Eleven

I don't really have a problem with it but I do wonder whether 60K is enough seats. As far as the price tag, that's what a stadium costs now. If we wanted a cheaper one, we could have built it 20 years ago. I think it was smarter to wait, though, and we now have squeezed every drop out of Rich. Time for a new one.

Liger's math is good. GA neglected to factor in the mob and politician payouts.

That's the one.

The Delaware North building took a couple of years, and it's considerably smaller than a stadium. Prices will be higher, but I don't think they'll be jaw-dropping. And since I'm sick of idiots using the vomitories at the stadium as if that word meant "a place to vomit," I'm fine with pricing them out.

Is 60,000 seats enough? That would be the smallest in the league. I know the trend is to go smaller, but that's REALLY small.

Best headline I've seen so far: "Belichick ditches his Newton for a Mac." Yeah, I've seen a bunch of Bishop Sycamore references, too.

I did NOT see that coming. Holy cow.

Thank you for the tag.

There has been some really good stuff on NBC. The Mets need a transformation, not baseball.

Act like a grownup or be gone. At no point did I say I would ban anyone for discussing theories of origin. Again, act like a grownup or be gone. I'm not freeman. I'm not going to allow you to spam a decent thread with a bunch of nonsense just to derail it and get it off of the front page.

You know "nil" has only one L, right?

The change of agent can only be a good thing. Some change is needed to break the stalemate.

Until and unless @LTSreturns or until I am removed, which I acknowledge as a possibility, these are the guidelines going forward, adopted somewhat from the NFL subreddit: 1. This is a hockey board. We have a politics club associated with it, but it is fundamentally a hockey board. If you are participating in this club, you should also be participating in discussion about hockey. Yes, I realize that as of this writing (August 27), there is little hockey to discuss. 2. This club has resisted disinformation in the past, and will continue to do so. Accordingly, posts which cast doubt as to the reality of COVID will be deleted. Posts which attempt to downplay the pandemic, or which undermine widespread agreement among the scientific and medical communities about the efficacy of vaccines in preventing death and the spread of COVID-19 will be deleted. Posts which can be interpreted as having the potential to delay someone from receiving the vaccine for any reason other than concern about side effects that we don't know about yet, will be deleted. Posts which suggest that a person can be protected from the virus by ingesting a substance not intended for that purpose, such as HCQ or Invermectin, will be deleted. All of these pose a threat to human life, and all but the potential existence of side effects have been conclusively refuted by scientific and medical communities worldwide. Therefore, all of these theories are banned except for the potential existence of side effects. 3. While statements by NHL personalities (e.g., tweets) are allowed in certain circumstances, this doesn't mean carte blanche for posters to spread politicial, scientific or medical mistruths within the comments regarding those statements. 4. Repeat offenders will be banned from the club. In other words, this IS the warning. Examples of acceptable posts: --How the virus has affected you personally. --Infection/death rates among/between states, countries, etc. --Your reasons for receiving or not receiving the vaccine, subject to rule 3 above). --Complaining about mask mandates. --Complaining about vaccine mandates. Etc. There is a wide range of acceptable dialogue. COVID denial or denial of the efficacy of vaccines is not within that range.

In

No you did not. Instead, you engaged in whataboutism and moved goalposts around and started talking about safety. If someone doubts the safety of the vaccine, well, I think they're wrong, but I won't call them a liar. We won't know for a long, long time. Someone who says the vaccine doesn't work or is making the virus stronger is lying and is doing so at risk to human life, and for no political reason. I don't know why you're even tolerating it, much less defending it. Would we tolerate similar lies from 9/11 truthers? Of course not--and there's not even a present risk to human life, there.

There is nothing political about telling people that a vaccine doesn't work, when it works. You have your reasons for not taking it, but you haven't said it doesn't work, or that it makes the virus stronger, etc. Others have. There is nothing political about such lies.

Freeman is ignoring the fact that people have tried a more calm approach for several weeks and now just want the disinformation campaign to stop. Stop the lies, stop the invective. It's pretty simple, really.

For the record, you are NOT one of the posters who are distributing disinformation, as far as I'm concerned. You're making a personal choice that I wouldn't make, but you're not running around recommending Invermectin or telling people that the vaccine doesn't work. 1. Apparently you did. 2. It's basic epistemology. We're entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. Here's what a MUCH larger forum is doing, since I suspect you didn't click the link I provided: This post relates to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. /r/NFL has an established position that commenters who attempt to downplay the pandemic, undermine widespread agreement among the scientific and medical communities about the efficacy of vaccines in preventing death and the spread of COVID-19, or anything which can be interpreted as having the potential to delay someone from receiving the vaccine will be moderated. You can read more about this here. While posts by NFL personalities are allowed in certain circumstances, this doesn't mean carte blanche for commenters to spread politicial, scientific or medical mistruths within the comments of those posts. If you see a see a post or comment with this kind of misinformation, please report it to the moderators using the 'report' function underneath the post or comment, or message us. From /r/Coronavirus here is a FAQ about the COVID-19 vaccine: Vaccine FAQ.

I have. It didn't work. So my voice got bolder. Maybe a moderator could, you know, remove misinformation that will result in people dying or something like that. I hear it's a popular technique just about everywhere else on the Internet. EDIT: Example:

That's because there are two people distributing misinformation that will result in people dying. Why don't you focus on that and not my tone?

We're quite sure that we need to listen to what 95%+ of scientists and doctors are saying rather than what facebook, Tik Tok, and certain entertainment personalities are saying, and that 's all. You know those so-called "sovereign citizens" with their degrees from YouTube Law? The people recommending against vaccination are pretty much the same.

Repeating things like this here and on other message boards is going to kill someone.

I think the better analogue is someone who has stage 4 cancer but decides against treatment, maybe? But even then, cancer isn't contagious.

No. Just to death.

They're going to end up killing someone and nothing will be done about it.