RansomthePasserby

Severe punishment for a bang-bang play. 

GAME

1 minute ago, Destino said:

Are we going to prevent defense them into field goal range? 

As is tradition 

Jamin you had him for  a loss cmon dude 

Look at that. Dotson finally caught one. 

1 minute ago, Conn said:

They explained it right on the broadcast (while acknowledging it’s dumb). They want defenders to twist themselves as they’re falling to land by the wayside rather than with weight on the QB. It’s stupid and usually unrealistic obviously. That sack wasn’t even a hard hit, it’s practically gentle. But it technically violates the rule (they don’t always call it)

Seems like twisting can be dangerous to joints and ligaments, but I’m just a fan, what do I know? At some point you have to acknowledge you can only make it a safe game to a point. 

I don’t understand roughing the passer rules

Just now, BleedBNG said:

I know what's the damn rush? I give up Rivera

I’m guessing they wanted to catch the Pats with the wrong personnel on the field, but yeah, sometimes you have to slow it down for a young QB. 

It’s frustrating because we play hard and good 95% of the time, but the 5% we don’t play well, we REALLY don’t play well

Just now, BigDibbs31 said:

Cant get a FG here. Need TD

Well we didn’t get a field goal

Our receivers need to work on their grip strength geez

What a RUN

Love how Howell recognizes the offsides a goes for the deep shot. He’s done that multiple times this season. 

You can tell Howell is improving his internal clock as the season progresses 

Just now, MartinC said:

Gibson lacks vision as a runner - missed a huge cut back hole there.

Yup there was wide open space good for at least 10 yards 

A little blow to Howell’s head at the end there

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That was exceptionally well blocked.  
 

offense is cooking. 
 

The only drive that stalled was because of a drop…

OL is night and day compared to the first few games 

Just now, PokerPacker said:

On the other hand, if the house is purchased for $15k less due to not adding in a commission to the buying realtor, that's $15k less in the purchase price of the home, and with a down-payment of 20%, that's $3k less in down-payment.

And/or $15k less potentially contributing to the principal of a loan. 

1 minute ago, Ball Security said:

Trying to think of an example of when it wouldn’t be in the seller’s best interest to sell for the highest price. 

So Ferguson calculated it costs $15,000 to pay a buyer’s agent. If he decides to go DIY he could negotiate with the seller to pass a portion of that $15,000 to the seller, and he could still pay less for the house than he would have if he had an agent. 

34 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

That's why I asked in post 2.  Do we just need RE lawyers to help with contracts?  $2000 to review contract terms? 

 

I wanted to DIY buying and selling without a lawyer... my wife thought I was nuts (I even bought a books) and didn't allow it.  Our agent was nice, and there were some complexities with our location, but not 3% worth it.  

 

But, in my white collar field, 3 percent of $500k is $15000, about 160 hours of labor.  Our agent probably did about 40 hours of labor.   Athough I was also paying for their experience.  

The problem with the current system is that due to comps the cost of the realtor is built in to the value of the house (which makes zero sense when you think about it). So you wouldn’t necessarily save any money by doing the work yourself unless you were able to negotiate with the seller and convince them that they would be getting a better deal if they sold to you vs. selling to someone else who has a realtor.

EDIT - Which is where the collusion issue enters because in the case of the DIY buyer, the seller’s realtor has an incentive not to negotiate with a DIY buyer and instead shut the DIYer out and sell to another realtor at a higher price even if it’s not in the best interest of the seller since the seller’s realtor also gets commission from the cost of the house. 
 

Disconnecting the cost of the realtor from the value of the house would make DIY buying/selling more feasible. 

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

which will making finding a buying agent more difficult and expensive.

 

 

im not saying the current system is good, im just saying this won’t make anything cheaper.

Right now the cost is 3% of the price of a house. So if a house is $400K the realtor alone costs around $12K plus 8% interest over 30 years if the buyer is paying with a mortgage. There’s no way to know the future, but I’d guess the chances of the cost of a realtor lowering are much higher than the chance of the cost increasing. 

On 10/28/2023 at 3:04 AM, RemoveSnyder said:

messing around with ai image creator:

 

 

I like the first one that uses the stars and stripes from the DC flag. If they took something like that and improved on it slightly I’d be happy. It’s simple and reps the city. 

16 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Because now the agent who helps a buyer buy a home will charge money for showings instead of the taking in the three percent they get from the seller. 
 

right now the 3 percent for the buying and selling agents comes from the sales price, eg from the seller, not the buyer. If the buyers agent isn’t getting that three percent from the seller they gotta get it from somewhere.

You’re right, if the buyer’s agent isn’t getting that three percent from the seller, they gotta get it somewhere, but the real estate industry isn’t in a vacuum and they’ll look for it in some other industry.

So if a buyer’s agent will now charge money for showings, admin work, etc., there will be competition between agents to provide the highest quality services at the lowest/most competitive price. Which means that those agents who aren’t motivated to scale up and increase their quality will effectively get pushed out of the industry by agents who are.
 

Unmotivated agents who are just looking for a quick buck and aren’t getting their expected return with the minimal time and effort they put in will leave the real estate industry and look for that money elsewhere. 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

…though in the opposite direction, that the Hamas leader in Qatar offered. 
 

Those civilians are trapped in a nightmare. Their leaders want them to die usefully, on camera if possible. Their enemies are happy to shoot through them. The borders are all closed.

Living in Qatar in luxury and safety while your people die is not leadership. 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The key words here are “the Washington post could not confirm”

 

The medical director was installed by the Hamas government.  He is the only source for that article. 

29 minutes ago, Destino said:

A Hamas leader assuring everyone that Palestinians are happy to die, is describing their entire defense strategy. They aren’t trying to fight Israel they’re just hiding under their own civilians and hoping Israel kills enough to turn the world against them. And from behind women and children they shout to Israel that they will slaughter more Israelis just as soon as they are able. 
 

that’s some incredibly cold blooded ****.
 

 

Hamas’ strategy of hoping Israel kills enough Palestinian civilians also means they are incentivized to inflate the number of Palestinian civilians killed. Which in turn causes the rest of the world to question any report of civilian casualties that originate from Hamas as being potential propaganda. The civilians are literally stuck in the middle with no credible advocate.