1032004

Semantics because I said separate divisions and you said “well one is actually a division of the other” Even when corrected on the previous story about Thompson Reuters getting a contract for social engineering DEFENSE, you still claimed they could have had a conflict of interest (and after I asked, you never provided clarification on what the conflict would be), so clearly you’re very concerned about conflicts of interest. Curious, are you concerned about Elon’s conflicts of interest with DOGE? But anyway, you never addressed the other points in my prior post that would actually make the supposed conflict relevant, primarily: 1. There was nothing saying the contracts that Thompson Reuters received from the government even had anything to do with Musk’s companies, just that “Thompson Reuters received money from various government agencies, and these agencies oversee Musk’s companies, and some of them (but not all, according to the cited graphic) had investigated these companies.” That is a major leap to then suggest that the money from the government ultimately lead to Reuters the news company writing about negative things at Musk’s companies. 2. Was there anything false in the reporting that earned the Pulitzer Prize? You mention here about “planting stories,” that would imply they were fabricated, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that the stories about Musk’s companies were, and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate

lol at this semantics callout being all you could argue from my post

I saw this claimed but then was countered with that it actually appeared that his mom went in after him?

Vak is a lawyer. Or is that what you’re saying, I’m confused by your wording

Also, can we give some credit to the ref that got in the middle of it trying to break it up? Going way beyond the call of duty there

Well if they determined that Knox threw a punch then they should be able to use that as the reason for DQ’ing him. But if they’re going with “leaving the bench during an altercation” or whatever, that seems shaky.

The lawyer has a good point about there being no bench. If that’s what NJSIAA is saying was the violation I’m thinking he’s going to get it overturned

Minnow’s tweet was linked in Sports Illustrated, his head must be blowing up https://www.si.com/high-school/new-jersey/nation-s-no-1-ranked-hs-wrestler-disqualified-from-nj-state-tournament-for-his-role-in-brawl-01jmznknk950

But no one can offer him more than Iowa. If I’m a different school I make him an offer just to make Iowa/Bob have to pay more for him.

He claimed in the Flo interview making 59 was easy, but only said “maybe” about dropping to 57. I’m not sure if we know who was “bigger,” but we do know Spencer normally wrestles 57 so it’s probably fair to wonder if wrestling at 57 would change anything about the outcome

1:50 in the NBC New York video

They’re getting at least 3 for sure. Mesenbrink, Starocci, and at least one of the rest. Even if somehow one of Mesenbrink or Starocci don’t win, they could easily get 2+ from the rest. 4 is most likely IMO, would not be surprised at all by 5 or probably even 6.

By taking every match to overtime?

Yikes, the statement from the school is not terribly supportive of him

I like this. I think a stepout would be better than winning on one second of riding time

What does “I train for perfect wrestling” mean? You think Ono will go 61 to try to beat Higuchi?

Does it still count as “protecting your family” if your family threw the first punch?

Hopefully for him he already has access to the Cornell lawyers! But IIRC from the Flo commitment video, his family shouldn’t have an issue paying lawyer fees

Did Spencer walk out of the Olympics with head held high though? Wasn’t he so upset that he was considering retiring? Good thing he didn’t though, I thought he looked good despite the loss. I was afraid Ono would dominate him like he did to everyone at Worlds. But since this is the college forum, I think the match was evidence we don’t need a stepout point in folkstyle. There was some action in bounds, but almost all the points were from step outs which seemed a bit anticlimactic

I don’t think this should surprise anyone, although I might disagree with 5 champs as “most likely” even when considering PSU’s history. Not doubting your numbers I just think the specific circumstances of this year are lower chances than historically. Most notably Kerk at the 2 and Bartlett and Kasak as current 1’s.

North of 195 = North Jersey

Has it exacerbated things though? Seems like it’s pretty much the same as it’s always been, the only gap that’s been widening IMO is PSU vs everyone else and it’s not primarily because of money (don’t let them fool you though, they’re paying guys well). Yes, it’s easy for top guys from smaller schools to move to top ones, but It’s also easier for guys that can’t crack the lineup at the top schools to transfer to smaller ones. To the OP, no one is beating PSU next year. I guess I wouldn’t rule Iowa or OSU out in 2-3 years depending on the recruits/transfers they get. But I also wouldn’t rule out other teams from beating Iowa or OSU.

As long as the kids actually establish residence in the state I don’t see an issue with them competing at the state tournament. The Herrings were also move-ins but they’ve been living there for years at this point. But in NJ I believe most of the guys at Delbarton, Bergen Catholic etc are actually from NJ anyway. I think the reason Blair isn’t part of the state tournament is because it’s a boarding school, so a lot of the kids don’t really live there. There’s also only one class for the state tournament in NJ. Putting the private schools in the small school division in PA is silly IMO. I really doubt any kids were deliberately trying to get Knox DQ’d, but considering how much SJV kinda dominated (looks like they were also the only North Jersey team in a district full of South Jersey teams) I’m not surprised if they were happy about it.

Some additional bullets from the first link you left out: Voters are split on Elon Musk and Mike Johnson. 58% of voters say DOGE employees should not have access to sensitive information on Americans who benefit from government expenditure programs; including names, social security numbers, addresses, and incomes (Democrats: 75%; Republicans: 39%; Independents: 63%).

Good news. I guess the fired government workers really should learn to code.