WhiteWonder

it's my opinion and my guess. I can edit my statement if it makes you feel better. I don't have time to sift through all of your posts on social issues but I feel certain there are instances where you have referenced or directly quoted someone from a particular group when supporting your stances.

yet if he was saying something that supported your personal view, you wouldn't hesitate to use his race to identify him as more merit worthy.

I mean, I think that is sort of answered by the things she addresses before making that comment.

Very interesting. I feel like I want to force myself to say no just because it sounds ridiculous to say yes. My regular scramble group would be a clear cut no as I often play with 2 guys who can't break 100 on their own but they still contribute a few useable shots. If I had my 3 BEST partners from all the various outings I play in? It might be possible to make the cut as I don't think distance would be a tremendous issue. Last weeks winner, Brian Campbell averages like 277 off the tee. Between myself and 3 other guys who drive it as long or longer than me, taking our best drive each hole I think we would average over 280. Putting difficulty would be somewhat mitigated by scramble strategy, watching the first putt for break and speed and once you are in pocket, freedom to be aggressive. The John Deere cut was -5. My bad scramble groups shoot -8. I think the best guys together would shoot -14. Move us back to the tips, and add PGA green speeds and I think we might be able to hover around that -4/-5 cut line. I actually don't think we would win an LPGA major. womens US Open winner was -7. Some of them averaged over 270 off the tee for the event. I'm not sure the distance difference is much of an advantage because in either scenario the short game and putting is going to be the most important and professional women have some phenomenal short games.

We didn’t have one for 2022 so putting this out there ahead of time. Have had some nice days in the 70s here (northern NJ) lately. Getting a few rounds in when normally I’m done for the season. Back in August I adjusted my driver to lower loft so it’s now playing as a 7.5 degree. Didn’t take as long to get used to as I expected and it added some good distance

I'm not sure I see playing from behind as a huge hindrance. After Bowers, Jeanty may find himself getting the most targets in catchup mode. So if you are in PPR, that may actually help him. We all know fantasy is vastly different from reality and garbage time stats count just as much as any. As for redraft round 1, I am not yet sure where I would take him. I mostly play in league that still require starting 2 RB which usually has me finishing up the first 2 rounds with an RB on my roster. But I would likely pick a bunch of WRs before him and in terms of RBs alone, Bijan, Barkley, Gibbs, Henry, and unpopular opinion but if I am drafting in late August or around labor day weekend and CMC looks healthy.... So I guess if you zoom in on JUST the RB's I can see him potentially being #5. Achane, Taylor, Irving, Jacobs? Are any of those options a slam dunk over fresh legs we know will be featured? I wouldn't argue against any of them going before or after Jeanty. So the 5-10 range seems correct.

That's wildly different than a redraft. I could see Jeanty going before Bijan or Gibbs if someone believe in him and thinks they will get 2-3 years extra production. Though I think in a dynasty there are a few WRs I would lean toward over any of the RBs. Depends on starting lineup requirements. With 1 flex, I would rather build my team around 3 WRs who will hold their value longer edit to add: I would be wary of picking Puka that high due to Stafford's age and what will be an unknown QB situation moving forward. CeeDee and Amon Ra stand out to me more in dynasty startup drafts.

His Dad was my moms doctor (plenty of jokes here I'm sure) He should sit down and shut up, or sit in a box. Heckling etc should be expected and I really don't think its any different AT a game now than it was 20-30 years ago. The only difference now is off the field with social media harassment of players which they really don't deserve.

that would be another one and if there is a good view I would sit wherever is best for it.

I was waiting for the Rays new stadium before taking a trip there for a game but of course they have abandoned those plans due to the hurricane damage to the Trop . I'm sure there are some duds but I also assume there are enough cool, unique or historic ones to make it worth doing and to say you went to them all. I've heard Colorado is fantastic, I know Boston and Baltimore are. Wrigley has to be. San Fran also seems like a cool one if you can sit in right field with the cove behind you. Athletics in Vegas will probably be nice.

VividSeats, stubhub, etc. buy the tickets the day before the game. I had 6th row left field seats for Mets/Rays that cost $60 each (I prefer the outfield because the netting does bother me) but you can also grab upper deck tickets for $20-30 and spend some time roaming around the park

While I prefer football, going to every stadium is definitely an MLB thing because of the uniqueness of each field. I have only been to old and new Yankee stadium, Shea and Citi Field, Camden Yards and Fenway on a tour. Camden Yards felt like a completely different world once you got inside.

My understanding has always been as follows.... If the player is NOT currently in your teams organization, then they had to have accumulated 1 at bat or 1 out as a pitcher (.1 IP)... so if they were called up at some point but never got off the bench, you are SOL. For the main draft, If they are a new addition to your MLB team, you can draft them with the reasonable expectation that they will accrue stats in the coming year. Finally, if they were a spring training invitee and wind up in your MLB teams minor league system, you are allowed to hold onto them again with the reasonable expectation that they could be called up (you're costing yourself a roster spot in the process). I may be wrong about the last part in regards to being allowed to hold a player who is sitting in the minors.

absolutely and that is probably the best example of a truly impactful player. Also sorry for the drubbing I gave you this week Also, not really

I went to Mets/Rays at Citi Field back on June 13th. Unfortunately it was pride night. On the bright side, the game was exciting, the Rays won, I hit the parlay I made on the game when Jeff McNeil singled in the bottom of the 9th, and they also had fireworks after which we stayed for. There was also a lesbian couple in front of me one was smoking hot and the other was a decent 6. I don't see that often. I only go to 1-2 games a year now. I have found that all the changes MLB made to speed up the game for TV viewership and people with adhd has taken away from the experience of being there live. You need a lot of hits and scoring to make it worth the price of tickets/commute/stadium beers. Mets/Rays in 2023 that I went to the game was over while I was finishing my second tall boy. If the weather is nice, I want to enjoy the game for 3-4 hours.

Aranda and Lowe made it as AL infield reserves. Not sure if injury replacements were already part of the selections or not but Bregman and Pena are on the IL so there is a chance Caminero makes it as a replacement but I think it's nuts he didn't make it in the first place.

To your first point, I will easily say that social media and 24/7 news is the reason you now know how politics actually is. You think it was not always like that because there was not always such a spotlight of scrutiny on these politicians. As outsiders, we were not nearly as privy to their every action. It's similar to how many of the athletes we all love didn't have to deal with the 24/7 scrutiny that say, Lebron has had to deal with. If you want to believe there was a 'good ole days" of politics in your lifetime, go ahead. I think it is much more an ignorance is bliss thing. idk who told you Obama was not a politician. I think he and big mike became celebs to an extent i've not seen before but he was certainly a politician. He may have been green but his entire life had been spent as an attorney and then senator. Maybe I shouldn't say he was polished at the time, since he was young, but he certainly was after a first term. How would he not be a lifelong politician? Is he known for something else?

no other 3rd party has ever thought/tried to capture seats in order to strengthen their position for presidency? no matter what the game plan is, I can only see this being different because of how influential Musk is and the $$$ that would likely be backing him/ the party.

Kevin Johnson. Not well enough known, imo.

I don't think he'd be running for office.

I understand, I'm just saying I doubt it would have been possible. Meaning I don't think they have the resources and I don't think they would have had a candidate with enough national appeal to stand a chance. Unless you wanted them to get a celebrity like Dwayne Johnson (I don't think thats what you meant).... Which i'm not even saying is a terrible idea... the 2 main issues with something like that would be 1. Trump has the celebrity businessman stigma and it would have just been copying that with a universally liked celebrity businessman. Maybe the anti typical politician movement is here to stay... not sure. 2. Celebs like Dwayne Johnson are going to run as democrats. I can't imagine anyone like that is going to waste their time running for an afterthought party, even if the ideals match up.

To be fair, there isn't much they or any other party can do. Our country is too deeply rooted in a 2 party system and donation dollars reign supreme. Many people show up and vote blindly based on what mommy and daddy taught them growing up. Other parties or candidates on the ballot are just there for optics. It would take something monumental to change course and have a seriously contending 3rd party. Perhaps the current state of politics combined with enough $$$ power from someone like Musk and his likely backers could see this happen, but I can only imagine the heads that will explode if we have a literal rich executives party (even though thats basically what top level politicians are anyway)

Great. I am relatively certain I can afford more than you but that’s beside the point … it’s not really anything to do with “acting like an adult”. Adults save money. Why were you at a flea market? Friends, family, neighbors lend each other shiit all the time. What does having your own family plan and your own insurance have to do with sharing streaming services? if you’re personally against people doing it, good for you? But you’re losing me at the crying about being a grown man and what you can afford

The reality is, these services can crack down on it if they really want but many of them don't care and would rather not turn people off. Netflix can afford to take that action because they are the best. I also HIGHLY doubt you have never shared anything without paying for your own. you're literally the 4th responder to a thread about a "not exactly legal" device, talking about being on piracy subreddits

Only a weak ass man would call himself a grown ass man on a message board. Yes, I do run a family cell plan where I pay $150/month for unlimited everything for 5 lines. Why would I be a dumb ass man and pay more for things I don't have to? No wonder you're a trash investor