Geeto67

I did, the atlantic and Duke law ones were interesting. That Quora one is garbage. but here is something else to think about - biological women who have elevated levels of testosterone have been excluded from most major competition. So counting by wins is somewhat biased because it excludes a whole class of biological women who were just not allowed to compete. here is a segment NPR show Radiolab did on this exact issue: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/dutee looking at what those articles say through the lens that we aren't allowing our strongest biological females compete changes the conversation somewhat and makes it more complex. Have a nice view from that high horse? lol

Emoji's are an interesting thing from an intellectual property standpoint. On it's face it's a universal symbol, but deeper down each emoji is a unique artistic property that is protected by those laws. Think about a stop sign. If I paint a picture of a stop sign, I don't have to pay anybody a license for that design because it's in the public domain. However, if someone photographs my painting and tries to sell it, they would have to pay me a license fee for the rights to sell my artistic interpretation of a stop sign. now if someone takes that photograph and makes a bunch of sculptures of the same thing incorporating both of our artistic flourishes, they would have to pay license to both of us. with me so far? Great! the unicode emoji's are the standard - think of them as the source material and the record of what's in the public domain. when you buy an iphone, apple has it's own copyrighted emoji's because it hires an artist to create them and license them in perpetuity. this includes the underlying source code. Same thing with Android. If you send an apple emoji to a person with an android phone, the software converts the apple emoji to an android emoji so whomever makes the phone doesn't have to pay apple for displaying an apple emoji. Again this is covered under unicode that provides an agreement for phones of different brands to talk to each other. So how does the Aus government put emoji's on their license plates? they hire an artist to design specific ones for them based on the Unicode standard designs and get him to license the design to them in perpetuity.

There is a lot in MMA that is fucked up, but transgender vs bio gender matches on their own is not really it. What is fucked up is that in the same class you can have a 156lb fighter fighting a 170lb fighter - that's a weight spread of 14lbs where as in boxing most class weight spreads are 3-5 lbs. So it's possible, man or woman, that you can have a mis-match in your own class much easier in MMA. Plus heavyweight is basically an unlimited class for 206lbs and up, and that has lead to some interesting matches like sumo wrestlers facing off against opponents 1/3 their weight. Why I would be a little leery about letting my hypothetical daughter fight anybody in her weight class in MMA isn't because of gender, it's because in any class there are just going to be mismatches no matter what. would I let her fight an even matched trans person in that class? sure, would I let her fight a biological woman with 15 lbs on her and a style that isn't compatible with her style? I don't think so - it's a case by case basis determination. Get it? you brought up historical context to support your point, but I don't think historical context does that. Except Sherisse Subero who is a currently ranked UFC competitor and who fought a male opponent in a UFC exhibition match in the US Virgin Islands in 2014: oh and Ediane Gomes who was also a UFC ranked competitior who fought a semi-pro male kickboxer in Brazil in 2007 https://mmajunkie.com/2014/10/woman-vs-man-in-a-bare-knuckle-no-rules-fight-it-happened-and-the-story-behind-it-is-a-wild-one but she's retired so I guess it didn't happen then. I think society's somewhat male chauvinist views on women get in the way of female competition in this sport, esp with respect to men fighting women. It's uncomfortable for a lot of the regular fight audience to watch who have their own "codes" about gender roles. If you can't sell tickets to it to make money, then it stops, and while it's fun for some to watch a woman beat up on a man from an underdog standpoint (look at that weak woman prove she isn't so weak afterall!!!), it's very uncomfortable for a lot of people to watch a man wail on a woman and win, esp when half the audience thinks of women as the inferior sportsman (See that's why you shouldn't let women fight men). Doesn't matter if it's a fair fight or not, people aren't ready for a "fair fight" where the woman might lose.

I would not have a problem with it in boxing at all. In MMA, I would be a little leery but only because the classes run much looser and it's possible to have a mismatched opponent, but that's true of both men and women. In terms of sports competition, my grandfather was an avid fight fan and an amateur promoter for a while. I got dragged as a kid to a lot of gyms and see local fights in the 80's. even snuck me into the garden when I was 8 to see Tyson vs Green. In law school I lived with a pro-ranked boxer and even sparred with him some. He cleaned my clock often despite me having 6 inches of height on him and a much longer reach. He showed me a lot about the politics of boxing and fight selection that goes into pro matches, also about sizing up opponents and how to adjust training for it. My second legal job out of law school one of the partners was invested in a local boxer and was his manager, and as a fan dragged me along. Again, learned a lot about the business side from being a fly on the wall. Whether you intend it or not this statement: "It's unfortunate that women eventually have to fight a biological male to be the best woman in their sport/weight class" is only true if you think fighting a man is patently unfair, otherwise why is it unfortunate that two evenly matched fighters have a fight where their only difference is gender. Also, while we are here, the point of transgender recognition is to recognize that the person has transitioned to the other sex, and for all purposes they are a woman, even though biologically they were born a man. Again, gender doesn't confer physical superiority and this is why a lot of sports take the hormone approach than the gender approach, excluding women with too high a genetic hormone level and including trans people with comparable hormone levels to the field. Fighters train to fight opponents. Most of the time that is someone of the same gender. Sometimes it isn't. I don't know that you can speak knowledgeably on what female fighters in the 1930's, 40's, or 50's were training for. It's not irrelevant, you made a statement that historically evenly matched fights only took place within the same gender, again inferring that women are inferior to men, and I gave you two examples where they were either evenly matched (women boxing in men's weight classes), or women had the advantage (fighting amateurs from the audience). Historically, men and women also both fought animals in the ring (kangaroos, bears, lions, etc) and that mismatches weren't along gender lines. There is a lot of "chivalry" and some male chauvinism that went into women's boxing vs men's boxing and how the audience looks at it.

Well there is a lot to unpack here and quite a few assumptions to be made, but more that goes into planning a match than penises and vaginas. If my daughter was was a trained professional MMA fighter with a ranking, I think my focus on selecting an opponent would be body weight, height, fighting style, win loss record, and various other fight factors that are not gender. UFC didn't have wieght classes until almost the early 2000s, so anybody could fight anybody if they wanted to - but that doesn't mean it is wise. UFC introduced 2 weight classes in 1997, a third in 2000, and as of today there are 9 classes across the 2 genders. Compare this to boxing which has about 17 different classes based on size. If the match made sense from a technical and safety standpoint? it doesn't matter what the gender of the opponent is - a fair fight is a fair fight. Where it becomes problematic is when UFC the org starts to lean on fighters with money or pressure to take mis-matched fights for entertainment purposes. When they are evenly matched. What I meant by within reason is that the match-up is so lopsided that the likelihood of serious injury or death is very high. And again this isn't gender specific - matching a 200lb heavy weight female boxer against a 145lb male grapple style fighter would be equally as irresponsible. You can't just assume because someone is male or female they are inferior or superior in strength - there is a lot that goes into pro-fighting, esp MMA. One thing to note is that even in a lopsided fight, the bigger opponent doesn't have as great a margin of advantage as they do in boxing, which is why MMA runs a little looser in their matchups. This is where competitors unions in other sports would usually come in. they sport can't ask you to do something grossly "unsafe" and fail to promote you if you don't - that would put them in breach of their own rule, but unlike the NFL or MLB or even boxing there isn't a "union" in the traditional sense. Let's also remember two things: 1) your statement presumes that the transgender fighter in every single matchup has an unfair advantage which is just not true; and 2) UFC is pretty much the only game in town and what they are doing isn't illegal. Yeah it sucks that as the 800lb gorilla they will throw their weight around and make their fighters have mis-matched fights for entertainment purposes, but if you want to fight MMA pro- that's the bed you make and lie in. Not in an athletic sense, but in a corporate structure sense. MLB, NFL, etc...these are sports where there are owners, and an independent commission, and a player's union. they have to deal with muncipal governments for stadiums and licenses, so there is a lot of people involved and that tends to reduce some of the conflict of interest problems. WWE is a publically traded company that basically owns the series, the rules, the contracts with the fighters, etc. They produce everything and control almost everything in their sport. UFC works pretty much the same way, with the only exception is that their fighters have to hold a valid state fighting license in the venue state their fight is going to take place. this is much different from boxing which as an independent organizational body, promoters, a fighter's union, etc... that's not a true statement. Male vs female exhibition matches have been around since boxing has been a sport. It's only in the last 40 years have they fallen out of favor in the larger more high profile venues. In a lot of the local fights in the 30s-80's they used to have exhibitions where female boxers would fight any man from the audience for entertainment. Unfortunately female boxing has also suffered from having a hard time getting viewership so there have been years when there just weren't any competitors scheduled. There have also been women who have fought in men's competitions although those are exceedingly rare because the states usually refuse to issue fighting licenses specifically for those matchups.

"mad" in the sense of who do you assign fault to in the context of this conversation? 1) broken skulls happen in MMA, esp UFC. It's not a common injury, but it's not super rare either. Evanglista Santos suffered one in 2016 in a match, and orbital fractures are more common than I am comfortable with in matches. 2) Within reason, it is not illegal for UFC to setup a lopsided fight, as long as both fighters know what they are getting into and understand the risk. Is it moral? eh...that's a different question but ain't nothing illegal about it. Fighters always have a choice to decline the match in favor of another match-up, nobody is forcing them to fight. Unlike other sports fighters have some leeway in picking their opponents. 3) UFC is "Pro Sport" like WWE is "Pro Sport" yes these are athletes and yes there is a competitive element, but the sanctioning body has a conflict of interest in that they also promote the series and benefit from the fights. I'm pretty sure if it were still legal they would have their fighter compete against kangaroos and bears if it sold tickets/pay per view subs. their primary interest is in producing interesting fights people want to see, often those are ones where people are evenly matched, sometimes however they are not. UFC is at an interesting crossroads with athletes like Fallon Fox and Chris Cyborg. Does it continue to allow transgender people to compete in their respective classes against fan and commentator criticism because it makes for interesting fights and makes them a shit ton of money and free publicity while appearing socially conscious? or does it adopt the Olympic standard of having hormone standards to keep critics voices down, produce less interesting fights, but start to make the shift toward being considered a legitimate sport and Olympic competition?

What about them? Who are you really mad at here? The trans-gendered person? or UFC? Why?

I always wonder how many people who make the "moral" argument about marriage understand that the entire existence of marriage as an institution has to do with property rights under the law. Before there even was a Jesus, before the Jews, and before the Romans and Greeks, marriage existed and was recognized by ancient nomadic societies and civilizations so old to time that the origin is literally lost to history. I always laugh at those people who think that "marriage belongs to the church" because marriage as it is know in Christianity was literally stolen from roman laws. That's like saying I own your car because I borrowed it once, filled it up with gas and detailed it. LOL.

They should probably stop reporting it the way they are reporting it. HS sports is about as far as these individuals can compete since all other pro and collegiate sports do hormone testing and bar athletes from competing if their hormone levels are over the threshold - regardless of biological gender (meaning a biological female can and has been excluded from pro sports and the Olympics because of high hormone levels). How to address these athletes is an interesting and complex question with no simple solution. Fear mongering to whip some old white Midwestern dudes into a frothy foam that some guys with tits are beating up on their little girls in track isn't helping anything in this discussion. Neither has perpetuating the myth of anti-transgenderism in feminism, but if the conservative media didn't stop at falsely spreading propaganda that every Muslim is a radical terrorist, it certainly isn't going to reign in the lies and fear mongering for women. BTW, it's not gone unnoticed that the transgender people being reported on are also people of color, I'm fairly certain this isn't the only example of transgender students competing in high school sports but this is the one they chose to focus on.

I've read that thread before, notice, while the IMS gets talked about a lot, there isn't an IMS failure or signs of one. It's a lot of deferred maint stuff, and honestly typical of German cars where you have to take care of it right away or it makes your life hell later on. My wife's audi has stuff like that - coil packs that crack every 30K, a cam follower that chews itself to pieces every 30K miles, coolant hose fittings that are plastic and crack and have blind fasteners holding them to the block that you remove by feel....but that being said, it's been a really reliable car for the 100K miles we have put on it, and while parts are rape you expensive at the dealer, buying from third party parts houses like ECS, BavAuto, and Pelican can keep the costs in check. I learned this with my old bmws - if you are going to own a German car, you have to be prepared to do a lot of maintenance items yourself, and know a good specialist for the things you can't do. There will invariably be at least two $2500 repairs and one $5K repair if you aren't keeping up on the maintenance. the IMS bearing issue is a distraction, everybody is so busy looking for that to be taken care of that they don't look for things like timing chain guides, or lifters, or water pumps, or coil packs. Hence why a PPI is so important on these cars. The original design of the 996 was headed by Pinky Lai. I don't know if that means he designed the interior as well or just oversaw it's design by an underling, but he gave final approval. Pinky is responsible for the Design of the E36 bmw as well as having been in Ford's design department and worked on the Ford Sierra - the inspiration for the First generation Taurus. so it's no accident that all three cars carry that oval bubble aesthetic in some of their elements. Also that design element didn't age post the 1990's. The two thing I can say about the 996 interior is if you find one with the leather package, it's still a nice place to be and if you find an all black interior, some of the more dated items (like the center stack buttons) are less offensive.

How much of a percentage do you think it is? Porsche reported a 1% failure rate for all types during the warranty period for affected cars (2000-2005), and projects 10% total outside warranty period because the situation is aggravated by poor maintenance, aggressive driving, and time wearing out the oil seal. That doesn't sound like a lot to me. I've been searching for the "right" 996 for a while now (c4s manual coupe in any color that is not silver, black, or white, and under 100k miles) and all the owners and shops I've spoken too say the number is around 5% actually fail or show signs of failing. You are the first person I've heard say it's a "significant" percentage. Additionally, the majority of cars I have seen on PCA forums, Pelican, Craigslist, eBay, et al have the IMS bearing retrofit (often the LN engineering), because the cost is low enough to justify to maintain sale price of an older car, so how much of an issue can it be going forward? I've seen way more blown up boxsters and caymans than 911s and the owner profile of those cars suggests that they just aren't maintained like people who own 911s, I also see fewer with IMS retrofits because I imagine it's harder to justify a $2500 fix on a $7500 boxster than on a $20k 911. No car is perfect, and cooling problems are something Porsche shares with BMW and Audi, but again its managible with proper maintenance.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-hard-lessons-of-dianne-feinsteins-encounter-with-the-young-green-new-deal-activists-video This is a very well thought out piece on the situation. It's the New Yorker so it's punditry and not straight reporting, but it covers all the bases of this issue.

IMS bearing issue is a lot of "the sky is falling" worry. It affects such a small percentage of cars and the fix is relatively inexpensive. The 996 is hated for the stupid headlights and Ford Taurus spec interior.

How about, instead of wishing death on a bunch of people you don't know (thoughts and prayers?), maybe you take the time to support organizations, individuals, and politicians that work towards making sure this doesn't happen. Hint: it's not the guy who fell asleep in the tanning bed who dog whistles to groups that this activity is OK as long as you are white and can keep it out of the papers. Oh wait, those tax breaks were more important, my bad.

I'd claim you aren't doing anything different, but then again considering the threat you made against me and my family on this forum a while back we all know you lack any shred of virtue to signal towards.

It's one thing to say that the media is biased. All media has some bias, it's generated by human beings, so even the reporting that adheres strictly to the journalism code of ethics is going to have some inherent bias. But that cuts both ways: For every New York Times there is a Wall Street Journal, for every Atlantic there is the National Review, For every Huffington Post there is Fox news, for every Alex Jones I am sure there is a liberal version of a dumpster fire (I just can't think of the name of one). There is a wealth of options if maintaining your opinion bubble is more important than being informed and looking at things objectively. If you are worried about your new source being biased, the correct action is to fact check it against real sources, not just buy into the crazy, batshit loopy opinions of the other side because they sound more pleasing to you. It's another to say that "victim agenda" conspiracy is real and the agenda of all media. Is there a kernel of truth to it? maybe at it's heart there is in the sense that political popularity is made, on both sides, from finding a victim and exploiting their situation to parlay more votes. Both sides do it, and the news reports on it. Currently the democratic "victim" are immigrants, and the conservative "victim" are white males (which always seem to be their victim - the white way of life has been under attack since the end of the civil war). Anyway, I didn't understand the stream of consciousness nonsense that followed your first sentence, something about liberals fucking your mom or some shit, so I am just going to ignore it.

Chris, I will take a look for it. It sounds interesting. However, there is no media "victim" agenda, and small singular success stories don't make up for the massive amount of horrible things that happened, continue to happen, and in many cases are baked right into the laws and systems under which the country operates. I get why it can feel like an agenda, it's hard to believe that Americans could lynch thousands of other Americans and not face any judicial repercussions, and that the practice could still exist today, and that institutions like police forces, prisons, and schools haven't changed as much as we would like to believe, because these are horrible things, but they did happen, they do continue to happen, and propagating bullshit conspiracies like "the victim agenda" hurt progress in fixing that. Yeah so maybe the "media" isn't reporting on a success story in high school football in the south, but it also isn't reporting on the literal hundreds of schools that ignored desegregation orders in the 1960's and continue to do so, or that the problem is getting worse. News is still an entertainment business, and there is only so much that can be reported on at any given time by any one source. Even if there was a "Victim Agenda", and there really isn't - it's some shit Ann Coulter made up to sell books, the facts still bear out that some pretty horrible shit that happens to people of a certain color because of circumstances beyond their control that were created at a time when it was socially acceptable to be racist and hasn't been corrected. There are Jim Crow laws that are still in effect that have been on the books so long people have literally forgotten those laws were written specifically to destroy black industry. hundreds of state and local laws. It's not victim mentality to want to fix that. But it is harmful to be dismissive of wanting to fix that by saying "its the victim's fault, they just need to work harder".

Yeah, because fatally shooting someone before they can get to trial and testify against you and then tampering with evidence in your own civil rights violation trial is always the appropriate response by a police officer for petty theft. :dumb: Nobody is giving Smollett a pass, dude did a shitty illegal thing and needs to pay for it. But nobody is buying the conservative's fake outrage over it either, when America has a brutal and bloody history of doing much worse to black people that continues into today. It's like when Roger Stone was arrested and Fox news suddenly criticized the police for being too brutal in this country and the rest of america just sighed and said: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a4/a49a5ed1ac8c491a17401a0245143f1e839679d922e63def75e6a9c3e8818980.jpg

So lets see....literally 100's of years and thousands of examples where white people wrongfully accused black people of crimes they didn't commit, set them up for crimes that never happened, and then often lynched them for those fake crimes before they ever got to trial, and it's only "terrifying" and pure evil now that some random fame whore black dude tried to wrongfully accuse "white america"? Get over yourself. yes this was dumb, and racist, malicious, and evil - but it's a little telling that you are outraged over this and not say... Emmit Till, Issac Woodard, Louis Allen, Ossian Sweet, Trayvon Martin, Kendrick Johnson, Michael Brown, Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos, and thousands more killed or beaten extra-judicially for the "crime" of being black. Perspective is everything, and if this really outrages you then maybe you should be on the side of it not happening to everyone, and not just when it's an attack against your team.

I use PUR Betalink, but the kits can be expensive ($30-$40). It is what BMW uses to bond carbon fiber parts to their cars from the factory - probably overkill for your spoiler, esp since you can get 3m tape for like $7.

"emotion" or nostalgia is often what drives the market, but that can be said for a lot of cars, even the ones that aren't an "investment", same can be said for art investments and even some real estate deals. That being said, I've never sold an old motorcycle at a loss, even totaling up parts and maint, insurance and use, and I am not the only one here that "flips" or trades with old vehicles. The point we are discussing is "investment". I am not asking whether the whole of the investment market is a good idea or not, it exists, it's a thing, people do this just like trading any other investment asset, and I get it that it isn't for everyone. I am asking how people feel about the trends in that marketplace right now - what are the bright spots, what's dim, etc...

(Started a new thread so this doesn't gay up the investment thread- Mitch) This brings up a good question - are collector cars still a good investment? The aircooled 911 market was going gangbusters and then all of a sudden it went soft middle of last year. It maintained the initial fast climbing high prices but no new growth, people are waiting till after 2020 to see if they pop up again. Traditional musclecars which have been the collector car juggernaut for 30+ years now have also gone soft in the market place, and there are some that are saying it won't recover. Restomods seem to be the only thing growingin value in this market, presumably because they are more usable than a perfectly restored GTO or vette. 90's cars seem to be on the rise though, supras are setting record sales prices, NSX seems to be steadily growing, and diablos and 348's and 355s don't seem to be depreciating anymore. people are looking at ZR1's, Vipers, and lotuses as the next big price jump cars, but they have been saying that for years now and it hasn't happened yet. Motorcycles are weird right now. Lots of stuff is going soft, esp really early bikes, old harleys, and indians. Meanwhile vincents continue to climb in value, bevel drive ducatis are on a gravy train with biscuit wheels, but older staples of the 70's superbike era like the kawi triples, norton commandos, sandcast cb750s, and Z1s have tapered off. These are just my observations based on what I look at in the market. And yeah we know vehicles are a bad investment...blah blah blah...if you are going to be that guy just go sit in the corner till the adults have finished talking. 90% of the cars out there are horrible investments, but there is a collector car market, and people do make money off buying old cars holding them and selling them just like art, real estate, or any other tangible investment. So what's CR think? If you wanted a vehicle investment, where would you park your money.

YES!!!! It's like all the big shows finally got the message they were on the same weekend. Now VMD at mid-ohio, goodguys, and the Arthritis show are all on different weekends.

LOL. Finger callouses from playing guitar. Seriously.