Wiz-Blab Open Thread (Because I Forgot Over the Weekend…)

So, after all that about being sure to have an open thread each weekend…. I forgot to put one up!

Here is one bit to start ya’all off:

Dolphins player Don Jones was slammed by the team, forced to pay a fine and go to sensitivity training after using social media to slam the drafting of the league’s first openly gay player.

Jones was shocked by the pick of gay player Michael Sam and took to Twitter to say both “OMG” and “horrible.”

Jones, finally issued an apology:

I want to apologize to Michael Sam for the inappropriate comments that I made last night on social media. I take full responsibility for them and I regret that these tweets took away from his draft moment. I remember last year when I was drafted in the seventh round and all of the emotions and happiness I felt when I received the call that gave me an opportunity to play for an NFL team and I wish him all the best in his NFL career. I sincerely apologize to Mr. Ross, my teammates, coaches, staff and fans for these tweets. I am committed to represent the values of the Miami Dolphins organization and appreciate the opportunity I have been given to do so going forward.

So, was this a just punishment?

Did Jones have free speech that should just have been ignored or did the team have a duty to slap him down for making them look bad?

Let us know your thoughts and otherwise use this thread for open discussion.

Liberal Columnist: Anti-Black Racism Used Against Bill Clinton, Too
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • jim_m

    Of course what the NFL did was unfair, but then they are a private association and they can make their own rules.

    But in reality the NFL only responds to the media circus and what the media is focused on.

    The NCAA seems a little bit more tolerant of dissent than the NFL as is apparent from this tweet from FSU linebacker DeMarcus Walker:

    Y’all praise Michael Sam for being gay but y’all mocked Tim Tebow for being a Christian. Smh
    DeMarcus Walker (@livinglegend_44) May 11, 2014

    Society is OK with abuse and bigoted comments against Christians (cue Bruce and Chico to claim otherwise) because the leftist elite hate the idea of morality, whereas those belonging to left wing causes and groups are elevated on a pedestal for essentially doping nothing.

    What is really funny is the hysterical comments from the left that Sam, who after a terrible combine performance and pro day was expected to be an unsigned free agent, fell so far in the draft.

    • Brucehenry

      For myself I mock anybody who thanks God for allowing him to complete a pass or score a touchdown. The idea that God helps an athlete win a game in America while allowing children to die of malaria in Africa, is plenty mockable, I think.

      As for Sam vs Tebow, I snickered every time he took a knee, I admit it. If Sam drops to HIS knees on the field, I’ll mock that, too.

      • warnertoddhuston

        “The idea that God helps an athlete win a game in America while allowing children to die of malaria in Africa, is plenty mockable, I think.” To the simple minded who don’t know anything about theology, it is, certainly.

        • Brucehenry

          Why don’t you explain it to me, Rev?

          • warnertoddhuston

            “Why don’t you explain it to me, Rev?” My answer. Not my bag, so do your own research.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh well since I know nothing of theology and you, apparently, do, I thought you might do me a solid.

            But really, the truth is you have no explanation, and neither does anyone else. Not a satisfactory one anyway.

          • warnertoddhuston

            LOL. Choosing not to engage does NOT equate to not knowing anything about it, nor does it mean there is “no explanation.” Only a child would make such a taunt… oh, right. Never mind. It’s just not my bag to get into. I do not engage in debates of things that don’t interest me enough to get involved.

          • Brucehenry

            But yet you felt free to chide me, call me “simple-minded,” and assert I know nothing of theology, but when called to back up your insults, you admit you got nothin’.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Wrong again. I only said that what I “got” I ain’t giving to you. Never said I “got nothing.”

          • Brucehenry

            No you never said it. But we all know that’s the case.

          • Remarkable the number of things you know that just ain’t so…

          • Brucehenry

            Hey welcome back. Always so pithy.

            And you were a HUGE help when the anti-Semitic holocaust deniers showed up, so thanks for that. You’re awesome. Way to go, “Moderator”!

          • I down ding this comment, as well.

          • Some souls were born to burn.

          • jim_m

            The short answer is because God doesn’t care about your job, what you drive, where you live, etc. He just doesn’t care. What He does care about is your belief in Him and you heart with regard to sin. Period. He doesn’t even expect you not to sin, as the Bible tells us that it is beyond our capacity to be sinless.

            People who think that God is punishing them for this or that drive me nuts. That is what the next life is for. He doesn’t need to get at you in this one. My ex was constantly on about, “why does God hate her”. It isn’t that God hates people, it’s that your concerns really aren’t that important to Him compared to what He’s concerned about.

            As to the problem of evil, God didn’t bring it in, we did. We live in a fallen world with fallen people and fallen choices. bad things happen, but that is not the way it was intended. Evil is not a problem for God because He can still accomplish His aims in spite of it. And again, what He is concerned about is not your health, or your wealth but your heart. People lose sight of that all the time.

            I think God actually sad it best Himself:

            Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

            9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

            People get all hung up trying to figure out God. He basically tells us that we can’t.

          • Brucehenry

            So why does God allow horrific birth defects? Who sinned that the baby had to suffer? Why allow pandemics that take the innocent as well as the guilty?

            You say God didn’t bring in evil, we did. The month old babies blown to smithereens at Hiroshima — who did they sin against? The people born with spina bifida, in pain for their entire existences — why?

            And in no way do you refute my assertion that a God who answers a prayer for a touchdown while ignoring a prayer for daddy to quit beating mommy is no just God, and not a God worth worshipping.

          • jim_m

            Taking your last point. You look at the temporal issue as being paramount. God looks at the eternal issue. It is our hearts He is after, and He is not some magic genie that gives you touchdowns or a happy family. Both Christians and atheists are guilty of making this assumption.

            You claim that birth defects are evil? By what standard? Everyone is going to die. Does it really matter that much whether we die at 2 or 102? Not really.

            I am not saying that babies sin and deserve punishment. I am saying that the world is broken (qv Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden). Bad things happen because the worl does not work according to the way God intended. It doesn’t work that way because man decided that he didn’t want it to work that way. (The union steward screwed us. Adam: “You fucked up, you trusted me!”)

            I think you need to get away from this idea that God is some sort of Santa Claus, who is going to give you all sorts of presents. He’s not. A people who profess to believe in God and think that He is going to make them rich are believing in something, but it isn’t God.

          • jim_m

            To expand:

            If you accept for a moment the Christian belief that we live in a fallen world (putting aside for a moment how that happened as a separate issue), then the matter of evil breaks down to two issues:

            1) Evil is present because man has free will and chooses evil.

            2) Man has abandoned the protection of God and forsaken the freedom from illness and death that God had provided.

            In both cases God allows these things because they are the result of free will choices of man. (granted, we can’t go back and re-choose on item #2) But neither of these things bar God from accomplishing His aim for us or His plan for the world (whatever that is). As I have stated previously, God’s concern is over our hearts toward Him and sin.

            So I believe that evil exists because 1) it is a fallen world, 2) Man chooses it out of free will and 3) it is immaterial to God reaching His aims for us.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah yeah do you really think there was literally an Adam and an Eve? That these two actual, real people chose to disobey an anthropomorphic God at the behest of a talking snake and THAT’S why there is evil in the world?

            Talk about mockable.

          • jim_m

            My belief is that whether or not you believe this as literal truth or as allegory, it still describes a fall, where what God planned was changed.

            Also, if there is no fall then there is no need for salvation and no need for Christ. You can’t have one without the other.

            But you have neither so that works too. (well up to the point of the judgement)

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I don’t think either of us will convert the other. My thanks to JWH for bringing to my attention the word “theodicy.” I never knew the term for it.

          • jim_m

            I grew up as an atheist. I’m not going back.

            And my intention is not to convert you. I only seek to explain my belief.

            1 Peter 3:15 be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you

          • jim_m

            I should also say that I am a profound believer in the irredeemableness of man apart from God and believe that I am a very good example of that fact.

          • Brucehenry

            If you are a young-earth creationist just say so. Are you ashamed?

          • jim_m

            No, I am not. (to both)

            My belief in God comes from an epistemological standpoint rather than a metaphysical one.

          • I, for one, wish him justice un-tempered.

          • I’d double down ding this comment.

          • Brucehenry

            Kind of my point, Jim. I don’t think God is Santa, but guys like Tebow apparently do.

            And birth defects aren’t evil, but an omniscient and omnibenevolent God wouldn’t allow them. And I find it mockable that some of the same folks who pray for a good parking spot at the mall see no problem with a tsunami wiping innocents off the map.

          • jim_m

            I think that there is a difference between saying that Phil 4:13 “I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me”. and saying that God made it happen. It is perfectly reasonable to thank God for the first part. I think that if you asked Tebow he would claim that as his reasoning.

            But yes, I think that it is foolish to say that, God made the Seahawks win the Super Bowl. I really don’t think God cares about that stuff. Kind of like the movie Angels in the Outfield, he doesn’t do Championships.

          • JWH

            My religious thoughts aside, praying for victory in an athletic contest seems … petty.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but some teams need all the help they can get. Take the Cubs for instance… Please!

          • JWH

            I’ll take your Cubs and raise you the Washington Redskins.

          • jim_m

            Fortunately, they are not my Cubs. I’m a Red Sox fan.

          • You speak of color to one blind from birth.

          • Some sow, some water, some reap…

          • JWH

            I wish I could find it now, but a few months ago, I read somebody’s personal story on Quora about this. When the writer was a child, his mother’s ex-boyfriend assaulted and tried to kill both him and his mother in their home when he was a young boy. After the traumatic attack, the writer struggled to get his life back together and his mother, meanwhile, turned to alcoholism. He finally got it together as an adult, but his entire experience convinced him there was no god.

            I wish I could link to it for you. The damn thing was painful. The man described praying again and again for God to help him out, for God to heal him, for God to heal his mother …. and there was never an answer.

            All of this you’re talking about — birth defects, floods, fires on the other side of the world. That’s all pretty diffuse. For this guy, the suffering was real, and it nearly destroyed him … and there was no God for him.

            That kind of personal horror, IMO, blows out of the water any Bible quote about God’s mysterious ways. That man could have used a benevolent god. And no god was there for him.

          • jim_m

            I would be careful of allowing anyone’s personal experience dictate what I think about God.

            As I have said God is interested in our hearts toward Him and less about our circumstances.

            This also gets into the notion of predestination and Calvin’s idea that people are either elect or not. If God knows that you will not accept Him, does He neglect you?

            That’s a whole other discussion.

          • JWH

            I found it. http://www.quora.com/Atheism/What-are-examples-of-defining-moments-that-led-a-person-to-adopt-atheism/answer/Ariel-Williams?srid=tEP3&share=1

            Turns out that it was a “her,” not a “him.” But the story is still riveting.

          • jim_m

            It really makes no difference to me. My faith is not founded on emotional appeals. It is based on the necessity of God for establishing a framework of moral truth and not some sob story. Without God there is no objective moral truth. I choose to deny any claims that good and evil is merely a matter of perspective.

          • JWH

            You’d make one hell of a grief counselor. “You and your mom were almost killed. That’s some sob story. God didn’t do squat for you, but he’s established a framework of moral truth. Isn’t that great?”

          • jim_m

            I wasn’t trying to be a grief counselor and I would do that to someone. There is a difference between how one would respond to the individual and how one comes to their belief regarding the existence of God.

            Someone who is really angry with God doesn’t want to hear about God and why God allows evil to exist. It would be foolish to debate them on the issue.

          • JWH

            Damn right they don’t want to hear it.

            I’ve been fortunate not to have this kind of grief visited on me, but I’ve worked with a lot of people who’ve undeservedly had evil — abuse and assaults in particular — visited on them. The perpetrators are human beings, typically people in a position of strength delivering cruelty to those who are weak.

            Thing is, there’s a lot of evil in the world. And from where I sit, the sheer amount of this evil is inconsistent with a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. Lofty declarations about this not knowing the mind of God, or about God’s mysterious ways, or about God not caring about individual circumstances …. all of those just seem hollow when stacked up against the evils of this world.

            Totaling up all that evil … I feel like this God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care about its creation. On balance, I’ve decided it is more likely there is no god. If I am to be honest, I wish that God did exist. If there is a God, I have some questions.

          • jim_m

            If there is a God, rest assured you will probably be required to provide some answers.

            Think of how silly what you said sounds. If there is a being that created the universe and everything we know, and who is responsible for the creation of life and ultimately you; then He’s got some ‘splainin to do because you aren’t happy with the way He’s run things. Yeah, I’ll bet that goes down well.

            I always get a kick when people say that they have questions for God and He is going to have to give an account of His actions. I’ll bet that same attitude went over really well when you were 8 and your dad grounded you.

          • JWH

            No more silly than a god that apparently forgives rapists and murderers as long as they are contrite, but gets smiley at li’l heretical me.

          • jim_m

            Contrition is easy to display for man but God can tell if there is a true change of heart. I wager that in most cases the contrition is superficial at best.

          • jim_m

            If there is no God then how can you characterize anything as evil? How do you determine the difference between good and evil?

            If man determines what is evil then does not the definition change depending on the whims of society? So while you may say that the abusive father is evil today, it is entirely possible that at some future time that will be considered normal and good.

            Furthermore, what man possesses better moral judgement than all others? How do we identify that person. And if no man is provably a more certain judge of good and evil then how does society make that judgement when society is nothing more than a collection of men who do not have any special moral knowledge?

            So without a basis for saying that anything is good or evil how can you render any meaningful judgement about anyone’s actions other than to say whether or not you like them? And why should I take you seriously since you have no better knowledge than I do?

            Without God there is no way to speak sensibly about good or evil.

          • Brucehenry

            All crazy talk.

            Absolutely the definition of evil changes with society. Your own example of fathers, who once upon a time routinely beat their children and their wives and were considered “normal and good” illustrates that, you just got the timeline backward.What we call abusive today was just not sparing the rod back in the day. Ditto slavery and pedophilia which once were considered normal and good. Man, not God, decided those things are evil and should be shunned, not practiced, punished.

            What man possesses better moral judgment than all others? None, probably, but surely you’ll admit that SOME evidently display better moral judgment than SOME others. In modern times we have set up systems of government and civil institutions have evolved to handle these functions. It is up to the community to choose wise leaders in whatever fashion the community has decided upon, so to speak.

            The reverse of your last questions is also true. Who are you (or anyone) to say God has revealed to you what is right, just, and true? And why should I take you seriously since you claim to speak for and on behalf of an unseen being that you can’t prove exists?

          • jim_m

            My point was exactly that the definition of evil changes with society and so therefore calling anything evil was a statement with limited, if any, value since what is evil today may not be tomorrow.

            There is no way to ascertain whether or not society has chosen wise leaders so the idea that society is any better than any single man is foolish.

            I accept your question as to how do we know whether or not a religious text is truly the revealed wisdom of God and my answer to you is simple. By faith.

            The bottom line is that God cannot be proven, nor can He be disproven. All I have stated is that moral truth cannot be known with any certainty apart from God.

            I am not asking you to take me seriously. I acknowledge your skepticism but the reality is that you are still left with an irresolvable uncertainty about good, evil and moral truth, whereas I am not.

          • jim_m

            To expand upon the last paragraph, Emmanuel Kant attempted to resolve the difficulty of how do we know what God intended as moral truth and his solution (imperfect) was that man could ascertain this knowledge through reason. This partly relies upon an assumption that God exists and that God gave man reason for this purpose and that through the application of reason and logic one could deduce God’s truth.

            As I said, it is not perfect but once again it relies upon God as the foundation of truth because man is an insufficient foundation for truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I don’t get “faith” either. What is faith but choosing to believe something despite a lack of tangible evidence? Or in some instances despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

          • jim_m

            Martin Luther had a good take on faith. I will leave it to him to explain it.

            As Luther points out, faith is something that God does in us and is not from ourselves. By its very definition faith is belief without absolute evidence.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so. It still requires being willingly blind to evidence or the lack of it.

          • jim_m

            Yes of course. But then so does a lack of belief in God.

          • Brucehenry

            No of course not. Not being persuaded is not the same as choosing to be persuaded

          • jim_m

            Objectively, there is no difference between the two. How can you say that you were persuaded or that you chose to be persuaded? That is a subjective judgement on your part and you could be deceiving yourself. People do that all the time.

          • Brucehenry

            Because there is a difference. If I say I believe it is raining because water is actually falling out of the sky on my head that’s one thing. But if I say I believe it is raining because my pastor tells me it’s raining, but water is NOT actually falling out of the sky on my head, that’s another.

            That’s the difference between faith and observation.

          • jim_m

            That is bullshit.

            The proper analogy is that I say that there is a God and I list off the evidence to myself of His existence. Meanwhile, you say that they isn’t a God and do the same. However, God is a being that, if He does exist, exists outside of our physical reality so there can be no absolute proof of his existence or nonexistence. Both belief and unbelief take a degree of faith no matter what you say.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, OK, maybe so — a little, lol.

          • jim_m

            Furthermore, you say that God does not exist, yet science does not have all the answers to the universe either. There are no good answers to what happened before the Big Bang. It is all supposition.

            The same goes for the creation of life. Evolution cannot fully explain diversity and within the evolutionary biology community there are competing theories as to how it may have worked. Nor can evolution explain with certainty the origins of life. (for instance no one has yet to explain why all living organism use only lepto rotary amino acids when natural synthesis produces both lepto and dextro rotary molecules)

            You may say that science will one day supply the answers but that too is a leap of faith.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet science has answered more questions about how the universe works in the last 300 years than religion has ever answered.

            And again, if you are a creationist just say so, don’t be closeted.

            Finally, you say that God, if he does exist, exists outside of our physical reality. That may be fine for you, but it supposes that something CAN exist “outside our physical reality.” There is no real evidence for THAT.

          • jim_m

            Nor is there any evidence against that.

            However, I will quibble with you about existence outside of our physical reality as many physicists today postulate the existence of parallel universes and they do so because the existence of these universes is necessary to make their mathematical formulas describing our own universe work out.

            SO science today is making assumptions that are every bit as fantastical as religion. (hell, just look at Global Warming, that IS a religion.)

          • Brucehenry

            Well this has been fun. Thanks for keeping it civil, and I hope you have found me so as well. I have to get up at 4 am tomorrow, though, so…

          • jim_m

            I have enjoyed it as well.

          • Paul Hooson

            You only to only look at how quickly that differing dog breeds have developed from what were wolf roots to see how quickly dogs developed into breeds as different as the tiny Chihuahua or the very large Great Dane. None of these dogs even closely resemble their wolf roots, other than four legs and a tail. Completely different appearing animals were adapted from a common wolf ancestry to acquire dogs such as the dachshund, solely breed for their long bodies and short legs to act as a tunnel rat to hunt badgers for example. Yet, those that discount evolution fail to see how man developed from his common roots with some groups of apes or other entirely plausible chains of evolution. This takes no great leap of faith.

          • jim_m

            I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain biology to an idiot that thinks that making a new dog breed is the equivalent of making a new species of animal that is incapable of interbreeding with the old one. (yes there are some species that can interbreed but then the offspring are frequently like the mule and the liger, sterile)

            What I said about evolutionary biologists as being divided on how evolution can account for the complexity and diversity is true. It is generally accepted that conventional Darwinian evolution cannot account for any of this and in fact conventional Darwinian evolution cannot explain current biology as even at the cellular level biological function could not evolve in a linear fashion.

          • If ever there was a subject matter expert on “crazy talk”…



            But who would trust a madman any more than one would trust an inveterate liar?

          • Yet.

          • JWH

            You seem to relish the thought of such evil befalling me or my loved ones, Rodney. Rot in hell.

          • Strong words for one who does not believe in God to begin with.

          • Because the rain falls on the just and unjust alike.

          • I down ding this comment, too.

          • Hebrews 11:1

        • JWH

          IMO, theodicy is rather difficult to swallow for a lot of us. I generally find theodicy inadequate, and that is one of the reasons I stay away from religion.

          • JWH

            (For the record: Theodicy is not a portmanteau of “theocracy” and “idiocy.” It’s actually a field of theology in which people try figure out the problem of evil.)

          • jim_m

            IDK. For certain people the other way would be apt.

          • jim_m

            Bruce and I have already started that discussion below.

      • jim_m

        They mocked hm for his faith. Not for his statements. At the root the criticism of Tebow was always founded in religious intolerance.

        And yeah, I found him to be over the top too, but unlike the left I figured that he was allowed to believe whatever he wanted to. It seems that to you and the rest of the left, religion is OK as long as you never express it publicly and as long as it isn’t Christian.

        • Brucehenry

          It was fine, and it should be fine for folks like me to snicker at his “take-a-knee” antics too.

          • jim_m

            Snickering is OK. But people took it far further. There was an awful lot of hate directed toward him.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t speak for haters. I don’t doubt that you are right that there were many who hated Tebow. I don’t understand it either.

          • JWH

            Is it wrong that I laughed at the Tebowing meme?

            In seriousness, I thought Tebow’s religiosity was over the top. I also think he was unwise to allow his religion, rather than his football-playing abilities, to define him not just personally but also professionally.

            But at the same time, I also think that teams unfairly allowed their opinion of his religion to color their opinions of him as a football player.

          • jim_m

            I said that snickering was OK.

            I think that he wasn’t given a proper chance. If you look at Trent Dilfer’s report on Tebow, he said that Tebow had made dramatic changes to his throwing action and style of play. But no one wanted to look at him because he was essentially made taboo by the MSM.

          • Jwb10001

            Is it ok for other folks to snicker at a football player that thinks his sexual orientation is important? I find pubic expressions of faith a little uncomfortable, I also find public expressions of sexual orientation a tad uncomfortable.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? Or do you just find public expressions of an orientation other than your own a tad uncomfortable?

            Because drafted players kiss their girlfriends on TV all the time. One UNC player proposed to his girlfriend the first day of the draft. Were you uncomfortable with that?

          • Jwb10001

            No Bruce I don’t just find gay sexual expression uncomfortable but please do point out how many heterosexuals feel the need to come out on national tv to announce their sexual orientation. Kissing your partner is not the same (gay or not) as making statements about your sexual orientation. It seems to me to be a LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME move when people feel others care what their sexual orientation is to the point that it has to make the news.

          • Brucehenry

            There is no need to “come out” as a heterosexual, Captain Obvious. L. O. Fucking. L.

      • Jwb10001

        Perhaps these folks are thanking god for the gifts they possess that allow them to compete in sports or some other field at a level few can ever dream of. Other’s may feel they are gifted because they worked hard and achieved a level of success limited to the very few. None I suspect will ever thank their gayness for the wonderful gifts it’s given them to perform at a high level on the football field or some other endeavor.

  • JWH

    Two ideas to start things off:

    1) “Freedom of speech” generally means that government may not punish you for your speech. Private actors, however, are free to punish you by reacting negatively, piling on, or an employer might disavow you, dismiss you, or force you to watch Full House reruns.

    2) However, there is a very strong case for arguing over whether employers and others should be quick to sanction a person for expressing his views.

    In this case … the NFL is in a tricky position, and the Miami Dolphins are in an especially tricky position. Professional sports locker rooms, rightly or wrongly, have a reputation for not being gay-friendly. As an organization, the NFL wants to change that image. Ergo, Don Jones’s remarks create an image problem for the NFL.

    The Miami Dolphins, meanwhile, just got shellacked over allegations of bullying in the locker room. They want to show they’ve cleaned up their locker room culture, so the Dolphins, as an organization, aren’t going to tolerate Jones’s remarks.

    As for the rest … I’m glad to see an openly gay player in the NFL, but I wish it wasn’t such a big deal. We really should have moved on from those milestones by now. I don’t like to see politics of any stripe or religion (checking Jim M’s Tebow reference) mix with football. I prefer to focus on immutable truths:

    1) Football announcers’ stats are impressive, but color commentators are annoying. (“If this team wants to win, they’ll need to score more touchdowns!”)

    2) Football-field beer and hot dogs are overpriced.

    3) Tony Romo is the biggest choke artist in the entire league.

  • Commander_Chico

    Team solidarity is important. Guys who mouth off a negative opinion on other guys’ private, off-field lives are disruptive no matter what their opinion is.

    • Do please explain for us in that (Team solidarity is important.) what exactly you are doing here?

      • Commander_Chico

        Because comment boards are not “teams.” It’s an individual sport.

        Loved the “Do please.”

        • Brucehenry

          This guy is a hoot.