CradleandShoot - 1 Minute (2 Day) Penalty

[MDlaxfan76]

Indeed, there's a big part of America who actually see police violence, and over incarceration, against minorities as necessary,

A huge load of hogwash coming from between the pipes. What the heck is over incarceration?? Does that mean too many guilty people are put behind bars. I think I spent 20 minutes laughing and shaking my head at the brain numbing logic being used here. Does anybody on this forum pay any attention to the daily violence being used AGAINST the police?

cradle, you'll be back soon on the regular threads and you'll undoubtedly have lots of opportunities to disparage my views, but I happened to see this post and thought, well why not respond?

Yeah, over incarceration of minorities is when you put minority "criminals" behind bars for offenses of equivalent severity, disproportionately per infraction relative to whites. Same crime, different time, different likelihood of prosecution.

And then you have discriminatory sentencing for certain types of drug offenses relative to others, heavy sentences for possession of crack cocaine, light sentences for coke...different set of "criminals", thus different sentencing restrictions.

And, of course, the whole criminalization of some substances, no crime for others...

and, the reality that populations with less wealth (of all races) are most likely to turn to crime. And this particular issue exacerbated by redlining and other practices ghettoizing by ethnicity.

But hey, call it "hogwash" or "mind numbing" if you want...OR bother to actually ask what is meant with an open mind...

Want to change the subject to violence against police? It's a very, very serious issue. Absolutely.

What's your prescription? More incarceration?
We already have the highest incarceration rate of any first world country...

My prescription is decriminalization of drug use. All drug use.

What is your prescription?? Over incarceration means the criminals were over arrested and over convicted in the first place. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yes I do understand the irony when it concerns Robert Blake. Here in my neck of the woods we just had a 3 time parolee arrested for armed bank robbery only shortly after being released from prison. Define for me what you mean by "over incarceration"
Is there also then such a thing as " under incarceration" ?You are the one who brought up the term. Your the one who has some "splainin to do" You do know that most of these folks busted selling drugs also are quite the business folks. They have other sideline businesses to add to their drug dealing income. I bet you did not know that quite a few of them dabble in a number wide variety of illegal activities. Your answer is to release them to the streets. These folks were all arrested because they sang too loud in the church choir on Sunday. FTR, would you have a problem hiring any of these ex-cons to drive for your company? I know how you feel about not hiring WP types. I'm wondering where your belief system stands when it comes to trusting ex-cons who may be black or brown? Even if maybe they were convicted of armed robbery... Here is your chance to shine.

Try reading what I wrote directly above.
Not what you imagine, but what I actually wrote.

Then go ahead and ask me a question or two that reflects having done so...this rant does not.

[JoeMauer89]

Indeed, there's a big part of America who actually see police violence, and over incarceration, against minorities as necessary,

A huge load of hogwash coming from between the pipes. What the heck is over incarceration?? Does that mean too many guilty people are put behind bars. I think I spent 20 minutes laughing and shaking my head at the brain numbing logic being used here. Does anybody on this forum pay any attention to the daily violence being used AGAINST the police?

cradle, you'll be back soon on the regular threads and you'll undoubtedly have lots of opportunities to disparage my views, but I happened to see this post and thought, well why not respond?

Yeah, over incarceration of minorities is when you put minority "criminals" behind bars for offenses of equivalent severity, disproportionately per infraction relative to whites. Same crime, different time, different likelihood of prosecution.

And then you have discriminatory sentencing for certain types of drug offenses relative to others, heavy sentences for possession of crack cocaine, light sentences for coke...different set of "criminals", thus different sentencing restrictions.

And, of course, the whole criminalization of some substances, no crime for others...

and, the reality that populations with less wealth (of all races) are most likely to turn to crime. And this particular issue exacerbated by redlining and other practices ghettoizing by ethnicity.

But hey, call it "hogwash" or "mind numbing" if you want...OR bother to actually ask what is meant with an open mind...

Want to change the subject to violence against police? It's a very, very serious issue. Absolutely.

What's your prescription? More incarceration?
We already have the highest incarceration rate of any first world country...

My prescription is decriminalization of drug use. All drug use.

What is your prescription?? Over incarceration means the criminals were over arrested and over convicted in the first place. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yes I do understand the irony when it concerns Robert Blake. Here in my neck of the woods we just had a 3 time parolee arrested for armed bank robbery only shortly after being released from prison. Define for me what you mean by "over incarceration"
Is there also then such a thing as " under incarceration" ?You are the one who brought up the term. Your the one who has some "splainin to do" You do know that most of these folks busted selling drugs also are quite the business folks. They have other sideline businesses to add to their drug dealing income. I bet you did not know that quite a few of them dabble in a number wide variety of illegal activities. Your answer is to release them to the streets. These folks were all arrested because they sang too loud in the church choir on Sunday. FTR, would you have a problem hiring any of these ex-cons to drive for your company? I know how you feel about not hiring WP types. I'm wondering where your belief system stands when it comes to trusting ex-cons who may be black or brown? Even if maybe they were convicted of armed robbery... Here is your chance to shine.

Try reading what I wrote directly above.
Not what you imagine, but what I actually wrote.

Then go ahead and ask me a question or two that reflects having done so...this rant does not.

MD,

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

Indeed, there's a big part of America who actually see police violence, and over incarceration, against minorities as necessary,

A huge load of hogwash coming from between the pipes. What the heck is over incarceration?? Does that mean too many guilty people are put behind bars. I think I spent 20 minutes laughing and shaking my head at the brain numbing logic being used here. Does anybody on this forum pay any attention to the daily violence being used AGAINST the police?

cradle, you'll be back soon on the regular threads and you'll undoubtedly have lots of opportunities to disparage my views, but I happened to see this post and thought, well why not respond?

Yeah, over incarceration of minorities is when you put minority "criminals" behind bars for offenses of equivalent severity, disproportionately per infraction relative to whites. Same crime, different time, different likelihood of prosecution.

And then you have discriminatory sentencing for certain types of drug offenses relative to others, heavy sentences for possession of crack cocaine, light sentences for coke...different set of "criminals", thus different sentencing restrictions.

And, of course, the whole criminalization of some substances, no crime for others...

and, the reality that populations with less wealth (of all races) are most likely to turn to crime. And this particular issue exacerbated by redlining and other practices ghettoizing by ethnicity.

But hey, call it "hogwash" or "mind numbing" if you want...OR bother to actually ask what is meant with an open mind...

Want to change the subject to violence against police? It's a very, very serious issue. Absolutely.

What's your prescription? More incarceration?
We already have the highest incarceration rate of any first world country...

My prescription is decriminalization of drug use. All drug use.

What is your prescription?? Over incarceration means the criminals were over arrested and over convicted in the first place. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yes I do understand the irony when it concerns Robert Blake. Here in my neck of the woods we just had a 3 time parolee arrested for armed bank robbery only shortly after being released from prison. Define for me what you mean by "over incarceration"
Is there also then such a thing as " under incarceration" ?You are the one who brought up the term. Your the one who has some "splainin to do" You do know that most of these folks busted selling drugs also are quite the business folks. They have other sideline businesses to add to their drug dealing income. I bet you did not know that quite a few of them dabble in a number wide variety of illegal activities. Your answer is to release them to the streets. These folks were all arrested because they sang too loud in the church choir on Sunday. FTR, would you have a problem hiring any of these ex-cons to drive for your company? I know how you feel about not hiring WP types. I'm wondering where your belief system stands when it comes to trusting ex-cons who may be black or brown? Even if maybe they were convicted of armed robbery... Here is your chance to shine.

Try reading what I wrote directly above.
Not what you imagine, but what I actually wrote.

Then go ahead and ask me a question or two that reflects having done so...this rant does not.

MD,

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

Joe

couldn't help yourself, huh, Joe?

How about engaging on the actual discussion, not the poster?
Do you have something to contribute on topic?

cradle can respond for himself, on the merits of the discussion. He frequently does. I "don't get to choose" how he responds. Nor does he, nor you, get "to choose" how I respond.

But I am asking him to read my response and respond on the merits. He can "choose" to do so or not. Up to him.

In this case, given that cradle was in the doghouse, yet nevertheless clearly wanted to interact and quoted me from another thread, I gave him my respect and answered best I could.

Hopefully he'll give me the same respect, but I certainly can't control or "choose" that. Up to him.

[admin]

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

No personal attacks...

[youthathletics]

It gets crazier and crazier how the admin is always just around the corner, within minutes in-fact, when a certain poster is involved. In police work....they'd call that a clue.

[admin]

[youthathletics]

[JoeMauer89]

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

No personal attacks...

Admin,

Understood, but that wasn't a personal attack. It was merely a suggestion.

Joe

[Matnum PI]

Understood, but that wasn't a personal attack. It was merely a suggestion.
Joe

That's like saying, "Are you a total idiot?" isn't an attack, it's a question.

[cradleandshoot]

Indeed, there's a big part of America who actually see police violence, and over incarceration, against minorities as necessary,

A huge load of hogwash coming from between the pipes. What the heck is over incarceration?? Does that mean too many guilty people are put behind bars. I think I spent 20 minutes laughing and shaking my head at the brain numbing logic being used here. Does anybody on this forum pay any attention to the daily violence being used AGAINST the police?

cradle, you'll be back soon on the regular threads and you'll undoubtedly have lots of opportunities to disparage my views, but I happened to see this post and thought, well why not respond?

Yeah, over incarceration of minorities is when you put minority "criminals" behind bars for offenses of equivalent severity, disproportionately per infraction relative to whites. Same crime, different time, different likelihood of prosecution.

And then you have discriminatory sentencing for certain types of drug offenses relative to others, heavy sentences for possession of crack cocaine, light sentences for coke...different set of "criminals", thus different sentencing restrictions.

And, of course, the whole criminalization of some substances, no crime for others...

and, the reality that populations with less wealth (of all races) are most likely to turn to crime. And this particular issue exacerbated by redlining and other practices ghettoizing by ethnicity.

But hey, call it "hogwash" or "mind numbing" if you want...OR bother to actually ask what is meant with an open mind...

Want to change the subject to violence against police? It's a very, very serious issue. Absolutely.

What's your prescription? More incarceration?
We already have the highest incarceration rate of any first world country...

My prescription is decriminalization of drug use. All drug use.

What is your prescription?? Over incarceration means the criminals were over arrested and over convicted in the first place. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yes I do understand the irony when it concerns Robert Blake. Here in my neck of the woods we just had a 3 time parolee arrested for armed bank robbery only shortly after being released from prison. Define for me what you mean by "over incarceration"
Is there also then such a thing as " under incarceration" ?You are the one who brought up the term. Your the one who has some "splainin to do" You do know that most of these folks busted selling drugs also are quite the business folks. They have other sideline businesses to add to their drug dealing income. I bet you did not know that quite a few of them dabble in a number wide variety of illegal activities. Your answer is to release them to the streets. These folks were all arrested because they sang too loud in the church choir on Sunday. FTR, would you have a problem hiring any of these ex-cons to drive for your company? I know how you feel about not hiring WP types. I'm wondering where your belief system stands when it comes to trusting ex-cons who may be black or brown? Even if maybe they were convicted of armed robbery... Here is your chance to shine.

Try reading what I wrote directly above.
Not what you imagine, but what I actually wrote.

Then go ahead and ask me a question or two that reflects having done so...this rant does not.

MD,

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

Joe

couldn't help yourself, huh, Joe?

How about engaging on the actual discussion, not the poster?
Do you have something to contribute on topic?

cradle can respond for himself, on the merits of the discussion. He frequently does. I "don't get to choose" how he responds. Nor does he, nor you, get "to choose" how I respond.

But I am asking him to read my response and respond on the merits. He can "choose" to do so or not. Up to him.

In this case, given that cradle was in the doghouse, yet nevertheless clearly wanted to interact and quoted me from another thread, I gave him my respect and answered best I could.

Hopefully he'll give me the same respect, but I certainly can't control or "choose" that. Up to him.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/29/washingto ... h-village/

i guess this touches on the law of unexpected consequences. Even the liberal open minded folks that live in Greenwich village are sick of drug addicts shooting up without a care in the world. I know your response will be get them help. Having watched my best friend spend 10 years of his life trying to quit cocaine and having been to more rehabs than I can remember... getting an addict the help they need is easy to say and darn near impossible to do.

[cradleandshoot]

Indeed, there's a big part of America who actually see police violence, and over incarceration, against minorities as necessary,

A huge load of hogwash coming from between the pipes. What the heck is over incarceration?? Does that mean too many guilty people are put behind bars. I think I spent 20 minutes laughing and shaking my head at the brain numbing logic being used here. Does anybody on this forum pay any attention to the daily violence being used AGAINST the police?

cradle, you'll be back soon on the regular threads and you'll undoubtedly have lots of opportunities to disparage my views, but I happened to see this post and thought, well why not respond?

Yeah, over incarceration of minorities is when you put minority "criminals" behind bars for offenses of equivalent severity, disproportionately per infraction relative to whites. Same crime, different time, different likelihood of prosecution.

And then you have discriminatory sentencing for certain types of drug offenses relative to others, heavy sentences for possession of crack cocaine, light sentences for coke...different set of "criminals", thus different sentencing restrictions.

And, of course, the whole criminalization of some substances, no crime for others...

and, the reality that populations with less wealth (of all races) are most likely to turn to crime. And this particular issue exacerbated by redlining and other practices ghettoizing by ethnicity.

But hey, call it "hogwash" or "mind numbing" if you want...OR bother to actually ask what is meant with an open mind...

Want to change the subject to violence against police? It's a very, very serious issue. Absolutely.

What's your prescription? More incarceration?
We already have the highest incarceration rate of any first world country...

My prescription is decriminalization of drug use. All drug use.

What is your prescription?? Over incarceration means the criminals were over arrested and over convicted in the first place. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yes I do understand the irony when it concerns Robert Blake. Here in my neck of the woods we just had a 3 time parolee arrested for armed bank robbery only shortly after being released from prison. Define for me what you mean by "over incarceration"
Is there also then such a thing as " under incarceration" ?You are the one who brought up the term. Your the one who has some "splainin to do" You do know that most of these folks busted selling drugs also are quite the business folks. They have other sideline businesses to add to their drug dealing income. I bet you did not know that quite a few of them dabble in a number wide variety of illegal activities. Your answer is to release them to the streets. These folks were all arrested because they sang too loud in the church choir on Sunday. FTR, would you have a problem hiring any of these ex-cons to drive for your company? I know how you feel about not hiring WP types. I'm wondering where your belief system stands when it comes to trusting ex-cons who may be black or brown? Even if maybe they were convicted of armed robbery... Here is your chance to shine.

Try reading what I wrote directly above.
Not what you imagine, but what I actually wrote.

Then go ahead and ask me a question or two that reflects having done so...this rant does not.

MD,

You were the one who decided to engage, you don't get to choose what his response might be. You just can't help yourself can you. Do everyone a favor and take a nice little break from this site.

Joe

couldn't help yourself, huh, Joe?

How about engaging on the actual discussion, not the poster?
Do you have something to contribute on topic?

cradle can respond for himself, on the merits of the discussion. He frequently does. I "don't get to choose" how he responds. Nor does he, nor you, get "to choose" how I respond.

But I am asking him to read my response and respond on the merits. He can "choose" to do so or not. Up to him.

In this case, given that cradle was in the doghouse, yet nevertheless clearly wanted to interact and quoted me from another thread, I gave him my respect and answered best I could.

Hopefully he'll give me the same respect, but I certainly can't control or "choose" that. Up to him.

BTW, you never answered my question. What is your criteria for who you will hire to drive for you? I know you won't hire WS types. I'm just wondering where you draw the line.

[JoeMauer89]

Understood, but that wasn't a personal attack. It was merely a suggestion.
Joe

That's like saying, "Are you a total idiot?" isn't an attack, it's a question.

Matnum PI,

Why don't you just be honest and admit you are the Admin as well! Its not right that you are the Admin, and posting in threads regularly...

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

[Matnum PI]

... Its not right that you are the Admin, and posting in threads regularly...

[cradleandshoot]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

"Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple."

There are 32 head coaches in the NFL that argue with the refs every Sunday. They call it working the refs. When they see a bad call with their own eyes they are going to argue with the refs. You would probably simply refer to them going on a rant.

[MDlaxfan76]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

"Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple."

There are 32 head coaches in the NFL that argue with the refs every Sunday. They call it working the refs. When they see a bad call with their own eyes they are going to argue with the refs. You would probably simply refer to them going on a rant.

True.
Refs have a long fuse for warnings and penalties for coaches, less for players, even the Tom Brady sorts, but they do throw the flag at times.
Same in all sports.

Try doing it as a HS or college player in a lax game. Doesn't mean you can't tell the ref what you think, but if he warns you, next step penalty or expulsion from the game. If there's already a pattern, quicker flag.

Always makes me shake my head when a player ignores a warning and keeps at it with a ref...

Or if you prefer the playground analogy, let that be your guide. Don't throw rocks at the other kids. If told to stop, stop. Play nice. Simple.

[cradleandshoot]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

"Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple."

There are 32 head coaches in the NFL that argue with the refs every Sunday. They call it working the refs. When they see a bad call with their own eyes they are going to argue with the refs. You would probably simply refer to them going on a rant.

True.
Refs have a long fuse for warnings and penalties for coaches, less for players, even the Tom Brady sorts, but they do throw the flag at times.
Same in all sports.

Try doing it as a HS or college player in a lax game. Doesn't mean you can't tell the ref what you think, but if he warns you, next step penalty or expulsion from the game. If there's already a pattern, quicker flag.

Always makes me shake my head when a player ignores a warning and keeps at it with a ref...

Or if you prefer the playground analogy, let that be your guide. Don't throw rocks at the other kids. If told to stop, stop. Play nice. Simple.

Had I actually been throwing rocks your advice would be correct. When someone incorrectly thinks they saw you throwing rocks.. then that is another issue.

[Tommy No]

Why don't you just be honest and admit you are the Admin as well! Its not right that you are the Admin, and posting in threads regularly...

Joe

I have no idea who is or isn't the Admin and... Who do you suggest should be the Admin? What do you suggest?

[PizzaSnake]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

"Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple."

There are 32 head coaches in the NFL that argue with the refs every Sunday. They call it working the refs. When they see a bad call with their own eyes they are going to argue with the refs. You would probably simply refer to them going on a rant.

True.
Refs have a long fuse for warnings and penalties for coaches, less for players, even the Tom Brady sorts, but they do throw the flag at times.
Same in all sports.

Try doing it as a HS or college player in a lax game. Doesn't mean you can't tell the ref what you think, but if he warns you, next step penalty or expulsion from the game. If there's already a pattern, quicker flag.

Always makes me shake my head when a player ignores a warning and keeps at it with a ref...

Or if you prefer the playground analogy, let that be your guide. Don't throw rocks at the other kids. If told to stop, stop. Play nice. Simple.

Or take it to Hamsterdam? Isn't that the express purpose of that area? Free rein?

[MDlaxfan76]

Because...?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I'm just glad to be able to play on this playground, use this equipment.
Happy to 'play nice' so as to be able to do so.

Case in point was discussion re Syracuse's potential moves...way ahead of 'press' and interesting insight on rationale.

And all sorts of links and commentary on subjects far and wide that I doubt I'd see or read or understand without participating regularly. Including stuff with which I may instinctively disagree, but gain some perspective on through the interchange.

But if one is throwing rocks at the other kids on the playground, you're bound to get warned to stop by the playground owner... and if you don't abide by the warning, or argue about it, likely gonna lose playground privileges. Pretty simple really.

Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple.

"Same as standard "don't argue with the ref". Simple."

There are 32 head coaches in the NFL that argue with the refs every Sunday. They call it working the refs. When they see a bad call with their own eyes they are going to argue with the refs. You would probably simply refer to them going on a rant.

True.
Refs have a long fuse for warnings and penalties for coaches, less for players, even the Tom Brady sorts, but they do throw the flag at times.
Same in all sports.

Try doing it as a HS or college player in a lax game. Doesn't mean you can't tell the ref what you think, but if he warns you, next step penalty or expulsion from the game. If there's already a pattern, quicker flag.

Always makes me shake my head when a player ignores a warning and keeps at it with a ref...

Or if you prefer the playground analogy, let that be your guide. Don't throw rocks at the other kids. If told to stop, stop. Play nice. Simple.

Or take it to Hamsterdam? Isn't that the express purpose of that area? Free rein?

Yup, 'rock throwing' allowed in Hamsterdam.
Funny, the 'kids' don't want to play there...