Going Pink? (1 Viewer)

[Mystery Achiever]

Here's the auction for some of players' apparel. Proceeds go to ACS outreach program that provides screenings.

http://www.nflauction.nfl.com/?Krypto=XSvs%2BjPkByzVl13MOv2UdBSk0Z5zDIStREMSAh5ap94%3D

 

[Statcruncher]

Interesting article

The breast cancer advocacy group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure — which famously introduced the world to the pink ribbon — used misleading statistics in an advertising campaign to overstate the benefits of mammography, while ignoring its risks,say researchers publishing in the BMJ.

Breast cancer screening has sparked ongoing debate over the last few years, particularly since 2009 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) rolled back its breast-cancer screening guidelines, advising against routine mammography for women in their 40s, and instead recommending screening every other year for women starting at age 50. The guidelines were based on data showing that routine mammograms may cause more harm than good in younger women, leading to overdiagnosis, aggressive overtreatment, undue stress and complications.

Still, the American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual mammograms for women in their 40s, and many women choose to adhere to a similar screening schedule. But many have lingering questions about the risks and benefits of screening, and getting reliable data can be tricky. Many women look to their doctors, who aren't always up on the most recent data, or to well-known breast cancer charities like Komen.

Last year, Komen ran an ad for mammograms urging women to "get screened now" because "early detection saves lives. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98%. When it's not? 23%."

The numbers suggest that women "would have to be crazy" not to get screened, say the authors of the editorial in the BMJ, Lisa Schwartzand Steven Woloshin of the Center for Medicine and the Media at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. "But it's the advertisement that's crazy," they say, because its presentation of data wildly misrepresents the true mortality benefits of screening and fails to address the potentiallyserious risks.

"Komen's public advertising campaign gives women no sense that screening is a close call. Instead it simply tells women to be screened, overstates the benefit of mammography, and ignores harms altogether," they write.

Say, for instance, 100 women receive diagnoses of breast cancer at age 67, not through screening but because they detect a breast lump. Assume they all die at age 70; five-year survival for this group would be 0%. Now, say the women were screened and given their cancer diagnosis three years earlier, at age 64, but they still die at age 70. Five-year survival is now 100%, even though no one in the screening group lived any longer.

"Five-year survival is all about what happens from the time of diagnosis: it is the proportion of women who are alive five years after diagnosis. Because screening finds cancers earlier, comparing survival between screened and unscreened women is hopelessly biased," the authors write.

When you look at the actual life-saving benefits of screening — not by judging five-year survival rates, but by comparing overall death rates in women at various ages who get screened or don't get screened — the numbers are a lot less compelling. For example, women in their 50s who get routine mammography will reduce their odds of death from breast cancer over the next 10 years from 0.53% to 0.46% — a difference of 0.07 percentage points.

But "mammography certainly sounds better when stated in terms of improving five-year survival — from 23% to 98%, a difference of 75 percentage points," the authors note.

Early detection can also distort five-year survival rates, Schwartz and Woloshin argue, because it can catch small tumors that would never have caused symptoms or killed patients to begin with; some tumors grow extremely slowly or not at all. By diagnosing these women, you're including patients who will by definition survive, thereby inflating five-year survival statistics even though the screening itself didn't actually save lives.

"If there were an Oscar for misleading statistics, using survival statistics to judge the benefit of screening would win a lifetime achievement award hands down," the authors write.

Further, the Komen ad fails to address the harms of screening, the authors note:

Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm.

"Everyone agrees that mammography isn't perfect, but it's the best widely available detection tool that we have today," said Chandini Portteus, vice president of research, evaluation and scientific programs at Susan G. Komen, in a statement. She acknowledges that "science has to do better," which is why the charity is putting millions of dollars toward early detection research and toward studies designed to help doctors identify which tumors will spread and which won't. "While we invest in getting those answers, we think it's simply irresponsible to effectively discourage women from taking steps to know what's going on with their health."

Indeed, few doctors would disagree that mammography has benefits. The problem is that those benefits are often overstated. "Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening: they need — and deserve — the facts," the authors conclude. "The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide thefacts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior isnot very charitable."

 

[Eric]

Of all the hundreds of cancer types out there, why does breast cancer get all the attention? I think we all know the answer. Why don't they wear brown to raise awareness of colon cancer? How about a dull yellow for bladder cancer?

 

[Da Guru]

Of all the hundreds of cancer types out there, why does breast cancer get all the attention? I think we all know the answer. Why don't they wear brown to raise awareness of colon cancer? How about a dull yellow for bladder cancer?

Reggie Wayne is wearing Orange gloves to support Luekemia awareness for his coach. The NFL said they would not fine him for the first time. Lets see what happens if Wayne wears orange gloves again. All the Indy players should wear orange to support their coach. October should be total cancer awareness in the NFL. Pink for Breast, Orange for Luekemia, Purple for prostate. Let the players choose what they want to support.

 

[Hang 10]

Of all the hundreds of cancer types out there, why does breast cancer get all the attention? I think we all know the answer. Why don't they wear brown to raise awareness of colon cancer? How about a dull yellow for bladder cancer?

Reggie Wayne is wearing Orange gloves to support Luekemia awareness for his coach. The NFL said they would not fine him for the first time. Lets see what happens if Wayne wears orange gloves again. All the Indy players should wear orange to support their coach. October should be total cancer awareness in the NFL. Pink for Breast, Orange for Luekemia, Purple for prostate. Let the players choose what they want to support.

Heard today the NFL told Wayne he can't wear the orange gloves anymore. Yeah, the NFL really cares about cancer awareness.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Being as pro breast cancer awareness as the NFL, it's great, I lost my mother and several other important women in my life to breast cancer. That said, it was done IMO to attract women to the sport and make it not seem like a bunch of monsters trying to take each other's heads off. Roger Goodell has been doing everything he can since he took over to market the sport to both men and women.

The SP is probably 80%+ men, but at the stadiums and bars the ratio is much more even or say 60/40 in favor of men, I see a lot of women at the games.

You either accept it, keep buying the product, or take a stand and tune it out or off. 95% of us are going to continue buying it up.

 

[Hang 10]

In the end, the pink is just WAY overkill to do for a whole month. One game fine...whatever. But 4 games is a quarter of the season. I said it in another thread, can you imagine if baseball did something with their uniforms for a quarter of the season? Can you really imagine the Yankees wearing pink pinstripes for FORTY games?? Neither can I.

 

[Statcruncher]

In the end, the pink is just WAY overkill to do for a whole month. One game fine...whatever. But 4 games is a quarter of the season. I said it in another thread, can you imagine if baseball did something with their uniforms for a quarter of the season? Can you really imagine the Yankees wearing pink pinstripes for FORTY games?? Neither can I.

The local high school and middle school football teams are doing it too. All. Month. Long.

 

[comfortably numb]

In the end, the pink is just WAY overkill to do for a whole month. One game fine...whatever. But 4 games is a quarter of the season. I said it in another thread, can you imagine if baseball did something with their uniforms for a quarter of the season? Can you really imagine the Yankees wearing pink pinstripes for FORTY games?? Neither can I.

Better then some of the throwback jersey/spanish/alternates I see from teams throughout the whole year.I sometimes don't even recognize the teams on the field.

 

[Jewell]

October should be total cancer awareness in the NFL. Pink for Breast, Orange for Luekemia, Purple for prostate. Let the players choose what they want to support.

Fans may get confused and think that the players ae now supporting Gay Pride.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I just heard deangelo williams actually proposed and pushed this whole thing through teh league office.

 

[Jewell]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I just heard deangelo williams actually proposed and pushed this whole thing through teh league office.

During the Skins game two weekends ago they had a segment on how Dan Snyder's wife started the practice of NFL players wearing pink for breast cancer awareness.

 

[DiStefano]

I'm ready to do my part. Sometimes breast cancer can be detected by feeling suspicious looking lumps in the boobie. I will volunteer my services.

 

[cobalt_27]

Why the pink rules

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

i made a donation to ACS this year myself

I have not, yet. I need to do that this week. Everyone should.

 

[trader jake]

One week is really cool and raises awareness. Week after week just waters that message down and comes off as a money grab (NFL pushing merchandise).

 

[voiceofunreason]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

 

[cobalt_27]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

You, sir, are an idiot.

 

[Das Boot]

If one pink week a year in the NFL was great, and now 4 weeks of NFL pink is even better, 6 weeks of NFL pink awareness (and merchandise sales) would be even more awesome-er.

Right?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

You are correct, this is a scam. The people behind the scam are getting billions and they don't even pretend that wearing pink is about finding a cure or preventing cancer, they just want to increase AWARENESS. The least educated person on the street knows about breast cancer and if they don't and lack that level of comprehension they wouldn't understand what wearing pink means. The pink campaign has no value other than lining the pockets of certain people, it is a scam.

Sunday's Coast to Coast AM show guest Bill Sardi has found natural remedies that are not controlled by big pharma as a way to prevent many illness' including cancer.

Go to the 40:00 minute mark where host George Knapp starts his interview with Bill.

My link

 

[growlers]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

You are correct, this is a scam. The people behind the scam are getting billions and they don't even pretend that wearing pink is about finding a cure or preventing cancer, they just want to increase AWARENESS. The least educated person on the street knows about breast cancer and if they don't and lack that level of comprehension they wouldn't understand what wearing pink means. The pink campaign has no value other than lining the pockets of certain people, it is a scam.

Sunday's Coast to Coast AM show guest Bill Sardi has found natural remedies that are not controlled by big pharma as a way to prevent many illness' including cancer.

Go to the 40:00 minute mark where host George Knapp starts his interview with Bill.

My link

Wow. It's stupidity like this that makes me question humanity

I'm outta here, if I even begin to respond my head will explode.

 

[Insein]

I think Orange should be the color for ball cancer awareness.

Blue

The marketing writes itself.

 

[avina1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/pink-flags-fly-jets-game-sunday-article-1.1191666

Pink penalty flags. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

 

[cobalt_27]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

You are correct, this is a scam. The people behind the scam are getting billions and they don't even pretend that wearing pink is about finding a cure or preventing cancer, they just want to increase AWARENESS. The least educated person on the street knows about breast cancer and if they don't and lack that level of comprehension they wouldn't understand what wearing pink means. The pink campaign has no value other than lining the pockets of certain people, it is a scam.

Sunday's Coast to Coast AM show guest Bill Sardi has found natural remedies that are not controlled by big pharma as a way to prevent many illness' including cancer.

Go to the 40:00 minute mark where host George Knapp starts his interview with Bill.

My link

I have found in my own research that fairy pixie dust sprinkled twice per day to the affected area reduces mass lesions by up to 30% within the first 72 hours In two weeks women have been cured completely. Don't believe modern medicine. It's a scam. Dump your hypertension and hyperlipidemia pills down the drain. They're not needed. I have fairy pixie dust that will cure your ills at a fraction of the price.

 

[The Jerk]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/pink-flags-fly-jets-game-sunday-article-1.1191666Pink penalty flags. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

It's getting close to self parody, although I'm sure now I'll get reprimanded by the uber politically correct faction of this thread. No dissent allowed.

 

[cobalt_27]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/pink-flags-fly-jets-game-sunday-article-1.1191666Pink penalty flags. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

It's getting close to self parody, although I'm sure now I'll get reprimanded by the uber politically correct faction of this thread. No dissent allowed.

It's not political correctness that's driving some of us. It's disappointment. I mean, the handwringing over a few pink socks, my god. Get over yourselves.

 

[Sabertooth]

Save the Boobies. This can't be stressed enough.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Cancer research is 99% scam. Think of the billions of dollars put into research in the last 20 years and basically nothing much has changed. It's just like anything, if there's people giving money away, with no idea who or where it's going to--it's being taken by people who are banking it. People are so naive. You throw cancer or charity on something and people are gullible enough to believe anything.

You are correct, this is a scam. The people behind the scam are getting billions and they don't even pretend that wearing pink is about finding a cure or preventing cancer, they just want to increase AWARENESS. The least educated person on the street knows about breast cancer and if they don't and lack that level of comprehension they wouldn't understand what wearing pink means. The pink campaign has no value other than lining the pockets of certain people, it is a scam.

Sunday's Coast to Coast AM show guest Bill Sardi has found natural remedies that are not controlled by big pharma as a way to prevent many illness' including cancer.

Go to the 40:00 minute mark where host George Knapp starts his interview with Bill.

My link

I have found in my own research that fairy pixie dust sprinkled twice per day to the affected area reduces mass lesions by up to 30% within the first 72 hours In two weeks women have been cured completely. Don't believe modern medicine. It's a scam. Dump your hypertension and hyperlipidemia pills down the drain. They're not needed. I have fairy pixie dust that will cure your ills at a fraction of the price.

From a person who goes by the name Cobalt 27, you certainly have no inherent bias about alternative treatments of cancer.Cobalt Treatment for Lung Cancer

Radiation therapy for treating cancer uses various radioactive isotopes of elements, such as iodine, Strontium, and cobalt, to produce the gamma rays that break down tumors. Cobalt was the first isotope used for radiation therapy

outside of radium, which had been the only isotope used for medical therapy since the early 1900s. The isotope has proved to be very effective at treating cancer, but due to its physical properties and side effects, it is slowly being phased out for newer technology.

 

[Pots]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/pink-flags-fly-jets-game-sunday-article-1.1191666Pink penalty flags. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

It's getting close to self parody, although I'm sure now I'll get reprimanded by the uber politically correct faction of this thread. No dissent allowed.

It's not political correctness that's driving some of us. It's disappointment. I mean, the handwringing over a few pink socks, my god. Get over yourselves.

It's annoying and distracting. I can't imagine it brings anymore awareness to breast cancer. Just because it stirs up discussion like this doesn't mean that the people discussing it weren't already aware of breast cancer to begin with.One thing it does seem to do is bring in some donation money from the sales of the items. I will accept that as a positive thing, but wish they could do it in a way that doesn't make the game less appealing to watch for me and many others.

 

[Irish Chaos]

get ready for PINK flags tonight...unreal.

 

[BRONG]

LOL @ pink flags.

Pink football anyone?

 

[attaché case]

No more pink after this week, just be glad theyre only doing this in ONE GAME.

 

[cobalt_27]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/pink-flags-fly-jets-game-sunday-article-1.1191666Pink penalty flags. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

It's getting close to self parody, although I'm sure now I'll get reprimanded by the uber politically correct faction of this thread. No dissent allowed.

It's not political correctness that's driving some of us. It's disappointment. I mean, the handwringing over a few pink socks, my god. Get over yourselves.

It's annoying and distracting. I can't imagine it brings anymore awareness to breast cancer. Just because it stirs up discussion like this doesn't mean that the people discussing it weren't already aware of breast cancer to begin with.One thing it does seem to do is bring in some donation money from the sales of the items. I will accept that as a positive thing, but wish they could do it in a way that doesn't make the game less appealing to watch for me and many others.

Then you really need to read the article I posted above about the woman who watched the games, printing herself to do a self exam and found lumps that enabled her to engage in treatment early stage that may have saved her life. I imagine she isn't the only one. Awareness is a huge piece of this.I applaud the efforts, even if it doesn't conform to your stylish sensibilities.

 

[Mistabishi]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

 

[trader jake]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

It's not as marketable.Awareness is great but... :dunno:

 

[hip80]

I'm guessing that since the flags are pink for the Jets game, there will be stadium-wide ban on the pink Gatorade towels!?!?

 

[cobalt_27]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

 

[Das Boot]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

 

[BoomGoesTheDynamite]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

 

[Das Boot]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

 

[cobalt_27]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

I think one month is a good balance of presenting awareness without overdoing it. Why so whiny about this?

 

[cobalt_27]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

 

[Das Boot]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

See, what's weird is that you think 4 games is the perfect number for awareness, but for some reason more pink games per year and the Superbowl would be too much?Why isn't more pink games per year even better for awareness?

 

[trader jake]

It's all about the kids boobies.

 

[cobalt_27]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

See, what's weird is that you think 4 games is the perfect number for awareness, but for some reason more pink games per year and the Superbowl would be too much?Why isn't more pink games per year even better for awareness?

Because it then becomes routine, unremarkable. People habituate to it. Making it a month deal stands out. Are you done now?

 

[Das Boot]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

See, what's weird is that you think 4 games is the perfect number for awareness, but for some reason more pink games per year and the Superbowl would be too much?Why isn't more pink games per year even better for awareness?

Because it then becomes routine, unremarkable. People habituate to it. Making it a month deal stands out. Are you done now?

Interesting... so 4 is the perfect number to strike the balance between routine vs. standing out. You sure I can't talk you into 6 pink games a year? That would still only be 1/3 of the season, but it would be 2 more full weeks of awareness.

 

[cobalt_27]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

See, what's weird is that you think 4 games is the perfect number for awareness, but for some reason more pink games per year and the Superbowl would be too much?Why isn't more pink games per year even better for awareness?

Because it then becomes routine, unremarkable. People habituate to it. Making it a month deal stands out. Are you done now?

Interesting... so 4 is the perfect number to strike the balance between routine vs. standing out. You sure I can't talk you into 6 pink games a year? That would still only be 1/3 of the season, but it would be 2 more full weeks of awareness.

I never said any number was perfect. The NFL chose the month of October. That's what it is. What exactly is the issue here?Honestly, you have serious issues dude. This is a great cause. Why be such a #### over it?

 

[Das Boot]

Any awareness to a terrible disease is a good thing. However, I'd like to see the NFL bring awareness to some other cancers such as prostate cancer in the future. HIV/AIDS would also be worthwhile.

Fair enough. But, why all..the...#####ing about this? NFL can't do something for EVERY cause. But, I had no idea people would be so insanely style conscious, so much so that they would complain about supporting awareness of a health condition that kills people. Shouldn't we all support healthy boobies, no matter what?This has devolved in such a stupid discussion. The complainers are such lesser human beings for this, and they know it.

So I take it you're in favor of the NFL "going pink" for the entire season next year, including the post season and Superbowl?

That's exactly what he said. Good use of strawman.

Sorry you didn't follow the logic... people accusing others of being lesser human beings because they don't enjoy the 4 week NFL pink blitz would logically be in favor of even greater "awareness" next year.Right?

Seriously?! The pink prohibits your enjoyment of the game? There is something seriously wrong with you, if that's the case. Especially considering what this supports.

See, what's weird is that you think 4 games is the perfect number for awareness, but for some reason more pink games per year and the Superbowl would be too much?Why isn't more pink games per year even better for awareness?

Because it then becomes routine, unremarkable. People habituate to it. Making it a month deal stands out. Are you done now?

Interesting... so 4 is the perfect number to strike the balance between routine vs. standing out. You sure I can't talk you into 6 pink games a year? That would still only be 1/3 of the season, but it would be 2 more full weeks of awareness.

I never said any number was perfect. The NFL chose the month of October. That's what it is. Why the concern?Honestly, you have serious issues dude. You done whining? Or you have something else petty you want to perseverate on? This is a great cause. Why be such a #### over it?

There's other reasons why this NFL pink thing isn't quite as noble as it's cracked up to be, but one little reason that it's aggravating is that it's being shoved down our throats for 4 weeks this year.And for all the NFL fans saying that 4 weeks a year is a small sacrifice for such a noble goal - the funny thing is, they wouldn't want to see it for 8 weeks, let alone for 17 weeks.Why don't these people want to have a sea of pink on the field for the Superbowl, every Superbowl, year after year. Why doesn't the NFL? That would promote the ultimate awareness.Me.. I thought one week a year was appropriate.

 

[cobalt_27]

There's other reasons why this NFL pink thing isn't quite as noble as it's cracked up to be, but one little reason that it's aggravating is that it's being shoved down our throats for 4 weeks this year.And for all the NFL fans saying that 4 weeks a year is a small sacrifice for such a noble goal - the funny thing is, they wouldn't want to see it for 8 weeks, let alone for 17 weeks.Why don't these people want to have a sea of pink on the field for the Superbowl, every Superbowl, year after year. Why doesn't the NFL? That would promote the ultimate awareness.Me.. I thought one week a year was appropriate.

My heart bleeds for you. Having such a nuisance shoved down your throat like this. Four weeks of football ruined for you because of some pink trimming. It's just such an injustice. Your nightmare is almost over, buddy. Stay strong.

 

[This_Guy]

There's other reasons why this NFL pink thing isn't quite as noble as it's cracked up to be, but one little reason that it's aggravating is that it's being shoved down our throats for 4 weeks this year.And for all the NFL fans saying that 4 weeks a year is a small sacrifice for such a noble goal - the funny thing is, they wouldn't want to see it for 8 weeks, let alone for 17 weeks.Why don't these people want to have a sea of pink on the field for the Superbowl, every Superbowl, year after year. Why doesn't the NFL? That would promote the ultimate awareness.Me.. I thought one week a year was appropriate.

My heart bleeds for you. Having such a nuisance shoved down your throat like this. Four weeks of football ruined for you because of some pink trimming. It's just such an injustice. Your nightmare is almost over, buddy. Stay strong.

Cobalt, I think the problem people have is that you have decided that your opinion on a subjective matter is the only correct answer and anyone with a differing opinion is a "lesser human being". That really isn't a constructive argument for the discussion at hand.My main problem is that it is pandering. The NFL isn't doing this because they are great people and it is such a good cause. That may be part of their motivation but another part of their motivation is to draw awareness to their product and make more money for themselves. That is the issue people have with it. The program is a thinly veiled "look at me!" tactic.Even if the NFL feels necessary to devote awareness to a cause that already gets more than their share of awareness in comparison to other worthy causes why is 4 weeks the right time frame? You said yourself, Cobalt, that anything more would become "routine" and "unremarkable". That is the same line of thinking that a lot of people in the discussion here have regarding 4 weeks rather than 1 week. So essentially you are complaining that people are whining when they are making the same exact point you made just feel that the point of exhaustion is different than you. Seems like a fairly petty point of distinction to get bent out of shape about.