What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Things you feel shouldn't be up for debate but are. (1 Viewer)

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! 
Pretty common and most logical application of this and next.  This Friday commonly means the Friday of the current week, while next Friday means the Friday of the next week.  Once you enter the week on Sunday, next Friday becomes this Friday.  Any other application leads to unlogical meanings of this and next.   This Friday and Next Friday should never mean the same thing.  

 
Pretty common and most logical application of this and next.  This Friday commonly means the Friday of the current week, while next Friday means the Friday of the next week.  Once you enter the week on Sunday, next Friday becomes this Friday.  Any other application leads to unlogical meanings of this and next.   This Friday and Next Friday should never mean the same thing.  
I was just kidding. Makes sense. Probably always best to clarify the speaker's meaning, regardless, and for the listener to get a numerical date to be sure (that is, if a meeting, gathering, etc., is being scheduled)

 
Daywalker said:
I say eff the guy in the fast lane going 90.  

 Going 80 and passing everyone to my right.  Whenever I try to move over for that doosh he goes for the same spot nearly causing a wreck.

If im going 80+ and passing everyone im not moving over for king doosh.

It is safer to stay in fast lane while oassing everyone than to move over for speed racer everytime.
So you get to be the arbiter of speed for everyone? Got it.

 
Daywalker said:
I say eff the guy in the fast lane going 90.  

 Going 80 and passing everyone to my right.  Whenever I try to move over for that doosh he goes for the same spot nearly causing a wreck.

If im going 80+ and passing everyone im not moving over for king doosh.

It is safer to stay in fast lane while oassing everyone than to move over for speed racer everytime.
You are more dangerous than the guy going 90.   Move over.  

 
I've never seen a chili without beans. Chili without beans is just warm spicy tomato soup.
Growing up, I didn't either.  But this is easily settled. The problem with sweeping declarations is that people are often talking about very different things when they say chili/chile.

If the meat is ground beef, then beans make sense. The beans can add some texture that's missing from the ground beef. This is the sort of chili so many grew up with (though it will generally get you laughed out of a chile competition). I call this style Chili Beans.

If the meat is primarily whole muscle that's diced (like chuck), then beans are not needed. The meat provides the texture on it's own. I call this style Chile Con Carne. 

Where I grew up and live now, both, the vast majority have literally never heard of chili being made with anything other than ground beef with beans added. 

I'd be curious to know. My assumption is that probably the  East Coast, South East, and Midwest all think of Chili Beans when they think Chili.

Obviously, Texans would think of the Chile Con Carne style first when they think Chili. Curious what other regions would.

 
Growing up, I didn't either.  But this is easily settled. The problem with sweeping declarations is that people are often talking about very different things when they say chili/chile.

If the meat is ground beef, then beans make sense. The beans can add some texture that's missing from the ground beef. This is the sort of chili so many grew up with (though it will generally get you laughed out of a chile competition). I call this style Chili Beans.

If the meat is primarily whole muscle that's diced (like chuck), then beans are not needed. The meat provides the texture on it's own. I call this style Chile Con Carne. 

Where I grew up and live now, both, the vast majority have literally never heard of chili being made with anything other than ground beef with beans added. 

I'd be curious to know. My assumption is that probably the  East Coast, South East, and Midwest all think of Chili Beans when they think Chili.

Obviously, Texans would think of the Chile Con Carne style first when they think Chili. Curious what other regions would.
This post is too sensible and thoughtful for this topic. That is beyond debate. 

 
Moving over to the right lane (medical issues notwithstanding) is driving like there are other people on the road.  It's not your road either.

I took a road trip last week and was again reminded of how stupid some drivers can be.  People sit in the left lane going the same speed as a car in the right lane blocking traffic for miles, doing nothing but creating road rage and creating dangerous driving conditions.
9 times out of 10, those people have an Iowa license plate.

 
If the meat is primarily whole muscle that's diced (like chuck), then beans are not needed. The meat provides the texture on it's own. I call this style Chile Con Carne. 
I am hardly an expert, but doesn't the name Chili Con Carne itself suggest that meat is the variable and not beans?

When I googled chili con carne recipes, nine out of the top ten results had beans in them.

I'm sure you're correct that the dish probably doesn't need them, but they do seem to be a common ingredient.

 
That paying $1000 for a cell phone over 24 months at no interest is the smart play instead of shelling it all out up front.

 
I'm assuming this is a troll, but in some states it's actually illegal to stay in the left lane for anything other than passing. I got pulled over in Texas one time just for staying in the left lane, which I did because I had just passed someone and there was nobody behind me AND there was another car I'd be passing in about a quarter of a mile ahead. Passed a cop in the median before I got to the next car and he lit me up. No ticket, but he told me to stay in the right lane when not passing. :lol:  
This seems like a poor use of extra lane space in times of heavy traffic.

 
Iowa is the only state I’ve been ticketed for going 5 mph over the speed limit. They want to maximize the time you spend driving through some of the most featureless terrain on the planet.
They're known to openly and ridiculously target out-of-state drivers.

 
The trend of making it super easy to register any dog as a service animal is really pissing me off for some reason.

As a father of a kid on the spectrum, I get why service animals can be so valuable -- to people with true emotional, physical, developmental, and other challenges. As a father of another kid with a high degree of allergies to dogs, this is putting him in a worsening situation every time we have to fly.

I sense registration, whether self-service or via doctor's note, has zero barriers and is far from being aligned to people with true need -- the system seems highly gamable. Like how easy it was to get a doctor's note to get a medical weed card in the days before full legalization became a multi-state thing.

I am sick of seeing dogs that clearly can't fit under seats, that are clearly not well-trained and actually disruptive, many even stressed themselves from both flying and the conditions they need to be put through.

I am not sure why this is up for debate, but service animals should only be registered and allowed for people of true need. And by true need, I mean true disability and challenges that require you to use a service dog for all aspects of your life, and not just that you can't bear being apart from your "precious" smelly and misbehaved mutt for a few hours or that you are looking to get out of fees for having them travel under the plane.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is golf a sport?  Yes

Should college athletes be paid?  Yes, depending upon the sport  and the division of conpetition. 

How anyone argues the other side of either of these makes no sense to me...

:shrug:

 
Just because somebody CAN go shirtless doesn't mean they should.
I've been on a jag about this on several previous occasions - for hundreds of years, there was a tacit agreement between human beings that, when one entered the public realm, the least they could do was importune others as little as possible. The general peace - we are all in this together so, please, do not disrupt it without good reason. Dress, demeanor, comportment, conduct was as much a part of decency as not cheating, hurting, lying. Civilized.

Yes, a lot of this was forced upon folks by self-appointed arbiters of culture, morality, religion and there was a LOT of wrong in what they did and how they did it. That does not mean that manners weren't the right idea. It would still be a good thing, in fact the world would indeed be a better place, if each person left the house with cooperating with others & not offending them unduly as a significant part of their public agenda and that they, in turn, could reasonably hope to receive the same consideration for themselves and their children. Simple as that.

 
Is golf a sport?  Yes

Should college athletes be paid?  Yes, depending upon the sport  and the division of conpetition. 

How anyone argues the other side of either of these makes no sense to me...

:shrug:
Don't want to start the debate but it seems pretty easy to see the argument why golf isn't a sport.

 
Don't want to start the debate but it seems pretty easy to see the argument why golf isn't a sport.
I used to play golf frequently. I now play on average maybe twice per year. And while it depends on the course my scores dont vary much from when I used to play a lot. Because I am much stronger and have improved balance. If walking and not riding then add better cardio too.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top