ThreePointTakedown

Went back and looked at scores from last year, so maybe these aren't the best examples, but weren't able to or haven't yet watched to matches to confirm: 125: #20, 342 133: #40 141: #199 149: #68 157: #175, 416, 405 165 : #424, 425 174: #116, 120 184: #maybe just overlooked this one or there weren't any matches that scored enough 197: #246, 447, 578 285: come to think of it, no matches met the criteria to include Criteria: Total of >12 pts scored, with one scoring at least 6, with a difference between 1-4ish points. (the higher the total the greater the difference was allowed considering the effort to score that many points) Too large a difference and the total score didn't matter. This was just this year. Any other matches that could be included? Matches we should go back and re-watch or watch for the first time because they are gems? Also, where can we go to see some of these matches? NCAA or someone should post them. Would subscribe for chance to watch some great matches again.

Do you understand that not everyone has the resources to do any of these things? This is a particularly crappy thing to assume. Your first instinct will be to deflect and try explain it away. You can't. It is fact that there are people(and when I say 'people' I mean children) out there that cannot do any of the things you suggest in order to get a book or acquire reading material outside of a (probably ill funded)public school. Parents that can't afford these things or live near a library. Or have parents interested in their children's schooling because for generations their schooling was never emphasized as important. So therefore not interested in working to ensure their kids take extra time or effort to acquire this knowledge. That you can't fathom these scenarios or think there are easy ways overcome them is either ignorant or malicious. I'd love for you to answer which? That you take this holier-then-thou approach and are obviously ignorant of everyone outside of your small circle, reflects poorly on you and you show your @_$s. It makes it clear you have no interest in helping people less fortunate than you and raise everyone up, but to keep your children in a carefully controlled bubble. Only for them to regurgitate the information you are comfortable with them knowing. Which reading your posts, is not much. You make our community look like narrowminded hypocrites and I would show you the door if I could, but instead I'll scold you and try to gain some ground with everyone else that reads this because you seem too emotional and defensive to understand that your approach at best leads to stagnation of ideas and at worst out right hostility to those in a lower socioeconomic situation as you. When I said before, that you get all wound up and pointed at the boogeyman of the day. Read your quote in this post. You're doing it in real time. You don't even realize it. You are punishing people who might not have any other option, for not other reason then you can't or won't have a discussion with your kids if/when(and it is WHEN, because they get things from all over) they come home with ideas different from your own. I have a feeling you didn't read down this far because you're all wound up, what's three times five? And its not even that you won't have the conversation you won't entertain the idea of a conversation ever taking place and you want to stop it before it ever happens. That's sad.

You keep repeating it but provide no evidence. You claim to have seen it, where? What can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

They are not accessible to everyone out side of school because not every has the resources to access them. So please stop saying that. As I mentioned before the author's website has the book as appropriate for kids 13 or 14+. That point is over. If a mistake happened, let it go. If the books are meant by the author or publisher to be for kids older than have access in a school library and professionals agree, fine. Seems as though you feel this issue is black and white(with us or against us, sound familiar?), it is not. The spectrum of 'appropriate' material ebbs and flows as a child matures, becomes exposed to new things, and becomes curious about new things. Some material that may be a bit 'much' for a child can be a good thing. Can spark creativity and curiosity and expanding of the mind. Does this mean you might have to have uncomfortable conversations with your child? Yes. Welcome to being a parent.

Great. Grand. Wonderful. How about equal rights? Equal opportunity? And try not to pivot to guns because its already a right if you belong to a well regulated militia.

Some people have different ideas of how to accomplish this. One wants universal health care and one doesn't. Guess which is which? One wants money out of politics so corporations and billionaires(that have little to no interest in the welfare of citizens, site every ecological disaster brought on my a company acting in its own interest before considering the rest of the state/country/world) can't buy elected officials and thus increasing the likelihood of their wealth and power going unchecked. One side wants elections to fair. How many state legislatures are gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives only to have a slim majority winning a VAST majority of positions(see NC, KY, WI, VA, TX). If their ideas were so great they'd win in 50/50 districts, do you think? Not that I think you'll engage at all on the topic but so that other people have something fun to read. Have a good afternoon. HAGA!

Always move the goal posts rather than admitting the challenge was satisfactorily completed. If you're honest you'd acknowledge the response rather than deflecting to another point. Admit you were wrong educate yourself and choose your words more carefully next time so you don't embarrass yourself again.

then educate. Hand waving is easy.

Computer froze and submitted the post. Couldn't edit. Anyway, the are convinced to vote against their own and society's best interest. Usually scared into thinking they will lose whatever they have if the 'other' is allowed to (fill in the blank). Tale as old as time.

Seems like your way of deflecting away from the the fact that you have not articulated a reason other than 'self-evident'. Again, if you don't have a reason, you can just say it. You'll look like a fool but that's your choice, too. I was not a good parent by self evident means. I process things much differently than a small child and needed to understand the difference. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident Is a conversation ender when you don't want to or can't explain your reasoning. Either way, its on you and shouldn't be foisted on anyone else until you can demonstrate why. I agree with parents in Cali. Well done. I don't think you understood what the last sentence is meant to convey. If my parents believed that the bears were spelled Berenstain and I found a book that spelled it a different way. They would either have to come to terms with the fact they were wrong, there are other ways to spelling things, or that I shouldn't be allowed to read things that disagree with their ideology. See, there is a perfectly innocuous subject that is >0% chance of conflicting with parents' beliefs. Are all adults this wacky with their ideas, probably not. But there is still a chance. Any book that proports to take place on a round Earth. Right there, that could cause some friction. Seems like you're pushing back on that just to push. Have at it. But it was to articulate that even small differences can be blown up if someone decides that is the hill they want to die on. Some of those hills are pretty dumb.

Bringing up hell at all is poisoning the well just a bit.

I don't understand, what was this teacher doing? Were they actively advocating for a position? Urging to take part in protests? What is wrong with that? I'd love to see how you hand wave this away. PROJECT VERITAS?! Shot and edited! Right there, the credibility of the video is suspect. PV is a joke. Blatantly dishonest! "I've had students show up at protests, community events, food distribution. All sorts of things." says the teacher. You'll have to paint the rest of the picture for me because this looks like a whole lot of satanic-panic-type stuff. Exactly what I said, get you wound up over nothing, feed you doctored tapes and point you in the direction of a thing. Hook line and sinker.

This is not that. What you're talking about is finding a plumber to diagnose your pipes with the issue you feel is wrong. If they disagree, you find another that will. There is no expertise in finding someone that agrees with you. If the majority of the people that study this issue agree, you need to make a pretty compelling case why we should listen to the minority. Since 'I just wanna' is not a good enough reason, as stated in my last post, you'll need to find something that makes your case in a 'non-self evident' way.

"Protecting children from potentially harmful content is a self-evident choice" 'Self-evident' or 'common sense' things are never those. You want to because you want to. If you can back up your opinions you would, because you can't or won't you just say 'self-evident' as a way to shut down a conversation. THAT we're having this conversation proves you wrong. Flamer - on the Author's website, it says the book is for ages 14+, so I think you're either the misinformed or purposefully misleading. All books contain a non-zero risk to dissuading kids against their parents' beliefs. That isn't always a bad thing.

No need to prove that it IS your responsibility. I'll concede that it is your responsibility but you are being lazy about application of it. I wrote that you need to prove why your opinion is sound, valid, and/or should be forced upon other children whose parents don't happen agree with you. How much do we whittle away at public resources(that for the most part are beneficial to the users) because a small percentage simply disagree with their existence or application? What other area(s) of life do you second guess the experts? Doctors, dentists, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters? Those who went to years of school for this subject, alone. Or just the ones whose mere existence pose a threat to fearmongers. People that benefit from winding you up and pointing you at a thing/group/organization and convince you that they are a threat. They try to convince you that TEACHERS, of all people, have the time, resources, or inclination to care about indoctrinating your child.

Just asking, you weren't specific and I couldn't put it together with your context clues. Care to share?

Entirely fair opinion to have. But that opinion is not held by everyone and you should not want your opinion to be put into action to effect everyone. Especially since you are, more than likely, not an expert in the teaching of children, nor versed in how data is collected and analyzed to determine the benefits or harms of this material. The word 'fear' says a lot. Its an emotion and powerful one. One that tends to overrule our rational thoughts and leads us down an often violent path of fight or flight. Neither of those options are an appropriate response in this situation. You should want to learn and understand before making a decision that effects your kids and more importantly would force your decision on others. Anything else is lazy and ignorant and your opinion should not be taken into account until you can prove what work you've done to come by it. If it effects everyone in a community you better work harder than you did to compose this post.

Which word(s)?

Its the Leopards Eating Faces Party. When they run out of faces of people they don't like or disagree with, they still need faces to eat. Who will they turn on next? This is how its gone. This is how it will always go. Unless they grow up! But that they are unwilling to conceive of a world where they are not correct, they will never give up their authority to arbitrarily censor things they deem immoral.

Seems like you're focusing on the wrong aspect of their personas. Not that two wrestling coaches reached that level within such and such a period of time because THAT is remarkable. It isn't. The thing these two guys have in common is that they are scumbags. Not something to celebrate in our community or nationally.

$58m over a few years, represents .00378% of the state budget. Even if 15 schools in Nebraska were having a similar shortfall it would still only represent .0567% of the budget for one year. A budget they just increased by $414m from last year. Seems like, if its as important to them as some might claim it is, they could easily pay for it by adding money to educational institutions. But state run colleges in the mid-west are for woke, coastal elites. They indoctrinate kids and try to educate them to the problems they might have to face in the future. We can't have that.

What are you all afraid of, seriously? Having difficult conversations with your kids is part of the job.

Conveniently left out the fact he defied a congressional subpoena. Should we allow someone to lead the House with that hanging over his head? What kind of authority could he possibly wield that he doesn't respect the body or its rules?

Bureaucrats or ADs? Who are you targeting here? Remember, sports is a business and NCAA schools are regulated by the government. If you want to see little to no opportunity for female(presenting) athletes and only men's basketball and football, then let schools stop following Title IX. As much money that has already gone to football will blow up, even more than it has. All sports that cost more then they make will be axed and some, not all, but some of those athletes that rely on those scholarships to afford ANY school, will go with them.