BobDole

I don't think either side of this debate is as far from each other as many think. No one wanted to wear a mask No one wanted things shut down No one wanted to be cooped up with our family for however long it was! Social media combined with people having too much free time was a potent mixture that caused people to spread misinformation, scary stories, and everything else in between.

We tend to mix things we know now vs. what we knew then. At the time what we truly knew was limited and much like the guidelines changed at what seemed by the hour. The virus to this day still is very sporadic and attacks the old and weak more, but still will suck up a victim that we would deem healthy. More than anything the unpredictability of this virus is what drove the craze. Very true, not sure exactly if you are referring to mandatory masking and such or not. To be honest requiring masks in public during this time should not have been as big of a deal as it was. No one truly wants to wear a mask. At the same time if it helps a little bit then it shouldn't have been as big of a deal as it was. Not wrong there at all. I think this is where things were escalated to a new level. I can attest that the place I work was granted an exception and many places found the loophole to stay open. Some were not as lucky and many never reopened. As far as the kids, again agree completely. I cannot fathom being a coach that had to tell his baseball team there was no season or the modified graduation ceremonies that were held if at all. I think our schools found it way easier to go remote than to to find a way to get kids back in the building. One of the reasons I feel that lead to this that doesn't get discussed is how litigious the American society has become. I think schools and the state were more concerned with being sued than anything.

I don't disagree on the surface at all. However, there were so many unknowns and confusion that we were basically running around without much direction. To answer your questions in the best possible manner. I agree with the overall sentiment Bob, but why the mask craze? Because it did help with limiting exposure when wearing a proper mask and wearing it properly. Why the "stand 6 feet away"...not 5'11'' away, but 6 feet craze? Another "absolute" that we clung onto. It was meant to be something that you would generally look to to help limit exposure. I believe some of the early studies indicated that the droplets could carry approximately 6 feet and thus clearing that area would limit your exposure. And have people forgot about the not for more than 15 minutes thingy that made no sense?? Again, an absolute we clung to. I felt this was weird especially when it came to schools. This again was meant to help limit your exposure. For instance if I was sitting next to someone with COVID for 15 minutes vs. 2 hours, I would be more exposed to the virus if I was there for 2 hours. In all honesty the guidelines pushed were more to limit your exposure and not 100% prevent you from getting it. That is where we lost connection to these guidelines. Limiting the exposure was to hopefully keep people out of the hospitals that were at max capacity in some areas. Getting a smaller does of COVID gives your body a better chance of fighting it off without much help needed from a doctor or hospital.

There are so many factors that affects transmission that narrowing it down to one thing such as masks is leaving out other factors. As stated previously saying a double leg doesn't work, doesn't factor in that I had a horrible setup or took my shot from 100 feet away...or I'm old, fat, and slow.

During COVID everyone became "all or nothing." Saying "masks don't work" is the same as me as a coach saying double legs don't work because I saw David Taylor get stuffed on a few of them. Other than moving to Idaho and your nearest neighbor being 100 miles away, nothing can 100% prevent COVID. It's much easier to say masks don't work than see that people didn't wear them properly and/or they had masks that were flimsy. Masks were never meant to be 100% effective, but moreso to limit transmission and decrease a person's exposure to COVID. Of course me typing that out is much harder than saying "they don't work" so thus people will just cling on to the "they don't work" mantra.

I can Zoom in, as the big guy won't let me go anywhere.

If true, he's been sent back to the zoo.

I'll let our resident Elon lovers and haters discuss this

This isn't you? Leading with the most predictable reply to gun regulation possible. Insinuating that criminals will... do criminal things in response to changes in gun laws leads to many believing you want very loose gun restrictions if any at all.

Won't criminals break even sensible gun laws? Come on man! If we have no laws the criminals can't win!

It's a great way to save money if we don't have laws nor need law enforcement!

On cue the whole criminals don't care about laws statement. I am all for no laws because no matter the law a criminal will criminal so thus the laws are utterly useless.

The vermin win again

UWW Arena always has good info such as brackets and the mat assignments. https://arena.uww.org/ Go to Live Stream for the mat assignments.

Scratch that, August 32nd.

Go on.... I'm all ears

Tell us how you really feel, don't keep it inside.

How many Fox News buzz words can you use in one post?

There is no slam dunk in a case like this due to how high profile it is and the lawyers that are involved. One misstep by the prosecution will kill this case. That being said bringing charges against a former president need to be as ironclad as possible in order to get a conviction. If this is a political witch hunt, the dumDems(or the smart ones if they are criminals) know that if they get anything less than a conviction that it will stir up the base like no other and severely hinder any chances in upcoming elections. If this is anyone but a very wealthy person this case would last about 15 minutes at most.

Can they put Judge Judy on this at least?

Which one did the ole lady get you with?

I'm more interesting how he had $40k to gamble during that year, that's quite a bit of money for a 19 year old kid.

All my X's live in Texas

Per https://www.usawmembership.com/age_group_weight_chart USA Juniors are: Born 9/1/2003 & after, plus enrolled in grades 9-12 And USA Junior: Athletes shall be considered eligible to compete in Junior Division competitions if he/she is currently attending high school, or participating in a program considered by the State's Department of Education to be fulfilling the athlete's requirements for graduation from an accredited high school program, or if a summer event, attended high school, or participated in a program considered by the State's Department of Education to be fulfilling the athlete's requirements for graduation from an accredited high school program the Spring semester just prior to the summer event. In addition, the athlete has only four consecutive years to compete in the Junior Division once his/her class begins the ninth grade. Only wrestlers born September 1, 2003 and later who were enrolled in grades 9-12 during the 2023 spring semester are eligible. No wrestler who was enrolled in 8th grade during the 2023 spring semester will be allowed to enter. Any such wrestler who enters or competes will be penalized by forfeiting his/her eligibility in the next year's event in both styles.

The naming thing is something you see on Arena and probably hard to fix unless they give you an option for five "alternative" names for your event. At times if I know a kid wrestled in an event I have event googled his name adding trackwrestling to go to their profile and then click the link through that way.