TD_washingtonredskins

Not to nitpick, but was Means ever an ace himself?

I agree that every player or actor should do whatever he or she can to make as much as possible. They have such a limited amount of time (players, at least) to make their millions. That said, I don't blame the people who put up all the money (owners/studios/whatever) for defending their investment either. That's how these things are supposed to work. The market generally dictates who makes the money. If every NFL player decided to walk away from the league tomorrow and the owners were left with just the shells of their teams, there would be a few rocky years but eventually fans would continue supporting the teams/logos they are used to. In many ways, the NFL more than most leagues, has always been the most faceless of all professional sports. Hollywood will have it a little tougher...it's much more difficult to make a great blockbuster movie without a star that people love. I'm sure it's possible, but you usually need a headliner.

Is this no longer going to happen?

I was with you for a while, but how are you ever going to fix this? People are human beings and you are basically now pointing out that humans are likely to be biased toward more attractive people or things. What would you put into place to prevent an stained-toothed person from being discriminated against? And yes, I know it's your way of pointing out that someone with white teeth is more likely to have had the means of having their teeth corrected, but again, how do you control human bias?

But it would have made a difference if they drifted a long way off course and then popped back up to the surface...only to be trapped in their vessel and unable to get out while they ran out of oxygen.

I guess you can't get into each and every person's head, so you could be right. I always assumed the fascination with Titanic was the story of the "unsinkable ship" that sank and the tragedy of it all. Of course, the death of those people plays into it. But I don't think people were or are interested in recovering the shipwreck or exploring the wreckage to see dead bodies or what remains of the people who were killed. It's the historic significance of the event and what's left of the ship. At least that's always been my thought.

I've carried all the ones...my final answer is a ****-ton.

Oh I see what you mean...well, if it drifted, say 5 miles west, it could be at a completely different depth. I don't know how these things work and if it would just plummet to the bottom of the ocean or if it would go down at an angle and end up far away from where it was attempting to go.

I'd expect that they could have drifted anywhere by now (or by the time they are recovered or found).

That wasn't directed at you...some of the Twitter comments are horrific. I understand that people took and understood the risks, but they are still human beings. And the Titanic isn't just a graveyard. It's probably the most famous shipwreck in history (at least modern history), so it's more of a historical site than how you're describing it. People have been fascinated with it for a century.

I find it disturbing how many comments on Twitter are almost demonstrating giddiness about 4-5 people either already dead or probably frantically aware that they are hours away from dying somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Seemingly simply because they are rich. Pretty disgusting.

After so many years of the Blue Jays pounding the O's, it would be nice to have a season where we drop a few elbows on them. I like the start, but there are plenty of games left.

Take it easy...I thought they always said to only bet with money you are willing to lose.

@tshile @dfitzo53 @Destino you all make good points. And, again, I can't express how much I appreciate how polite you are being in this discussion. I guess why I almost prefer that kids talk about this "amongst themselves" for now is because I don't think there's any non-politicized consensus on anything out there coming from adults. It almost seems like a few kids chatting about what they feel and have seen could be a little more useful as an introduction than what some adults decided over the summer should become part of the curriculum. Playground talk will prompt enough discussion with parents to get the ball rolling. And that's where I believe the ball should be rolling - at home. It just doesn't seem (to me) to be a public school curriculum item.

When you say vital, do you mean it should be a focus or should happen indirectly?

Right, again...I posted it as an example of gender identity being taught to elementary school children when someone directly challenged that happening. I personally don't think it's necessary to do that in school, but I'm not really losing sleep over it. I'm not overly adamant about it, but I lean toward none of these social things being hit too hard in schools. I prefer they focus on the 3 R's.

I see your point, and I think that's pretty accurate for the on-field results in any given season. Pluck out 2000 or 2006 or 2010 or 2016 and it's pretty unspectacular. But if you watched a documentary on how the sausage was made and how Snyder ran the organization to come to those results, I think it would be pretty interesting on how to fail to succeed so consistently. He swung the pendulum so erratically from offensive coach to defensive coach, had mismatched rosters to coaches, went aggressive in FA then pinched pennies, chose the oddest of players to make a splash with, picked the strangest of times to make a stand and alienate faces of the franchise, and selected the wrong guys to cede full control to. It really was the Reverse Midas Touch.

I'm pretty surprised at just how much worse Snyder's team has been the all the rest. I knew it was bad, but not "essentially the entire league has done it in the past 5-6 years and you guys haven't done it since the entire paradigm changed in the early-90s" bad.

That wasn't the point I was making at all. I was saying that Person A not being comfortable with the teaching of gender identity isn't the same as Person B who doesn't want even a whisper of homosexuality or anything that deviates from what they consider "the norm" even mentioned within the school walls. I'm trying to distinguish between those two types of people...because I don't believe that some do that in these discussions and painting everyone that is to the right of your stance in this debate isn't useful or constructive to getting to a resolution. To me, Person B is ridiculous. Person A is much closer to a reasonable opinion and, though he or she might be a bit on the conservative side, we could probably engage in a discussion with that person and find a reasonable common ground.

It seems to be happening, but I suppose it's possible that these are made up. I admittedly haven't taken hours to fact-check each example that I see in headlines. https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-mandates-teaching-gender-identity-elementary-school-parental-involvement https://www.wpr.org/superior-school-board-upholds-decision-allowing-gender-identity-be-taught-fifth-graders

So, the entire US population has to pause their discussion on the broader topic due to legislation happening in specific states? OK, Buzz. That seems logical and makes a lot of sense. Maybe we should all stand down on all topics until the rest of us come to a consensus on how all states are operating on all issues. 👍

Sure...but where I have an issue with this discussion is the assumption that any person even remotely uncomfortable with any aspect of this being taught is put into one homogenous category like you and Larry have described. That's unfair and closed-minded. I know plenty of people who are perfectly fine with everything you guys have described and much more but want to draw the line somewhere else (for example, having an actual discussion about how to handle the complicated sports issue or how to deal with exactly what should be taught in school curriculum when it comes to gender). It's not fair to instantly label them as unwilling to admit that "different people exist" when many of them are gay themselves.

@Larry You're still painting with an extremely broad brush. Referencing genders in conversations ("my husband and I...") or using genders to label things (bathrooms or locker rooms) isn't "teaching" genders. That's where I misunderstood. I took your comment to mean that anyone who isn't for the instruction of all the different gender choices that now exist to young kids must be for teaching intolerance to young kids. And that's an unfair characterization. What you portrayed above is that we have basic usage of genders in schools and people can't both want those to persist without wanting their kids to understand the nuances that come with it.

I know plenty of people who think they are two completely separate topics. Being accepting and kind to everyone is expected. Being instructed about the various gender choices out there at a young age is a different topic. To accuse everyone of being a bigot or not open to acceptance is pretty obtuse.

I don't think that's true at all.