Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
natty
Participantwhat exactly is the cataclysmic change that is taking place?
Is traditional print media dying? Sure, easy to notice. UT has been natural resource waste for a decade plus. This failure can be attributed to many factors.
Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.
The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.
A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.
Participantwhat exactly is the cataclysmic change that is taking place?
Is traditional print media dying? Sure, easy to notice. UT has been natural resource waste for a decade plus. This failure can be attributed to many factors.
Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.
The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.
A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.
Participantwhat exactly is the cataclysmic change that is taking place?
Is traditional print media dying? Sure, easy to notice. UT has been natural resource waste for a decade plus. This failure can be attributed to many factors.
Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.
The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.
A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.
Participantwhat exactly is the cataclysmic change that is taking place?
Is traditional print media dying? Sure, easy to notice. UT has been natural resource waste for a decade plus. This failure can be attributed to many factors.
Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.
The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.
A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.
Participant[quote=captcha][quote=qwerty007]I’m not up on the technical aspects of instant replay etc, but if this had been a final, and a team that clearly played a better game had a goal disallowed, losing the game, mightn’t that be cause for concern? Anyway, I’m not going to let it spoil my entertainment of the biggest global sporting event. Good luck Algeria, good luck US![/quote]
It’s part of the game. I believe UEFA did experiments with instant reply, but it affects the flow of the game.
Worse oversights have happened before against countries with more influence with FIFA – like Maradona’s hand of God. It’s a goal if the ref says so (and vice versa).[/quote]
-lying on the field with or without contact is not part of the game either. This practice has steadily evolved/increased as it has been allowed over the past 20-30 years.
-measuring weight of past errors, does not provide backbone for future errors.
-while both US goals disallowed are in serious question, both are within the scope of current game. It’s a non issue. The US team have far more problems.
-The ‘flow’ of game is highly subjective. Running clock provides an illusion of no interruptions.
-instant replay on goal situations only would be an improvement of gameParticipant[quote=captcha][quote=qwerty007]I’m not up on the technical aspects of instant replay etc, but if this had been a final, and a team that clearly played a better game had a goal disallowed, losing the game, mightn’t that be cause for concern? Anyway, I’m not going to let it spoil my entertainment of the biggest global sporting event. Good luck Algeria, good luck US![/quote]
It’s part of the game. I believe UEFA did experiments with instant reply, but it affects the flow of the game.
Worse oversights have happened before against countries with more influence with FIFA – like Maradona’s hand of God. It’s a goal if the ref says so (and vice versa).[/quote]
-lying on the field with or without contact is not part of the game either. This practice has steadily evolved/increased as it has been allowed over the past 20-30 years.
-measuring weight of past errors, does not provide backbone for future errors.
-while both US goals disallowed are in serious question, both are within the scope of current game. It’s a non issue. The US team have far more problems.
-The ‘flow’ of game is highly subjective. Running clock provides an illusion of no interruptions.
-instant replay on goal situations only would be an improvement of gameParticipant[quote=captcha][quote=qwerty007]I’m not up on the technical aspects of instant replay etc, but if this had been a final, and a team that clearly played a better game had a goal disallowed, losing the game, mightn’t that be cause for concern? Anyway, I’m not going to let it spoil my entertainment of the biggest global sporting event. Good luck Algeria, good luck US![/quote]
It’s part of the game. I believe UEFA did experiments with instant reply, but it affects the flow of the game.
Worse oversights have happened before against countries with more influence with FIFA – like Maradona’s hand of God. It’s a goal if the ref says so (and vice versa).[/quote]
-lying on the field with or without contact is not part of the game either. This practice has steadily evolved/increased as it has been allowed over the past 20-30 years.
-measuring weight of past errors, does not provide backbone for future errors.
-while both US goals disallowed are in serious question, both are within the scope of current game. It’s a non issue. The US team have far more problems.
-The ‘flow’ of game is highly subjective. Running clock provides an illusion of no interruptions.
-instant replay on goal situations only would be an improvement of gameParticipant[quote=captcha][quote=qwerty007]I’m not up on the technical aspects of instant replay etc, but if this had been a final, and a team that clearly played a better game had a goal disallowed, losing the game, mightn’t that be cause for concern? Anyway, I’m not going to let it spoil my entertainment of the biggest global sporting event. Good luck Algeria, good luck US![/quote]
It’s part of the game. I believe UEFA did experiments with instant reply, but it affects the flow of the game.
Worse oversights have happened before against countries with more influence with FIFA – like Maradona’s hand of God. It’s a goal if the ref says so (and vice versa).[/quote]
-lying on the field with or without contact is not part of the game either. This practice has steadily evolved/increased as it has been allowed over the past 20-30 years.
-measuring weight of past errors, does not provide backbone for future errors.
-while both US goals disallowed are in serious question, both are within the scope of current game. It’s a non issue. The US team have far more problems.
-The ‘flow’ of game is highly subjective. Running clock provides an illusion of no interruptions.
-instant replay on goal situations only would be an improvement of gameParticipant[quote=captcha][quote=qwerty007]I’m not up on the technical aspects of instant replay etc, but if this had been a final, and a team that clearly played a better game had a goal disallowed, losing the game, mightn’t that be cause for concern? Anyway, I’m not going to let it spoil my entertainment of the biggest global sporting event. Good luck Algeria, good luck US![/quote]
It’s part of the game. I believe UEFA did experiments with instant reply, but it affects the flow of the game.
Worse oversights have happened before against countries with more influence with FIFA – like Maradona’s hand of God. It’s a goal if the ref says so (and vice versa).[/quote]
-lying on the field with or without contact is not part of the game either. This practice has steadily evolved/increased as it has been allowed over the past 20-30 years.
-measuring weight of past errors, does not provide backbone for future errors.
-while both US goals disallowed are in serious question, both are within the scope of current game. It’s a non issue. The US team have far more problems.
-The ‘flow’ of game is highly subjective. Running clock provides an illusion of no interruptions.
-instant replay on goal situations only would be an improvement of gameParticipant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=natty][quote=sdrealtor]
And for the record Sharp and Children’s are nowhere near 6 miles away from the Golden Triangle border of the 52/805 intersection. Look at a map, it wont hurt you.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but if you truly want to be(more) specific:
the center point of 52/805 to children’s hospital is roughly 3.7 miles, using latitude/longitude & my calculations. So add to that roughly 1 mile to allow for driving.[/quote]
Dude you are good. I just got back from a drive down to Chula Vista and clocked the distance from the 52 offramp on the 805 to the Genessee off ramp on 163 and it was exactly 3.7 miles.[/quote]
Always appreciate a double check when math is involved.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=natty][quote=sdrealtor]
And for the record Sharp and Children’s are nowhere near 6 miles away from the Golden Triangle border of the 52/805 intersection. Look at a map, it wont hurt you.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but if you truly want to be(more) specific:
the center point of 52/805 to children’s hospital is roughly 3.7 miles, using latitude/longitude & my calculations. So add to that roughly 1 mile to allow for driving.[/quote]
Dude you are good. I just got back from a drive down to Chula Vista and clocked the distance from the 52 offramp on the 805 to the Genessee off ramp on 163 and it was exactly 3.7 miles.[/quote]
Always appreciate a double check when math is involved.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=natty][quote=sdrealtor]
And for the record Sharp and Children’s are nowhere near 6 miles away from the Golden Triangle border of the 52/805 intersection. Look at a map, it wont hurt you.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but if you truly want to be(more) specific:
the center point of 52/805 to children’s hospital is roughly 3.7 miles, using latitude/longitude & my calculations. So add to that roughly 1 mile to allow for driving.[/quote]
Dude you are good. I just got back from a drive down to Chula Vista and clocked the distance from the 52 offramp on the 805 to the Genessee off ramp on 163 and it was exactly 3.7 miles.[/quote]
Always appreciate a double check when math is involved.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=natty][quote=sdrealtor]
And for the record Sharp and Children’s are nowhere near 6 miles away from the Golden Triangle border of the 52/805 intersection. Look at a map, it wont hurt you.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but if you truly want to be(more) specific:
the center point of 52/805 to children’s hospital is roughly 3.7 miles, using latitude/longitude & my calculations. So add to that roughly 1 mile to allow for driving.[/quote]
Dude you are good. I just got back from a drive down to Chula Vista and clocked the distance from the 52 offramp on the 805 to the Genessee off ramp on 163 and it was exactly 3.7 miles.[/quote]
Always appreciate a double check when math is involved.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=natty][quote=sdrealtor]
And for the record Sharp and Children’s are nowhere near 6 miles away from the Golden Triangle border of the 52/805 intersection. Look at a map, it wont hurt you.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but if you truly want to be(more) specific:
the center point of 52/805 to children’s hospital is roughly 3.7 miles, using latitude/longitude & my calculations. So add to that roughly 1 mile to allow for driving.[/quote]
Dude you are good. I just got back from a drive down to Chula Vista and clocked the distance from the 52 offramp on the 805 to the Genessee off ramp on 163 and it was exactly 3.7 miles.[/quote]
Always appreciate a double check when math is involved.
-
AuthorPosts