What was breathless about the article? Seemed pretty matter of fact in its presentation.

You call the other person a name

You don’t respond to anything they say directly

You do it twice in the same thread

You call something context without providing context

I get why people throw that stat around but I don’t think it’s a fair way to view the sport. You can go in and only focus on those minutes but if you’re choosing to watch closely there’s lots in the middle bits too. It’s probably better to think of that stat as time of action. During that time there’s a chance to analyze how the teams are setting up, what movement and audibles are they making, consider strategy and future actions, etc.

I think probably most of our activities have an ebb and flow and highlighting only one aspect of it would certainly empower someone to try to ridicule or treat it as a waste of time.

Just trying to offer a different perspective because I do think the risk of concussion is worth highlighting but your ignorance is on display which can take away from the argument I think your trying to make.

I see what you’re saying but I do think it’s important to mention his duty as a father is to be there for his kid and extrajudicial “justice” means this father will be in jail causing further trauma for his kid and severely restrict his ability to be a father.

Whoa, were you there?

Why are there quotes around that? Is that a quote from someone?

K

I’m whooshing on this one :)

But as far as know, nothing in the cop rule book says an anaconda can’t be a cop.

Weird, I want cops to not strangle someone because they may have used a fake bill, or shoot someone because they were called there to help with a mental health crisis, or shoot someone because they busted into the wrong apartment, or to flash bang a baby.

But I suppose that means I want them to be kind to someone actively shooting kids.

Still not describing anything that indicates it backs it.

Good news though, I did reply again so feel free to condescendingly demonstrate your intelligence again.

But it’s not backed by energy.

The energy was consumed in the process of creating the crypto, that energy no longer exists and since it doesn’t exist it can’t back anything.

Is “geys beyond me” the new “streets ahead”?

I just want to point out the irony that you’re ragging on the other poster for too many words while your single sentence vaguely alludes to something wrong without actually specifying what’s wrong.