thecampster

3 minutes ago, JTB said:

 

"The Hawks have opened up preliminary trade discussions around forward John Collins, as interested teams inquire, league sources tell The Athletic. The Suns are a team showing desire in Collins, those sources have added, but they appear uninclined to take on the long-term money of Collins, who is in the second season of a five-year, $125 million contract. The Hawks don’t have an imminent deal in place involving Collins, those sources say, and executives around the league believe a potential deal will be weeks and potentially months in the making ahead of the Feb. 9 trade deadline."

The reality is there was much less of a market for Bogi than for Huerter or K'von would still be here.

What if I had preconceived notions, opinions and bias heading into the season???

Trae draws 2 fouls with guile in u Der 10 seconds to get the Hawks to the free throw line.

DJM makes people question their life choices.

Anyone there tonight....speak up!

I'm reserving judgement on this. Feels like an overpay right now. Assuming he takes that next step, it'll be a very good deal. 

On 8/22/2022 at 1:56 PM, JayBirdHawk said:

The prequels for both these books/Movies/TV Series are upon us and/or soon will be!!!

Who is watching?

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Game of Thrones: House of the Dragon

Read "The Silmarillion" (basis for "The Rings of Power") in 8th grade.  First time I ever had to stop reading, start over to figure out what in the heck I was reading.  Its complicated but good. Not for the light of heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion

On 10/12/2022 at 1:11 PM, macdaddy said:

Ok I'll bite.  

Why do you think her leaving the party is significant?

Do you see any irony in her saying the Democratic Party is "cult like" ?

Also, I don't understand this obsession with transgender people in politics.   Despite the assertion here that it's screwing "normal" people out of opportunities, we are talking about an incredibly small number of instances where anything like this is actually happening.  

1. She has a following. It's a few percent, but most elections are only separated by that few percent.

2. She's echoing what I'm hearing from centrists on both sides of the aisle. Republican centrist are fed up with the extremes. So are Democrat centrists.  That she did it so close to election day I think is planned. I am wondering what was going on in the background for her to take this approach. The timing of the announcement tells me there is more too it...be it negotiations gone askew (maybe no place in a Biden cabinet) or some other political / personal gambit.

3. Dems do this far less often than Reps. You don't see it often from that side to middle. You do see Republicans stretch to the middle to try and save a seat.  

We'll never really know if it had an impact but I have seen articles recently about Dems reshuffling priorities, dropping climate down the list on their campaign sites, things like that. 

My biggest "hmm" moment is I'm wondering if this is signaling an exhaustion at the extremes and a move back to centrist politics for all.

On 10/11/2022 at 11:01 AM, macdaddy said:

Everyone knew this was coming for years.  Just trying to be relevant and make a career.   

On 10/11/2022 at 9:03 AM, Diesel said:

Needs more context. 

Just a stump speech without context.  How are we being "dragged" towards Nuclear War?  That statement in itself suggests that our country is playing the bigger part of creating nuclear war. 

Context. 

 

Here, she goes into more detail on the Joe Rogan Experience.  Multiple videos on multiple topics. This is on her leaving.

3 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

You stop by any food places in Sac? Oh this was from your “sources” nevermind. 

No, this is from their message boards, local news.  I'm out of regular sources it seems, but thanks for reminding me I had to go through the offseason like a normal.

I'm watching, 10 minutes behind for now. If someone breaks a limb, don't tell me.

I talk about this every year but for the top 8 ish teams in each conference, there are 20-25 games each year where the teams are separated by only a few points going into the 4th quarter. The difference between a 1 and 8 seed is how you performed in those 20+ games.  The Hawks did poorly in that category last year due to injuries, a lack of cohesiveness.  The Celtics (for example) overachieved in this category.

I really think the maturity of Trae, OO, JJ, Hunter and the additions of Holiday, AJ, Kaminsky set us up well to take that next step.  We'll miss relying on Gallo to get us a bucket or some free throws in ISO and we'll miss Kevin but I see us taking a big step forward in those 4th quarter games.

What I don't like is how reliant we are now on the health of Trae and DeJounte.  They are now the engine and we'll go like they go (much like Boston with Brown/Tatum last year).

1 minute ago, sturt said:

At least in my interactions here, we don't talk about ADay... errrr.... Aaron... enough.

It is true that he's an option for some SG minutes, and speaking for myself, that's tended to get overlooked... though, in my defense, aside from Trae and DJM, Aaron's the only established guaranteed contract PG on the roster, so I tend to think that's where he'll get most his minutes by default.

But if BogBog's health is a bigger issue than Fields makes it out to be, then yeah, it's certainly plausible that Aaron gets some minutes beside Trae or DJM.

That said, Aaron's going to get minutes by default. The math demands it, unless you're determined to play Trae and DJM 36 minutes a night with only 12 of those together. The more you want to play them together--and I've always understood that was/is the plan--the harder it becomes to have at least one on the floor for the entire game. Aaron's going to be the beneficiary of that math, which probably means 6-10 minutes routinely.

We're going to win a lot of games going away. Some minutes will get divided strictly based on 20 point leads. There are teams in this league that won't be able to keep up with our scoring, pure and simple.  There will be at least 10 gimme games on the schedule and minutes will go out.

Waiting for games is dumb!  Prove I'm wrong!

50 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

You had that queued up and ready to drop 

Mental note...took me a second to find it.

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Agree on speaking in absolutes but I think your post misses the point and, again, speaks to a lack of volume of experience in this area.  Companies automatically siding by the woman in the lack of evidence is definitely not the norm.  Very recently a material portion of the media has moved to a default of assuming that accusations by a woman against a male public figure are true without having taken the time to uncover and evaluate the evidence (some merely report the accusations while there are a significant number of people in the media who assume they are true) and I could agree that the onus socially is on the accused to defend himself once this type of accusation has been levied but very few matters reach the public sphere and this media world.

I am beginning to think you guys are viewing this through that kind of media lens rather than the experience of actual men and women in the American workplace.  In that context, it is very rare for a high ranking man to not get a fair shake in this type of context.  Even for public figures, many of these things never reach the public sphere as you can see with the long histories of issues for people like Matt Lauer and Bill O'Reilly before anything became public.

For every Johnny Depp situation where it plays out in the media, there are thousands and thousands of cases of boss/subordinate or coworker sexual harassment that never reach the public sphere and are handled internally by companies.  Neither the accuser nor the accused is automatically believed in 99% of those cases and instead HR or legal (inside or outside) typically investigates and uses that to inform decisions by management about what, if any, action to take.  Where the accused is a high ranking member of management, there is probably more of a bias to believe or excuse that person if anything. 

The male/female dynamic really isn't different from similar investigations that involve race, disability, union activity, or any other protected characteristic that can support a hostile work environment claim.  The EEOC handles thousands of these cases every year and in almost every case the issue is that accuser believes the Company did not take sufficient remedial action.  The EEOC makes its own decision in these matters and supports the decision by the Company in a significant majority of those cases.  (I say "supports" but the more precise way to say that is that they conclude there is no reasonable cause to determine that the Company violated Title VII or whatever law is at issue).

Even with a high profile public employee in a very public organization, this latest situation with Udoka probably would never have become public if he had just done what his bosses asked him to do back in July when they handled it quietly and internally with zero public facing repercussions for any of the involved parties.  It appears based on the current facts that this only became public after he was told to stop doing certain things and continued to do them (i.e., insubordination) and the team felt the need to take action that would reach the public's attention.

I realize you work in corporate law and are closer to this...but I've been a middle to high-middle employee my whole life in almost exclusively large corporations.  I've only seen recently a change in company training videos showing the woman as the harasser or the one acting inappropriately in the workplace. The very culture of large corporations assumes the male as the aggressor (and maybe rightly so) in most cases. My comments were to societal and not corporate opinion but I can move there if you like.  The problem is the corporate workplace is more complicated, where payoffs and buyouts exist as well as pressures built around job security.  I would submit that only a fracture of inappropriate workplace dealings are reported. From a position of power against subordinates, logic dictates that more men are in positions of power and by extension more cases would be male superior vs female subordinate than any other. It would be normal and rational for personal bias to creep into the thought processes.  I think the problem here is in trying to find an all in one solution. I like the logic that  Jordan Peterson employs when talking about these workplace disparities.  He talks about the difference between individual men and women can flip any paradigm and that if you sampled 100 men, 100 women, you'd see norms played out in most cases. But that you see the greatest differences in the extremes and specifically in terms of aggression. There are women who are more aggressive than some men and men who are more passive than most women but when you sample at the extremes, the most aggressive are primarily men and the most passive are primarily women and I personally believe these are where our biases lay.

I didn't miss your point, nor his and was mostly siding with you, but my perspective is more grounded in how no matter what the policy, what the HR playbook, personal bias always plays a part and that bias of man aggressor, woman victim will always creep in (even if minor). Especially if the situation goes public because it's no longer just an HR matter, but a public affairs problem as well.