we need to do what works not what feels good. If does both great!
 
watfly said:
It's not a matter of "all or nothing", its a matter of substance over form. The left is the king of virtue signaling. Paper straws for example. (and I couldn't care less what my straws are made out of but paper straws have zero green impact). Population control is a non-starter; whereas, nuclear power and battery technology would be a great place to start as opposed to crazy diesel engine regulations that only increase the cost of everything and provide little benefit to the environment. It's also the less privileged that are hurt the most by the token "green" regulations. It's easy to say drive a electric car when you can afford it and have charging access at your home. Not so easy when you can't afford one and live in an apartment.

To take a page out of Grace's book, we need to do what works not what feels good. If does both great!
Click to expand...

I drive an E85 car, which is sort of a compromise, especially when I need fuel and there is no E85 station available so I have to use regular gasoline.

To confess, I didn't do this as a result of a drawn-out research plan into green alternatives. My wife's car was totaled due to a flood (in Rancho Bernardo, no less) and her car-savvy friend found this car as a short-term replacement until she got the bigger car she wanted for her real estate business. Then it became mine, replacing the 25-year-old pickup I had been driving for years.
 
Grace T. said:
Complaining about ads and playing the victim all while doing the subtle dig….chug!
Click to expand...
So reply to the policy items and stop calling other people stupid.

Very large CO2 emissions reductions are possible by changing zoning, upgrading y[transmission lines, building non-fossil fuel power generation, and choosing small electric cars for most new vehicles. Ball is in your court.
 
espola said:
I drive an E85 car, which is sort of a compromise, especially when I need fuel and there is no E85 station available so I have to use regular gasoline.

To confess, I didn't do this as a result of a drawn-out research plan into green alternatives. My wife's car was totaled due to a flood (in Rancho Bernardo, no less) and her car-savvy friend found this car as a short-term replacement until she got the bigger car she wanted for her real estate business. Then it became mine, replacing the 25-year-old pickup I had been driving for years.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hesitate to buy an electric car when its time for a new car. I'm not a fan of ethanol as a solution, not being critical of your E85, just from what I've read I don't think its a good way to go (energy and land required to produce it, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top