Wrong Thread

[SkinBasket]

There's a very short list of rules for this forum. I mean ridiculously short. Keep the Packer forum about football only. If you want to have a hissy fit about Obama, we gave you an entire section to do so. I was actually interested to come here and see what people thought about college athletes being paid as union workers and it turned into the typical political bullshit.

Why not just move the thread?

The discussion of the NLRB is by definition a political discussion, as I was pointing out until you threw a hissy fit and locked the thread. Stop acting like politics is airborne AIDS when the thread is a discussion of football and politics intersecting. Or don't. Discussing Marshall Newhouse's departure is great material.

Actually its very much the story of college football and not the place to grind your axe about politicians. These posts need to go. The thread should stay.

Again, due to what the NLRB is and how it functions, this is not a story about college football. College football was simply another way to advance of sociopolitical agenda, which, again, is unfortunate. The legitimacy of the ruling is at best legally dubious, not that it ever mattered to the board. The decision was about politics and unions. It was not about football, or law, or fairness, or precedent.

You can ignore that if you want, but doing so renders any discussion as useless as the "decision," which was never in any doubt. As others have pointed out, compensation and rules for college athletes is a fine and interesting topic of conversation, but if you want to discuss the implications of the NLRB ruling, then the discussion is necessarily political. Just as discussing homosexuality is necessarily a discussion about sexuality. Well, an honest discussion is anyway.

[Zool]

Why not just move the thread?

The discussion of the NLRB is by definition a political discussion, as I was pointing out until you threw a hissy fit and locked the thread. Stop acting like politics is airborne AIDS when the thread is a discussion of football and politics intersecting. Or don't. Discussing Marshall Newhouse's departure is great material.



Again, due to what the NLRB is and how it functions, this is not a story about college football. College football was simply another way to advance of sociopolitical agenda, which, again, is unfortunate. The legitimacy of the ruling is at best legally dubious, not that it ever mattered to the board. The decision was about politics and unions. It was not about football, or law, or fairness, or precedent.

You can ignore that if you want, but doing so renders any discussion as useless as the "decision," which was never in any doubt. As others have pointed out, compensation and rules for college athletes is a fine and interesting topic of conversation, but if you want to discuss the implications of the NLRB ruling, then the discussion is necessarily political. Just as discussing homosexuality is necessarily a discussion about sexuality. Well, an honest discussion is anyway.

As a mod of a forum, it does not matter what I do to threads that are misplaced. If I move it to FYI, someone fucking bitches. If I lock it, someone bitches. I was torn as to which bitching I wanted to hear today.

Edit: So I decided to do both. Lets have it.

[mraynrand]

The bottom line is there will never be an end to people flame throwing and to people who can't take it. And lost in that shuffle is the stuff that makes the subject interesting, namely the truth and carefully considered evaluation and opinion.

[mraynrand]

As a mod of a forum, it does not matter what I do to threads that are misplaced. If I move it to FYI, someone fucking bitches. If I lock it, someone bitches. I was torn as to which bitching I wanted to hear today.

Edit: So I decided to do both. Lets have it.

the thread in FYI is still locked

[denverYooper]

The bottom line is there will never be an end to people flame throwing and to people who can't take it. And lost in that shuffle is the stuff that makes the subject interesting, namely the truth and carefully considered evaluation and opinion.

[mraynrand]

Do any of you Packerrats have photography expertise? In the photo below, I'm trying to figure out how they got the uniform light through the window. Is that using a gauze, or is it a photographic trick. Using Image J software, it's clearly quite uniform, with hardly any variability in pixel intensity across the length of the window. Can anyone help?

[red]

what light?

[HowardRoark]

I think it has something to do with her back.

[red]

what back?

[easy cheesy]

Oh shut up! What we really want to know is: where is Easy Cheesy??

EC and IM are happily ensconced in their own dirty little bubble... ***muahhhhhhh***

[woodbuck27]

Packers need a consistent pass rush as much as a safety.

That's been a priority for at least the last two off seasons.

CM III and Julius Peppers:

Getting it done ! Hopefully ... a Packers ROMP on opposing QB's in 2014 !

[woodbuck27]

"Originally Posted by red View Post

i always thought she was way over rated" red


" I think she is just outside of elite, maybe top end of average. " pbmax

RollingStone music- TOP 100 SINGERS.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-singers-of-all-time-19691231/annie-lennox-20101202

Annie Lennox = # 93 in the TOP 100.

# 94 Karen Carpenter.

# 92 Morrissey.

[mraynrand]

"Originally Posted by red View Post

i always thought she was way over rated" red


" I think she is just outside of elite, maybe top end of average. " pbmax

RollingStone music- TOP 100 SINGERS.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-singers-of-all-time-19691231/annie-lennox-20101202

Annie Lennox = # 93 in the TOP 100.

# 94 Karen Carpenter.

# 92 Morrissey.

where's liberace on that list?

[woodbuck27]

where's liberace on that list?

Does Liberace make the list?

Another question ... where's Elton John ranked on the list.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-singers-of-all-time-19691231/darlene-love-20101202

[HowardRoark]

.....it's too wide for the hole!