Gromnir

am suspecting no american gold meant as much to americans collectively as did the bronze in field hockey meant to the +1.3 billion folks in india. at the igi airport today these guys were greeted by multitudes and given a heroes welcome along with india's few other medalists including the gold medal winner in men's javelin. congrats to india. HA! Good Fun!

if you are Gromnir's age or younger, "Soccer was massively popular as a youth sport when I was a kid," could be the shared observation o' near 100% o' people from the USA. age 20, 30, 40, 50+? don't matter. soccer has been a popular youth sport and every decade people see it as increasing in popularity. same bat time. same bat channel. at some point, and maybe a bit ironic, the folks who continue to play soccer are the same kids who play golf and tennis or whose parents drive 'em to morning swim practice or afternoon lacrosse. probable helps that the parents likely prefer the increasing exclusivity. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* as it so happens, we were actual gonna use a vision quest clip link to address the limited time response to increased tactical sophistication, but am suspecting folks woulda' been too easily distracted by the pelé reference. HA! Good Fun!

got an irrigation problem o' our own, but is a past tense thing. a couple weeks ago we noticed after one o' those 110 degree stretches o' heat that one o' our japanese maples were looking a little weary-- patches o' leaves were positively autumnal. solution: we got out the hose and gave the tree an extra ten minutes o' significant daily irrigation. the ten minutes with the hose were in addition to 30 minutes daily via "drip." more than drip as it were kinda a spray attached to otherwise spaghetti drip lines. after a week o' increased watering, the tree looked worse rather than better, so, being a simple caveman at heart, we increased the watering by an additional 10 minutes. *eye roll* has 'been 'bout a month and if the tree ain't dead it is so close it might as well be. fudge. HA! Good Fun!

what a curious observation. am recalling the world league o' the 90s. we saw a couple football games in the US and europe. attendance were relative cheap. ticket price were cheap in part 'cause that is what the market were perceived to be able to bear. if soccer were to become more popular, and were regular televised and networks could sell more advertising and players could demand bigger contracts and... HA! Good Fun!

having played rugby almost as much as US football (technical more years, but fewer functional hours and not as high a level o' competition,) we would say diversity o' roles and specialization for football has the edge but not by a huge amount. there is more diversity and specialization in football, but even somebody who has never watched rugby is gonna recognize the skillset needed to play hooker is extreme different than scrum half. 'course in rugby you play defense and offense and even a prop may have dreams o' being the golden boot saviour. but again, and is unnecessary repetition, this continued discussion undermines your initial observation. as for kanadian and euro observations regarding soccer, am necessarily limiting our self to this and other game message board. our yearly overseas trips during the last couple decades o' working were near complete limited to asia and eastern europe. not enough cross cultural sharing beyond game generalizations. as for US embrace o' soccer, is perpetual misleading. since the 70s, soccer has been, to all reasonable outside observations, increasing in popularity. the term soccer mom is not new. is an early 80's term for a trend started in the mid 70s. every US kid plays soccer in school, and am suspecting a large % o' suburban kids has played organized soccer. literal every decade since Gromnir were a kid there has been certainty soccer were growing in popularity and could finally breakthrough in terms o' reaching parity with at least hockey. thanks to title ix and the need for US universities to spend as much on women's sports as men's, am suspecting soccer will indeed continue to grow in popularity, but that success will also be perpetual misleading. unlike china, and virtual every other nation which competes regular in international sports, the US government does not direct fund and support our national teams or athletes. however, we do have a functional seed program for most olympic relevant sports: university athletic programs. counter-intuitive, as long as men's american football and basketball programs continue to be ultra funded, women's soccer will benefit. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking malc is doing a skarpen_one. compare a cb to a midfielder is not the point. the diversity o' skillset amongst the players on a US football team is greater. the offensive tackle is doing something complete different from the cornerback. even an person who has no knowledge o' american football and is only familiar with soccer is gonna recognize that the diversity o' skills on the football team is more extreme than on the soccer team. ignoring the uniforms, an offensive tackle and cornerback appear to be playing complete different sports. the more distinct and diverse range o' skills adds a level o' tactical sophistication as does the functional restart o' gameplay every minute or so. us football has the same pre game and half time strategizing as does soccer, but a level o' sophistication is added 'cause is, to use gamer parlance, tb mode and using varied chess pieces as 'posed to real time with more uniform checkers... all o' which ignores fact we are having this discussion, which complete undermines your initial observation in the thread regarding American critiques o' soccer. none o' which has anything to do with olympics but does reinforce our observation 'bout euro and kanadian sensitivities regarding their soccer. so, check. HA! Good Fun!

you didn't pay attention to the articles you read and how the numbers were compared. The first is that the majority of UK adults have now been vaccinated. Indeed, break it down by age group and you'll see that of those aged over 50 around 91% have been vaccinated - most of them with two jabs. The second is that the vaccines don't entirely reduce the risk of either catching the disease or being hospitalised or dying of it. They are not 100% effective. But they do, at least on the basis of tests from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, reduce the likelihood of both of these outcomes considerably. But reducing something considerably is not the same as eliminating it. So, for instance, before getting vaccinated the chances of a 90-year-old catching and dying of COVID-19 were estimated to be roughly 2.8%. After getting the jabs, the chances of the same illustrative 90-year-old catching and dying the disease are reduced to around 0.14%. It's a very big reduction, but that jabbed 90-year-old nonetheless faces a roughly similar risk profile as an unjabbed 60-year-old (0.12%). Same thing for an 80-year-old, whose jabbed risk profile is close to that of an unjabbed 50-year-old. And so on. It's a very big reduction, but that jabbed 90-year-old nonetheless faces a roughly similar risk profile as an unjabbed 60-year-old (0.12%). Same thing for an 80-year-old, whose jabbed risk profile is close to that of an unjabbed 50-year-old. And so on. The point here is that even if the vaccines were doing exactly what we expected of them, some people, especially the elderly, are still quite likely to die of COVID-19 - especially if there's a lot of it around. ... "You might recall Sir Patrick said that around 60% of those hospitalised were double jabbed in the press conference, and then had to correct himself on Twitter afterwards. Interestingly, when you look just at the over-50s, it turns out around 54% of those admitted were indeed double-jabbed, with only 29% of those admitted having had no vaccination. Again, given the very high proportions of those in the age group who are vaccinated, this is perhaps unsurprising." again, the over 50 is the 90% vaccinated. old people is still higher risk. duh. the point o' getting everybody vaccinated is in part to prevent the issue with having much covid still around. duh. purposeful misreading the numbers does you no favors. HA! Good Fun!

you are being willful obtuse. did you bother to actual read the links? the vaccines are NOT 100% effective, so there will continue to be deaths from covid-19 amongst the vaccinated population. IF you got near all people vaccinated, then of course those deaths which continue to occur is going to appear in the vaccinated population. want a really scary stat? if we got 100% o' the US magical vaccinated, then a full 100% o' future covid deaths would be occurring in the vaccinated. omg! duh. HA! Good Fun! ps and is noteworthy you dropped the silly corporations distinction in your response. we shouldn't ignore when you final do something right. so, congrats.

we has mentioned numerous times how covid is only different 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. has been many historical US disease outbreaks which resulted in not just mandated vaccinations but compulsory vaccinations. in the past, government authorities has literal been able to come to your home and force you to be vaccinated. there were a measles outbreak in nyc as recent as 2019 and students and employees were required to be vaccinated. no codification needed to require children be vaccinated. mayor said it were necessary. declared an emergency. kids and adults got vaccinated. one law were changed btw. previous to the 2019 measles outbreak in nyc, there were a ny state law which allowed an exemption for vaccines based on religious/philosophical basis. that law were repealed. btw, https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics/donald-trump-measles-vaccines/index.html how quick folks forget. covid-19 is only special 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. mandatory vaccinations and testing is actual the norm in this country. HA! Good Fun!

has nothing to do with corporations. american citizens has rights. if you own a business, you do not sudden lose rights. in the us (perhaps europe is different, but we hope not) business owners is not legal forced to behave stoopid. +95% o' hospitalizations for covid-19 is 'mongst the unvaccinated. +99% of deaths is amongst the unvaccinated. a business owner who is reasonable, would prefer to not have his workforce hospitalized and or dying from covid. is not a corporation issue. regardless, is no right to spread disease, whether is a business or individual or individual business. HA! Good Fun!

literal every state has vaccination laws, not that such means anything in the present context as is also perfect legal for private organizations to require. from a practical pov, case law v. codified makes a difference 'cause? however, states such as south carolina do in fact leave to whim o' the school district as to implementation questions including which vaccines is required, and florida's desantis is facing troubles with his mask prohibitions in part 'cause is laws in florida which demand that regulation o' health concerns should be left to individual school districts to decide. traditional republican small government stuff, so is unsurprising florida has such, eh? although it appears 2021 republicans has failed to get the regan era memo (not literal) on small government. "whim" is also kinda loaded and inaccurate. any vaccination requirement, be it fed, state or local, still needs be reasonable or at least rational. and o' course the school district is gonna codify their health requirements, so the question/concern from skrapen is kinda nonsensical. school district board, however is organized, will need follow process. again, we were talking 'bout land o' the free and somehow this is being inverted. "Congress shall make no law..." is government intrusion which bothers Americans. @Guard Dog would be far more likely to get his shorts in a twist over fed or state mandated school vaccinations as 'posed walmart. am also suspecting he would be more bothered by fed and state mandates on vaccines than he would be regarding local. the further the decision process is removed from the people being immediate impacted by a prohibition, the more likely will be a complaint o' government excess. skarpen has somehow made this all bass ackwards. HA! Good Fun! ps many state vaccination laws is open-ended, for obvious reasons. what we mean is, there is typical not an exclusive list o' required vaccines required by schools and state hospital workers or professional care givers or prison workers or... etc. there will indeed frequent be a list o' vaccines required, but is not like the state or fed or local authorities need rewrite laws every time a new disease or vaccine becomes relevant. is invariably language which recognizes that as new vaccines become available, schools, and state hospitals and prisons and whomever may require those employed or custodial wards to be vaccinated.

am knowing skarpen has been wrong 'bout european free speech law issues in the past, so am not just gonna take his word for stuff. regardless, as one might expect in the land o' the free, the stuff which is codified is gonna be limited to what cannot be demanded by government or from employees. Constitution says can't discriminate based on race, religion, national origin and alienage. fed law prohibits discrimination based on gender save in some extreme limited situations. states has additional laws, but 'cause is indeed land of free, we allow employers and employees to decide most other stuff. for example, an employer may decide to not hire a person 'cause the prospect is too stoopid to do the job or is too rude to deal with customers. reasonable. is not considered illegal or discriminatory to have a prospective employee show proof of education or pass a skills test anymore than is unreasonable to have an interview with the prospect. your stoopidity or rudeness is not subject to privacy even if is more debilitating than a whole host o' medical conditions. if a shipping/freight company is hiring a truck driver, chances are they require proof o' a clean driving record, a current class whatever driver's license and likely the prospect is asked to pass a drug test. not require such stuff and the new driver kills somebody in an accident while on drugs while driving one o' your trucks and chances are the shipping company gets sued and loses a whole lotta money. again, require basic proof o' safe driving record and being drug free is a reasonable precaution for the employer o' a truck driver. so how is a covid test or requiring proof o' vaccine any different? what would be the basis for precluding an employer for asking for such info? sure, medical info is deemed private and the reason medical privacy exists is 'cause society benefits from an individual being truthful with their doctor when seeking medical help. we also protect communications with spouses (though your spouse may waive) and clergy. limited exceptions. nevertheless, would be extreme stoopid if a medical facility treating immuno compromised patients were precluded from asking for employees to prove they ain't carrying an infectious disease such as tuberculosis or covid-19 before exposing patients to the prospective employee. again, could hospitals and doctors could be sued if they didn't take such obvious and reasonable precautions to protect patient safety. am not sure why medical records is important to skarpen_one. if a person need show proof o' being drug free, what would make you assume a full medical record were being communicated? we mentioned hippa, which marjorie taylor greene so frequent misrepresents. your medical records may not be communicated w/o your authorization, but would be extreme strange if you were precluded from requesting your own medical records and offering them to an employer. need proof o' being drug free, then chances are you authorize communication o' the drug test results. employer requires proof of vaccination, then authorization will be for proof o' vaccination. is not rocket science and is reasonable. obviously for a football player whose livelihood is dependent on physical health, more info is gonna be relevant to their team and will be perfect reasonable for the team to request. spend millions o' dollars on a rookie contract only to discover the player has a serious medical condition they did not disclose? that don't seem fair. hardly a caveat emptor situation. can't force a player to divulge medical info, but why would you prevent a team from requesting such info or precluding the player from making such info available? if the player won't take a physical or offer medical records, they might go undrafted, or at least their draft status will suffer. regardless, is hard to imagine a nfl team offering a kid millions o' dollars to play football if there is no way to evaluate the health o' the player especial if there is reasons for concern. reasonable. psych evaluations for people who is gonna be armed with a gun or who is gonna be given authority to investigate and prosecute american citizens? we should hope so. have actually known people who were in law enforcement and had risen in the department hierarchy, but 'cause they failed a portion o' their psych evaluation they could not carry a firearm. take reasonable precautions to protect citizens from foreseeable harm is hardly shock the conscience level o' an invasion o' privacy. much o' these observations is based on common sense and/or the reasonable person standard which is typical applied in tort situations. HA! Good Fun!

undergraduate we were a scholarship student, at first athletic and then academic. grad school and european teaching/studying were not complete free for us, but we did have scholarships in europe and while in the US we were paid to teach... bit complicated, but no loans. laws school we had to pay for, but we worked full time while simultaneous going to school full time. we took max loans as well. took the loans 'cause they were low interest and large lump sums which we used not for school but for real estate investment. HA! Good Fun!

decades past, we worked a few summers in high school for a maintenance crew which were employed by a housing development. all kinda different jobs. we were used mostly for roofing 'cause we had that weird indian height indifference. 'course we also got stuck doing painting o' houses, which included the prep work. prep house to paint requires strip old paint and to achieve such we used electric rotary sanders. wear a mask and we still ended up with black snot at the end o' the day 'cause the masks never fit perfect when you were doing improbable kinda stretching and reaching and you inevitable knocked the mask askew while on a ladder and with one arm holding the sander and one on the ladder or building, mask adjustments were impractical. worse, you had to take off the masks eventual and all that sh!te were still in the air. more peculiar for us were the behavior o' coworkers at the start o' summer when we did weed eating o' fire breaks. a tractor would knock down tall weeds, kicking up great plumes o' dirt and dust. amusing 'cause we always had to be aware o' the tractor starting fires. had a small dedicated water truck with us to put out fires the tractor started. along with the tractor, two guys would knock down areas o' dry weeds with industrial strength weed eaters. were always rocky or inaccessible areas the tractor would not reach. protective gear were goggles or sunglasses, earplugs (maybe), snake chaps (they went from ankle to knee and were cloth but with a copper mesh between the layers o' fabric), and particle masks. most o' our coworkers did not use the masks 'cause it made breathing more difficult, were hot and eventual the rubber straps gave you a headache. the guy running the tractor (he were in his early 40s but looked like he were in late 60s,) liked to smoke (we kid you not) while he operated the tractor meant to create firebreaks. we used the mask religious and still coughed up evil too frequent for us to be happy 'bout it. just being in proximity to the tractor meant taking off the mask to get water or fix a busted weed eater resulted in the swallowing o' dust and worse. 'cant imagine how bad it were for our coworkers. people is all nuts. HA! Good Fun!

have a friend who ten years ago retired from the sacramento city fire department. while he were still working as a captain, we asked him what were with the facial hair thing for firemen. keep in mind this were some time past and before the current popularity o' male facial hair we now need enjoy. our friend pointed out how old timey firemen grew big mustaches in particular 'cause the facial hair were believed to make breathing easier by filtering out smoke when breathing through the nose. after breathing apparatus became a thing, the mustaches were no longer one o' the few options to assist breathing, but firemen is one o' those jobs where traditions die hard. ... am not making this up. our friend, who is a big fan o' the pittsburgh steelers but is originally from jamaica and then moved to new york in his early twenties (he is kinda proud o' having achieved US citizenship but is no less proud o' being from jamaica) keeps the mustache even after he lost his hair and quit working for the fire department. haven't asked him if he keeps for aesthetic reasons or 'cause the air quality in the sacramento valley is so bad every summer that he needs the soup strainer stache to breathe when he jogs every morning. regardless, if you wanna go old timey fireman, you can supplement the air filters with an obnoxious mustache. HA! Good Fun! ps we cannot grow facial hair and am suspecting we would need many air filters to make a difference in our home, so instead we just cough up ugly dark phlegm once or twice a day.

hurl works as a teacher. am assuming at least previous to initial employment he were tested for drugs. quite a few occupations require regular drug testing. commonplace. no more a liberty denial than covid-testing, eh? pee in a cup v. nasal swab? in the US we current do tb tests at local state and fed facilities which has a high likelihood o' tb transmission. you wanna work in such a facility? prerequisite o' employment is you get a miniscule injection and two-to-three days later you need return so a medical practitioner can inspect the injection site to see if you are tb positive. furthermore, if there is a tb outbreak at the facility, chances are you need get regular tb tests. such testing will be accepted at va hospitals, jails, prisons, and is our understanding such tb testing may be done at schools if there is an outbreak. before we began working for county level probation and previous to working at USAO, we had extensive psyche evaluations including a polygraph review. am thinking many law enforcement agencies make psyche evaluations standard, though am not certain how prevalent is polygraph testing. am recalling one o' the questions from a written psyche test asked us 'bout alice in wonderland. the rumour 'mongst applicants were that the question were meant to divine a likely embrace o' drug culture, or somesuch. anyways, when we were done with the verbal portion o' the psyche exam for our us attorney position, the psychiatrist asked us if we had any questions, so we asked 'bout the alice in wonderland question as part o' the written test. we mentioned how we answered honest (we did indeed enjoy alice) but we noted how there were a belief amongst those taking the test the question were linked to drug affinity. the psychiatrist seemed a bit surprised but he said he believed the question were not solo relevant but that collectively it represented a kinda aesthetic preference as 'posed to any kinda drug use susceptibility. regardless, psyche profiles and testing is commonplace in the US and pretty much nobody complains 'cause there is at least a few jobs where being a psychopath is gonna be viewed as a negative. nfl preseason is in full swing. the nflpa has worked extreme hard to avoid olympic standard drug testing, but drug testing is done. physical exams is also common and required as a prereq and for continued employment as an nfl player. suffer a concussion? if docs say your level o' concussion requires an mri, then you are getting an mri if you wanna stay employed in the nfl. sure hippa prevents your medical records from being shared w/o your approval, but as an nfl player if you don't wanna share med information with your team, you can go use your football skills elsewhere, perhaps becoming an all-time great ups driver or somesuch. the current group o' nfl players who is routine needing provide medical info to their teams but who is balking at nasal or oral swab testing to help limit the spread o' a deadly disease is hypocrites or profound stoopid. etc. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

f'ing cancer

now don't sacrifice what little integrity you might possess. you got it right the first time insofar as what trump were doing: "banning an entire religious group." sure, what trump were promising were illegal and violated those principles o' the US as enumerated in the Bill o' Rights portion o' the Constitution o' the United States o' America, but it were political expedient to do so 'cause some bass ackwards bigots were not only okie dokie with "banning an entire religious group" from entering the USA, they cheered on the candidate who promised such. is noteworthy trump did walk back his promise, but not in the way you might expect. trump seemed to think what made his blanket muslim ban ok were fact he only saw it as a temporary if necessary evil. temporary made ok. once candidate trump, who did indeed promise banning an entire religious group, became President, he penned an executive order (well, stephen miller were s'posed the primary author o' the proposed executive order, but trump ok'd, so why nitpick, eh?) which woulda done just that. 'course the white house lawyers shot down this suggestion immediate, so a revision were made. @BruceVC got countries wrong. no shock. the actual initial muslim ban nations were as follows: iran, iraq, syria, yemen, sudan, somalia and libya. additionally, syrian refugees from any country would be denied entry, unless they were christian. *sigh* the courts quick shot down this executive order. were a transparent attempt to achieve the muslim ban w/o calling it a muslim ban. identify the countries where near 90% o' muslims requesting entry into the US are coming from and ban citizens from those nations were laughed out o' court. the eventual travel ban implemented via a trump executive order were a slight variation o' the third effort by the trump administration to implement a ban. but lets not forget what trump tried to implement: "banning an entire religious group." and kudos to you for correct identifying what trump were attempting to achieve. you got right the first time, so am not sure why you is abandoning integrity to get agreement with bruce. trump were indeed advocating "banning an entire religious group," and he attempted to do so once he became President. sure, he failed, but am thinking is wrong to deny giving trump the credit he is due on this. pretend trump didn't try and ban muslims is unfair to trump. he gave implementation o' official government religious intolerance the old college try, multiple times in fact, and the damned Courts and Constitution kept blocking his efforts to do so. criticize trump's execution and his failure to understand the Constitution, but don't deny the man his efforts at "banning an entire religious group." and don't retreat from your own position made just a few posts previous. HA! Good Fun!

clear were an accusation if not meant as an insult. s'posed, americans is only capable o' identifying the flop problem in soccer is the recognition o' a curious shared mistake by those north americans living south o' kanada but north o' mexico... but also including alaska and hawaii and various territories... but perhaps not territories 'cause soccer is mighty popular in puerto rico and a few pacific islands. regardless, am not thinking we need use a websters or oed link, but knock yourself out if you need a moment to review. didn't take as an insult, just ignorant. the accusation were also curious directed overbroad at americans, which is just stoopid. for example, Gromnir much prefers lacrosse and rugby ( @Sarex not much in the way o' halftime shows and commercials for either o' those sports, eh?) to baseball. assuming some kinda american pov is fundamental flawed as you will no doubt find a great deal o' argument 'mongst americans regarding which pro sports is most compelling. the tactical sophistication o' soccer is low compared to say american football. even the least observant fan o' soccer is gonna recognize the greater diversity o' skill sets 'mongst american football players compared to soccer players. to the uneducated, an offensive lineman might appear to be engaged in a kinda curious sumo wrestling exercise, grappling with an opponent, while a defensive back, a lean and quick individual, appears to be doing his utmost to not actual touch his opponent, right up until the football is making contact with a receiver's hands, a receiver who were doing everything he could to distance himself from the defensive back and eventual catch the football, a ball which may only be touched by certain individuals in under select conditions. obvious oversimplifications, but it don't take knowledge o' football to recognize diversity o' skills and responsibilities. combine with functional reset o' gameplay every minute or so and the opportunities to make significant tactical adjustments is literal mind boggling. every single play in american football requires near perfect execution by all players on a team. failure results in either a penalty or more likely the exploitation o' the seeming innocuous blunder by the opposing team. soccer by comparison... etc. again, is not relevant or necessary to get into the curious american v. euro bit regarding soccer which malc seemed to wanna inject into the thread. tangential and off-topic to an extreme degree. oversensitive euros and kanadians and their weird soccer sensitivity is cute and all but isn't actual relevant to the olympics thread. more than a few non americans has laughed at soccer flops on these boards, so somehow somehow getting your sports pride triggered were chukleworthy but misguided. regardless, your initial observation were inaccurate. HA! Good Fun!

bring up other sports is pointless and non responsive (not to mention inaccurate on most points). your accusation were that the only criticism americans throw at soccer is the flop aspect. you were wrong. try and own your error. HA! Good Fun!

only? hardly. is not even the worst failing o' football, which forces the viewer to spend hours at a time watching little occur only to have the entire contest determined by the curious penalty kick silliness. nice try though. HA! Good Fun! ps try not to repeat the same fail and assume the list o' football/soccer complaints is now complete

in general we liked two far more than one. however, we had a curious quibble: mass murderers repeated stating that hurting kids were the proverbial bridge too far. at least three times in a movie with almost constant bloody and indiscriminate mayhem, villains felt the need to announce that they weren't gonna engage or condone acts o' violence against children. felt forced. also, while we chuckled more than once at stallone's gr00t, the similarity to guardians were unnecessary and a bit distracting, and that were the biggest issue we had. king shark were a bloodier version o' gr00t and suicide 2 as a movie felt like it were constant challenging us to deny that suicide were something other than a bloodier guardians film with a bit more profanity. such an observation is unfortunate 'cause we liked so many suicide 2 characters and they deserved better than to be compared to guardians characters. HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps a bit different than shady, we didn't find our self measuring suicide 2 against suicide 1, with the exception o' idris elba's bloodsport. seemed kinda obvious the writers/director initial wanted to bring back deadshot, but found a more obscure dc version o' nominal the same character to replace him at some point.