They deserve the coming years when they finally don’t have a generational talent at QB....
They deserve the coming years when they finally don’t have a generational talent at QB....
Shhh!! I haven’t been on campus in roughly a decade and a half, but my impression is that name is now treated as akin to Voldemort’s at Hogwarts.
I’d tell you where I went to law school but they had to change its name because it was named after a virulent anti-Chinese racist.
Sino wave generator.
FIFA should string Sacramento along and then relocate to either the Twin Cities, Nashville or Cincinnati. And FIFA might be able to add Charlotte and/or St. Louis to its punk Sacramento options in a few hours or days.
Take your L, sport.
It seems like you’re going out of your way to defend an article that you don’t actually agree with.
I only think the two questions were silly. I’m not commenting on anything else.
My point’s pretty clear. Two of the questions you asked in your original comment were dopey.
1. “So you’re in favour of preseason friendlies....but not if the club makes money off them?” was a pithy question. As noted above, nothing in the article suggests Luiz is categorically opposed to soccer games that make many.
So you’re retracting “Does this mean soccer games are bad?”
So you were actually asking “is this sub-set of soccer games bad?”
Not really. He seems to be advocating for these matches being played in more soccer-specific stadiums with, as you would expect, better playing surfaces. Assuming such matches would make at least some money (which isn’t hard to imagine), then that answers your first question: he seems pretty relaxed about the potential…
So you’re in favour of preseason friendlies....but not if the club makes money off them?
Pfft. In the very late 90s and very early aughts, I would see a solo version of this pretty regularly coming down either Fillmore or Haight from the window of my apartment at Fillmore and Haight. Usually at night.
Peck’s piece was a mess for a variety of reasons, but the most salient is that he seemed to conflate criticism of Buttigieg as a presidential candidate and Buttigieg as a gay man. It’s not shocking, and to some extent even fair, that Peck would make this mistake, mostly because of the way in which Buttigieg is framing…
That’s right.
You’re conflating “knowing someone” with understanding their position on an issue by reference to their publicly stated opinions.
Unless, of course, you could reference to a direct quote on how Dungy handles his emails. Did you look for one?
“I’m guessing...he would actually respond.”