Rich

Respecting the skills that McDavid has and hating the Oilers are not mutually exclusive.

The 45+ crowd is the majority of the CFL fans right now. You can't do something that will alienate that group without having things in motion to attract the younger demographic. Don't think "name" college players will do that, since we already have name college players in the league, and the younger demographic still doesn't care.

It isn’t what I would call negotiating in good faith.

Pierre Kory is the one I was thinking of. He has been the biggest proponent of pushing Ivermectin.

You are correct. Rogan talked about a number of things that were prescribed for treatment, and has probably sung the praises of Monoclonal antibodies as treatment more than Ivermectin. The problem with Rogan, is he has had on his show at least one physician who explicitly pushed Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. This is where things get grey for me. The person who he had on, appeared to have the credentials to be an expert in their field, so I don't know if that is a voice that should be entirely silenced. However, their evidence was more circumstantial then would typically be looked for in actual clinical trials. Also by the guests he had on, he appeared to be one sided and slanted towards the use of Ivermectin. It wasn't until there was an outcry and probably some pressure from Spotify, that he had on qualified guests with a differing view.

In theory, I think we are in agreement on a very base level, with this: In reality, I don't know how to make this happen without some central body who decides what is crap and what isn't. And if history has taught me anything, that is a disaster waiting to happen. So I really don't know how to make that happen without other dire, and quite possibly worse unintended consequences. And for this: I'm curious why I'm the only one you've singled out for posting links that anyone can find online, when there are numerous links, tweets, memes, articles posted daily by many people in these forums. I'd also suggest these links that are shared are needed for any kind of discussion around them to occur. That is indeed the main purpose of a place like this?

What exactly don't you agree with? No where did I say everyone does it. I presented links because people were claiming it wasn't actual news sites that were pushing the horse de-wormer narrative, that is not true. If you want people to pay for their lies, those lies need to be exposed and acknowledged first. Would love to hear how you propose for people to pay for those lies.

Some, sure. But not all media. And a lot of this actually goes to headlines. And while you can claim people should be reading the entire article, we all know if people see something enough times, it starts to get believed. And that is irresponsible journalism. A few examples https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/joe-rogan-covid-19-ivermectin-horse-dewormer-1219720/ "‘Crazy Times’: Joe Rogan Got Covid and Ate a Cocktail of Meds Including a Horse Dewormer" https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/joe-rogan-contracts-covid-19-treated-himself-with-horse-dewormer-1235007061/ "Joe Rogan Says He Tested Positive for COVID-19, Takes Unproven Horse Dewormer" And the worst perpetrator of this was CNN, where even some of their own contributors criticized the network for how it handled and characterized it. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/joe-rogan-cnn-horse-dewormer-covid https://nypost.com/2021/10/16/cnn-contributor-blasts-network-over-ivermectin-coverage/ https://ca.news.yahoo.com/joe-rogan-considers-suing-cnn-190606533.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10119183/CNN-wont-apologize-bruising-ego-Joe-Rogan-claiming-hed-taken-horse-dewormer.html Even the FDA had tweets with headlines saying things like you are not a horse or a cow, you shouldn't take Ivermectin. These are all half trues that when people dig into the larger picture, sow distrust. I'm not a fan of either people or sides lying or spreading misinformation. But only one side of this continually gets pushed and spread, so I don't feel the need to re-iterate or bring it up again. Should Rogan have pushed Ivermectin as a Covid cure? No. Absolutely not. But the after effects off what happened made the situation worse. Not better. The headlines were everywhere at the time. Where do you think tweets and things like Tracker posted earlier in this thread originally came from? The was an overabundance of reports that Rogan took horse de-wormer, and then people are surprised people self medicate on horse dewormer? A more honest headline would be Rogan takes Ivermectin, a parasitic drug not approved for Covid. And while many news outlets did report along those lines, there were too many that didn't. CNN being the worst. It is irresponsible.

In fact, the scientists who developed it won the Nobel Prize for its use in dealing with parasites in Africa. It has been life changing there. This is the problem with false narratives that the media keeps on pushing. Should it be used for Covid? No. Does the fact that the media doesn't tell the whole truth and keeps pushing it solely as a horse deworming drug make people believe there is a conspiracy and double down on things like Ivermectin? Yes. There seems to be little to no attempt at unbiased reporting these days. Everyone is out to push an agenda. Rogan didn't get the medication from a vet. His doctor prescribed it, the human version, in human doses. If there wasn't a spin on this, and the media reported what actually happened here, maybe people wouldn't have stolen the drug from vets, and talked to their own doctor and could have received sound medical advice.

I mentioned economics, because if their economy tanks, ours is likely to follow and that has the potential for widespread impact on all of our lives. I also mentioned more than just economics. You don’t think what is happening in the States right now hasn’t already started to creep in and influence what is happening here?

We are also highly dependant on the US for our economy and highly influenced by their entertainment and media. Whatever happens down there will have an effect up here. We’re joined at the hip.

GM is also responsible for hiring the coach, so the buck ultimately has to stop at Chevy. Having said that, I'm fine with the extension. I think Chevy has done a good job at the draft and filling in pieces through free agency when needed. He has also done a good job signing players like Helle, Connor, Morrissey to long term deals. Navigated issues with Trouba and Kane through trades (people can try and blame Chevy on these, but this is a reality any GM in Winnipeg is going to have to deal with). I also think this is Chevy's last crack at a coach and a mini over haul of the roster, if you believe the turmoil and trade requests that are coming. If Chevy can't make this team competitive within the next couple of years (need to at least make the playoffs next year), then it is time for a new GM and a complete rebuild.

Here is some levity after those post game comments.

Sure, but he is not going to get any cheaper with only one year of RFA left. And at that point, he has to be thinking why not just play out one more year and see what can happen in the open market.

Arbitration means we will have to start thinking about a trade this summer or next. If he goes for arbitration for the next two years, that brings him into UFA.

For those that can read The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/3277644/2022/04/28/dubois-future-jets-offseason-scenarios/ Talks about different scenarios... Arbitration, Offer Sheets, Long term, or trade. For long term, one of their statistical models would have him at $7.2M AAV, which would be 8.76% of the cap (same cap percentage Connor signed for a couple of years back). Of course, he may demand a premium for being a centre.

https://www.capfriendly.com/comparables/pierre-luc-dubois-10335

I agree that there is a long long road ahead before we are off fossil fuels. Even look at EV's. While cheaper to run, there is still so much electricity generated by fossil fuels. So, no I don't think fossil fuels are going away in 30 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to mix in an increase the use of renewables now. I think though, in 30 years, reliance and usage of fossil fuels should be in the decline. Admittedly though, I'm not sure that can happen without nuclear, and that is a whole different debate. Do you really think OPEC will start cutting prices? I think that ship has sailed at this point. If renewables continue to gain momentum and become cost effective, Western countries who have started making the switch won't go back. OPEC will start cutting production to maintain pricing. Also, OPEC is already investing in renewables. What I'm not sure about is if that is purely for press and show or if they are hedging their bets to still be relevant when a switch is made.

The countries that can need to pioneer and mature it. The others will follow suit once that happens.

As for pricing, it would have to remain free for most people. Their monetization would have to be around companies / corporations / internet influencers. Somehow charging based on people who profit off it based on followers and activity.

I like some of the suggestions he has made, including open sourcing the algorithms used to determine feeds for transparency give me a wait and see what he does. He thinks he can also get rid of the bots That I’m not sure is so easy

Looks like this is really close to happening https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-twitter-set-accept-musks-best-final-offer-sources-2022-04-25/