Miscellaneous Discussion Thread II
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffman
Annika did embarrass herself when she played with the men. Top of the LPGA, missed the cut when she played with the men. Would have been as if Tiger Woods played in a different division and missed the cut. IOW, you can play to your abilities and still embarrass yourself.
In the pantheon of just plain stupid AZ posts, this one is top shelf. Do you think the half of men’s pro golfers that miss the cut embarrass themselves? And your Tiger Woods analogy is plain backwards. He would be playing in a LOWER division, while she was playing in a HIGHER division.
I just looked it up. She beat ELEVEN of the best male golfers in the world. She had much to be proud of. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Not a valid comparison. She was top of the LPGA and wanted to show how she would do against the men. She finished near the bottom. She thought she could "play with the men." She couldn't. She showed that she is below-average when compared to men.
The whole thing shows why we have women's divisions in sports.
Quote: rxwineHere is the closest thing to what might remotely be constitutional "Banning performances". But even that seems unenforceable. I don't think you can ban people just for appearing in public as the opposite sex.
Quote:Tennessee:
Passed a law restricting "adult cabaret entertainment," including drag shows, in public spaces or where they could be viewed by minors. However, a federal court blocked enforcement of the law.
Texas:
Introduced a law targeting "sexually oriented performances" in the presence of minors, which was also blocked by a federal court.
Montana:
Introduced a law restricting performers with "flamboyant," "parodic," or "glamorous" personas from public places where children are present. This law was also blocked by a federal court.
Other states:
Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Utah have also considered similar restrictions, but no laws have been enacted and fully enforced.
I suppose you could say, absolutely none of these people are actually claiming to be women but just "performers", but I would bet against that assertion being 100% sure bet.
link to original post
AEW Wrestling pulled out of shows in Oklahoma after authorities there questioned the sex of several "female" performers. One transgender wrestler was threatened with arrest after a video of them performing at an unknown location in the state was shown on the web.
When testing revealed the "silver bar" was mostly lead, the claim was withdrawn, and the wreck was shown to be that of a routine trading ship.
His treasure, which many believed to have been hidden on one of the small islands just east of Long Island, still has not been found.
The family of a murder victim was allowed to present an AI version of the victim, and the " victim" was allowed to explain how his murder affected both his life and his family.
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: GenoDRPh
By your logic, can a US state pass a law banning men from wearing a dress or skirt in public? Can a US state pass a law preventing a male bagpiper from wearing a kilt?
link to original post
Absolutely, and there have been many such laws against transvestitism in the US. Adjacent to the laws against prostitution, sodomy, public lewdness etc. which cross-dressing was considered an element of.
Although, mostly enacted at a different time when dress standards were very different. Now, a girl in flannel shirt and jeans isn't trying to pass herself off as a cowboy, any more than a kilted piper is or was ever trying to look like a girl. Such a law today might be difficult to enforce for vagueness.
link to original post
Can you cite any such laws currently en force in the United States today, in 2025. Not on the books mind you but a law or laws that have been upheld as not in violation of the 1st Amendment or other such similar provisions in state constitutions?
link to original post
Specifically to that, no there aren't any I'm aware of, but close enough are the anti-Klan acts in several states where the public wearing of the white hoods and robes was banned. I'm sure that has been tested. Unless it's in direct conflict with enumerated rights, just being provocative and offensive to the majority of the public is good enough reason to ban public behavior or display.
link to original post
Are you willing to provide legal citations to you statements?
AI "hallucinates"
it represents a major step forward in tech but there are problems
it sometimes gives wrong answers and it sometimes seems to make stuff up
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-hallucinations
.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffman
Annika did embarrass herself when she played with the men. Top of the LPGA, missed the cut when she played with the men. Would have been as if Tiger Woods played in a different division and missed the cut. IOW, you can play to your abilities and still embarrass yourself.
In the pantheon of just plain stupid AZ posts, this one is top shelf. Do you think the half of men’s pro golfers that miss the cut embarrass themselves? And your Tiger Woods analogy is plain backwards. He would be playing in a LOWER division, while she was playing in a HIGHER division.
I just looked it up. She beat ELEVEN of the best male golfers in the world. She had much to be proud of. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Not a valid comparison. She was top of the LPGA and wanted to show how she would do against the men. She finished near the bottom. She thought she could "play with the men." She couldn't. She showed that she is below-average when compared to men.
The whole thing shows why we have women's divisions in sports.
link to original post
She DID play with the men, and beat ELEVEN of them. ELEVEN male pro golfers who make their living playing golf. If SOOPOO played, the odds of me beating 11 of them is actually lower than when I rolled 19 yo’s in a row.
But 100% agree on the ‘it’s why we have women’s divisions in sports’. There is no way Annika could have made a living playing golf without ‘women’s golf’.
I don’t recall any Sorenstam interviews from the time, but she seems level headed enough to know she would not be competitive with the truly top male golfers.
I do remember the talk that Michelle Wie could be competitive with male golfers. As it turned out, she was rarely competitive with top FEMALE golfers. (She was an ok pro, but not a Sorenstam).
Quote: odiousgambitPretty serious case of trolling AZ going on, I think
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
link to original post
I think the original assertion was women and men shouldn't even be able to compete with each other even if they want to which I don't agree with not that women's sports should be eliminated. But I'm too lazy to trace the thread back and see.
Hey women could win the NBA trophy every year with one rule change.
Quote: SOOPOO
She DID play with the men, and beat ELEVEN of them. ELEVEN male pro golfers who make their living playing golf. If SOOPOO played, the odds of me beating 11 of them is actually lower than when I rolled 19 yo’s in a row.
That is a bit like saying one finished 28th in the Indy 500. Her stunt simply proved that the best female pro-golfer cannot compete with middle-of-the-road male golfers. Comparing yourself is not valid as you do not make a living at golf.
Quote:I don’t recall any Sorenstam interviews from the time, but she seems level headed enough to know she would not be competitive with the truly top male golfers.
I remember little, either. I was dating a girl who loved that she was trying, we did not discuss it afterwards.
The most famous time a woman beat a man at the same sport was probably the King/Riggs matchup. But he was what, 10+ years older and the whole thing was WWF-Tennis. Prime for prime Riggs would have crushed her.
Quote: rxwineQuote: odiousgambitPretty serious case of trolling AZ going on, I think
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
link to original post
I think the original assertion was women and men shouldn't even be able to compete with each other even if they want to which I don't agree with not that women's sports should be eliminated. But I'm too lazy to trace the thread back and see.
Actually the OP has the position that there should be no womens/mens divisions, anyone can compete in anything. Which would be the end of women's sports.
Quote: rxwineQuote: odiousgambitPretty serious case of trolling AZ going on, I think
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
link to original post
I think the original assertion was women and men shouldn't even be able to compete with each other even if they want to which I don't agree with not that women's sports should be eliminated. But I'm too lazy to trace the thread back and see.
Hey women could win the NBA trophy every year with one rule change.Every NBA team would have to be half women. All teams would try to draft the best women for their team
Do it like roller derby. Instead of quarters, go to eighths and men and women alternate every four minutes. Two games within one, but only the final score counts.The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: odiousgambitPretty serious case of trolling AZ going on, I think
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
link to original post
I think the original assertion was women and men shouldn't even be able to compete with each other even if they want to which I don't agree with not that women's sports should be eliminated. But I'm too lazy to trace the thread back and see.
Actually the OP has the position that there should be no womens/mens divisions, anyone can compete in anything. Which would be the end of women's sports.
link to original post
I've said this before but I'll repeat it. I've seen Serena Williams several times on talk shows say that yeah she's a great tennis player and has won a lot of tournaments but she can't beat a high school male tennis champion. She said she would be crushed because men hit the ball so much harder than women and she has no defense against that. If a strong man hits a ball at you you have to be of equal strength in order to return it and women are not. The whole subject is ridiculous.
There's a reason men have the jobs in these videos and women do not. This little girl has a ton of these videos and they're very entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ewyducNF7QI
Quote: EvenBob
I've said this before but I'll repeat it. I've seen Serena Williams several times on talk shows say that yeah she's a great tennis player and has won a lot of tournaments but she can't beat a high school male tennis champion. She said she would be crushed because men hit the ball so much harder than women and she has no defense against that. If a strong man hits a ball at you you have to be of equal strength in order to return it and women are not. The whole subject is ridiculous.
There's a reason men have the jobs in these videos and women do not. This little girl has a ton of these videos and they're very entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ewyducNF7QI
link to original post
It's the serves. Women can't return male serves.
And on that note, most male players don't return male serves very well either. If you watch lower ranked male pros play, they're blowing aces by each other all day. The top males, no one can blow many serves by them and that's why they are on top. There aren't as many aces in women's tennis so it relies more on finesse and many would say it's more enjoyable to watch for that reason.
Quote: billryanI've never heard of such a thing, and I'm surprised it is legal.
The family of a murder victim was allowed to present an AI version of the victim, and the " victim" was allowed to explain how his murder affected both his life and his family.
link to original post
It was an AI generated witness impacts statement after conviction.Don't know if it will hold up on appeal but there's always a first time and we'll see how it ends up.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: odiousgambitPretty serious case of trolling AZ going on, I think
I don't buy the idea that someone advocating all people just compete openly, no restrictions, doesn't realize they are eliminating women's sports. So they should just say "I don't care if special set-aside sports get eliminated" and if they don't say that then they aren't being honest
Maybe boxing and wrestling shouldn't have weight classes? Maybe grown men should be able to compete in Little League? Be consistent and be against those restrictions too
link to original post
I think the original assertion was women and men shouldn't even be able to compete with each other even if they want to which I don't agree with not that women's sports should be eliminated. But I'm too lazy to trace the thread back and see.
Actually the OP has the position that there should be no womens/mens divisions, anyone can compete in anything. Which would be the end of women's sports.
link to original post
I saw that video once, the feminists hate that it exists.
Whatever the year the Winter Olympics was in Russia I remember seeing freestyle skiing. I saw the men on the same course as the women a few days later. The men just jumped higher and farther, everything the men did the women could not do quite as well. And that is not even head-to-head like tennis. The women were doing their own thing, but if it was co-ed competition no women would have even qualified much less competed for medals.
I've said this before but I'll repeat it. I've seen Serena Williams several times on talk shows say that yeah she's a great tennis player and has won a lot of tournaments but she can't beat a high school male tennis champion. She said she would be crushed because men hit the ball so much harder than women and she has no defense against that. If a strong man hits a ball at you you have to be of equal strength in order to return it and women are not. The whole subject is ridiculous.
There's a reason men have the jobs in these videos and women do not. This little girl has a ton of these videos and they're very entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ewyducNF7QI
link to original post
how about tweaking the rules to have a somewhat fair competition between women and men____?
for example in MMA fighting - a 250 pound woman versus a 130 pound man____________________:)
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
how about tweaking the rules to have a somewhat fair competition between women and men____?
for example in MMA fighting - a 250 pound woman versus a 130 pound man____________________:)
.
link to original post
As I understand, in some gyms, you pay extra for that.
Baseball expanded in 1969, adding 44 pitchers, and the next perfect game would not be for 13 years.
Of 23 perfect games, eight have been by Hall of Fame pitchers, and two have been by pitchers who never completed another game.
The Yankees have had four perfect games, while the White Sox surprisingly have had three.
Quote: rxwineApple users have up to 8 weeks to collect up to $100. (Some spyware class action suit)
link to original post
About 15 years ago, I carried an iPhone, per corporate decree.
Privacy policy said we disable Siri.
Your call if you want the convenience of a wiretap in your pocket.
video of New Orleans jailbreak on Friday - 10 violent criminals escaped - they caught 4 of them and 6 remain at large
.
.
sources indicate that some of the largest dinosaurs such as Argentinosaurus could have weighed as much as 80 tons
that equals 160,000 pounds
wow - that's pretty amazing - imagine how much they had to eat to maintain a weight like that
it's one of the large known land animals of all time and possibly the largest
it is widely believed that a massive asteroid impact caused the extinction of dinosaurs
.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentinosaurus
.
I just heard on a Vegas YT channel that resort fee "drip pricing" has been banned by the FTC.
A good thing, but is it true and in effect?
4,4,7,3,2. He had a KQ and dealer an AJ. So he lost. Of course 5 card copy hands are super rare.
I later faced a dealer with a straight and a pair of 8’s. No problem for my full house with an extra pair of queens.
Same session. Friend also got a full house with an extra pair of aces for up top.
We both lost overall…..
Quote: huanghelou520
Quote: odiousgambit为什么要用这样的排泄物来戏弄我们？
link to original post
Just a reminder that the official language of this Forum is English.
Quote: AZDuffmanDidn't see this elsewhere here.
I just heard on a Vegas YT channel that resort fee "drip pricing" has been banned by the FTC.
A good thing, but is it true and in effect?
link to original post
Has the FTC issued a press release or new regulations? I mean, I'm sure those wondering would've performed a search or research. I suggest that course of action.
Possibly of interest on the drip pricing rules.
Quote: Dieterhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/05/ftc-rule-unfair-or-deceptive-fees-take-effect-may-12-2025
Possibly of interest on the drip pricing rules.
link to original post
I sure would like to see this applied to the rental market in Las Vegas. Almost all of the corporate apartments (at least on the lower end of the market) have some significant scamminess in their advertising.
Quote: AxelWolfThey need to get rid of fine print and stuff buried in the terms and conditions.
link to original post
Its a variation on the old bait-and-switch. Like the old days when K-Mart would have a huge sale but only have a very small number of units available. Rainchecks for when it came back in, which it never did.Now it is a room rate looks like it did in the 90s but a resort fee, an internet fee, and fee to rent the pen to sign the register.
Unless you are top-end, Vegas does not want you anymore. Same as Disney.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: Dieterhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/05/ftc-rule-unfair-or-deceptive-fees-take-effect-may-12-2025
Possibly of interest on the drip pricing rules.
link to original post
I sure would like to see this applied to the rental market in Las Vegas. Almost all of the corporate apartments (at least on the lower end of the market) have some significant scamminess in their advertising.
link to original post
The scope of these rules seems to be specifically limited to short-term lodging like hotels, and tickets to events like concerts.
While scamminess is bad, I would hope people have enough time to thoughtfully review an apartment lease.
There are no plans to increase the HOA fee which is roughly $2500 a year.
Quote: billryanSun City, Summerlin's HOA, is reportedly thirty million dollars short of its legally required reserve funding. They recently imposed a $5,000 fee on all new purchases to plug the deficit. By my math, they need to sell 6,000 homes to close the gap.
There are no plans to increase the HOA fee which is roughly $2500 a year.
link to original post
What happens if they can't raise the money? Can HOA go bankrupt or default or dissolve?
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanSun City, Summerlin's HOA, is reportedly thirty million dollars short of its legally required reserve funding. They recently imposed a $5,000 fee on all new purchases to plug the deficit. By my math, they need to sell 6,000 homes to close the gap.
There are no plans to increase the HOA fee which is roughly $2500 a year.
link to original post
What happens if they can't raise the money? Can HOA go bankrupt or default or dissolve?
link to original post
"HOA" covers some different kinds of organizations. The ones I'm most familiar with are condo boards and they own the land and usually the physical structure of the building, and are in in turn owned in common by the unit owners. Never had it happen but I believe they get assigned a receiver by the state if they go mechula and they also have a bad bank and a bad insurance company available where they will be an assigned risk. We did have to go to the bad insurance company once because of repeated arson on a property.
Then there's the other kind of HOA where they don't own much or anything, just stick their nose in your business and I would assume if they fold they fold, what responsibilities do they have to the homeowners if they are no longer collecting fees? I would assume this Sun City is the former kind if they have reserve requirements and that they own an awful lot. I don't know how Nevada enforces it or if they enforce it, it might be only the homeowners who have the right to go to the court and get an order, but I would bet all of those owners have a special assessment in their futures. That $5K fee I would expect to get nixed because it's an impediment to selling and because it treats a selling owner differently than one who is not selling.
it contains the rarity of using "+EV" so that's a counter-indication, but I'm still saying BS
https://twistedsifter.com/2025/06/casino-bosses-dismissed-a-dealers-concern-about-a-game-that-was-paying-out-too-much-so-he-had-his-family-members-come-in-to-win-a-lot-of-money/
Quote: rxwineI just told a neighbor if their family member dies, even if they have been taking care of them, that they don't have to pay that person's outstanding bills if that person dies.. And I told her creditors will try to get her to pay the bills but she doesn't have to. Now, I am wondering if that's right, for instance if they were operating under power of attorney.
link to original post
As far as I know, your debts don't die with you. Your estate is responsible for them. The estate executor will need to pay off the debts before a court will allow the estate to be distributed. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I stay at Holiday Inns. Still, I was the executor for my older sister's estate, which was very simple, and for my Mother's estate, which was more complicated and needed attorneys.
They both had wills that directed me to pay off all their debts. I think most wills have such language.
If the estate isn't large enough to settle the debt, I don't believe family members can be held responsible unless they co-signed.
I typed in, "Is Harmon Killibrew related to the Steelers player?" and got very strange results. One source said the football player is Harmon's Grandson, and another said he was the son of Harmon's grandson, while most sources say they are unrelated.
Quote: rxwineI just told a neighbor if their family member dies, even if they have been taking care of them, that they don't have to pay that person's outstanding bills if that person dies.. And I told her creditors will try to get her to pay the bills but she doesn't have to. Now, I am wondering if that's right, for instance if they were operating under power of attorney.
Quote:As far as I know, your debts don't die with you. Your estate is responsible for them. The executor of the estate will need to pay off the debts before a court will allow the estate to be distributed.
Yeah, that part makes sense, but even though my sister wasn't the executor of my mother's estate, creditors did try to get her to cover the bills she had been taking care of on her own. It was an empty threat, because nothing happened but she was definitely worried about it at the time.
I just don't know all the possible circumstances that might change that.
Quote: rxwineQuote: rxwineI just told a neighbor if their family member dies, even if they have been taking care of them, that they don't have to pay that person's outstanding bills if that person dies.. And I told her creditors will try to get her to pay the bills but she doesn't have to. Now, I am wondering if that's right, for instance if they were operating under power of attorney.
Quote:As far as I know, your debts don't die with you. Your estate is responsible for them. The executor of the estate will need to pay off the debts before a court will allow the estate to be distributed.
Yeah, that part makes sense, but even though my sister wasn't the executor of my mother's estate, creditors did try to get her to cover the bills she had been taking care of on her own. It was an empty threat, because nothing happened but she was definitely worried about it at the time.
I just don't know all the possible circumstances that might change that.
link to original post
I think Bill Ryan's explanation is correct. I helped my wife serve as executor for my father-in-laws estate recently. Once a bank learns that a person is dead they freeze the funds in his bank accounts - you can deposit more money but may not withdraw, even if you had power of attorney while the deceased was alive. We needed to send documents from a probate court indicating that the will was approved and that the court approved of my wife as being the executor, as well as a death certificate etc.
So, most institutional creditors understand there can are significant delays after someone has died. My wife and I did continue to pay the monthly fees for his storage units out of our own pockets (because the alternative was to lose all the stuff in the storage units) but other debts simply had to wait until the legal documents became available. We reimbursed ourselves for those storage payments from his estate after we regained access to his money.
This was Tennessee, other states may have somewhat different laws.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: rxwineQuote: rxwineI just told a neighbor if their family member dies, even if they have been taking care of them, that they don't have to pay that person's outstanding bills if that person dies.. And I told her creditors will try to get her to pay the bills but she doesn't have to. Now, I am wondering if that's right, for instance if they were operating under power of attorney.
Quote:As far as I know, your debts don't die with you. Your estate is responsible for them. The executor of the estate will need to pay off the debts before a court will allow the estate to be distributed.
Yeah, that part makes sense, but even though my sister wasn't the executor of my mother's estate, creditors did try to get her to cover the bills she had been taking care of on her own. It was an empty threat, because nothing happened but she was definitely worried about it at the time.
I just don't know all the possible circumstances that might change that.
link to original post
I think Bill Ryan's explanation is correct. I helped my wife serve as executor for my father-in-laws estate recently. Once a bank learns that a person is dead they freeze the funds in his bank accounts - you can deposit more money but may not withdraw, even if you had power of attorney while the deceased was alive. We needed to send documents from a probate court indicating that the will was approved and that the court approved of my wife as being the executor, as well as a death certificate etc.
So, most institutional creditors understand there can are significant delays after someone has died. My wife and I did continue to pay the monthly fees for his storage units out of our own pockets (because the alternative was to lose all the stuff in the storage units) but other debts simply had to wait until the legal documents became available. We reimbursed ourselves for those storage payments from his estate after we regained access to his money.
This was Tennessee, other states may have somewhat different laws.
link to original post
A lot of people don't understand that if your spouse dies you are the closest living relative to them. You cannot be written out of their will. You're closer than children, siblings, parents, you're legally closer to them than anybody. You can write your children and your siblings and your parents out of your will but never your spouse. I've seen this in action up close and personal where Grandma dies and grandpa is still alive and the kids actually will break into his house and steal the things that belong to their mother. This has fractured families because whoever gets there first gets the good stuff and sometimes there's lots and lots of good stuff that Grandma had. They know their grandpa is not going to call the police and they don't consider it stealing but of course it is.
Quote: EvenBob
A lot of people don't understand that if your spouse dies you are the closest living relative to them. You cannot be written out of their will.
This is why people will leave $1 or $10 to them in their will. You need an attorney to be sure that is done right. I read many an old will where they did this to the family.
The road there is quite an adventure. At one point, you go about a half mile of twists and turns on a cratered dirt road, maybe eight feet wide, with razor-sharp cacti on either side.
Sadly, I was in an open field when GPS told me I'd arrived. The only evidence it is used for anything is a couple of half-filled trash cans and a sign warning people that rockets were limited to 17,000 feet or something. I'd have thought Sunday morning would be prime rocket launching time, but I did notice all open fires are currently banned, so they may not be allowed to launch. Driving back to Tucson, I took a slightly different route and passed a compound with a sign stating Southern Arizona Rocket Owners Association, but the gate was locked. A bit further down the road, I came across what appeared to be an F-4 Phantom parked in someone's driveway, with two sets of wings leaning against an outbuilding. I was going to stop, but no one was around and I plan on returning when I find out there are scheduled launches.
