What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tactics. This is a story posted this morning by Mike Silver of Yahoo Sports. While it is about The football game yesterday between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots, I am posting it for those involved with fighting a well known "church." I am not going to put any spin on this. The last time the Jets played the Patriots, they lost embarrassingly. Yesterday, they beat The Patriots with some innovative psychological warfare. I think the tactic could be used in any number of battles. I'm sorry to see Mike Laws depart the ESMB stage. He wrote about "The Art of War" with a very keen eye.


Jets usher out Patriots, boring approach

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports
4 hours, 17 minutes ago


Email
Print
Topics in this article: Five Diatribe Comprehend Text
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. – For all of the trash-talking the New York Jets did in the days leading up to Sunday’s divisional playoff clash with the rival New England Patriots – from cornerback Antonio Cromartie’s(notes) profane assessment of Tom Brady(notes) to linebacker Bart Scott’s(notes) threat to inflict violence upon Wes Welker(notes) – the most audacious statement of all was made by Rex Ryan, and it was both internal and discreet.

Ryan got his players’ attention last Tuesday at the Jets’ Florham Park, N.J., training facility by unveiling a bold, innovative game plan that he and defensive coordinator Mike Pettine planned to throw at the NFL’s highest-scoring offense and Brady, the presumptive league MVP who runs it. Having been torched to the point of humiliation in a loss to the Pats six weeks earlier, Ryan was determined to make his team the aggressor upon its return to Gillette Stadium.

More From Michael Silver
Massive run transforms Lynch's image Jan 14, 2011
Live Trippin' at noon PT Jan 13, 2011
AdChoices


Jets coach Rex Ryan hasn't been shy about speaking up – including a declaration his team was Super Bowl-bound.
(Winslow Townson/AP Photo)
When Ryan’s defensive players saw the X’s and O’s their coach had cooked up, there was no mistaking them for hugs and kisses.

“It was an unbelievable game plan,” veteran defensive lineman Trevor Pryce(notes) said. “It was out of sight. We did some stuff I’ve never seen a football team do. We flooded coverages, had man schemes that looked like zone, and zone that looked like man. Our first reaction was, ‘How are we gonna do this? How is this gonna work?’ I mean, 14 years in the NFL, and I’d never seen anything like it. Rex came up with some Madden [expletive], like it was a video game. He said, ‘Hey, let’s try this.’ And it worked! They couldn’t figure it out.”

By the time the sixth-seeded Jets’ stunning, 28-21 upset of the top-seeded Pats was complete, vaulting New York into next Sunday’s AFC championship game against the Pittsburgh Steelers at Heinz Field, Ryan’s team had driven home several emphatic points to a football world still grappling to understand the bludgeoning of several preconceived notions.

The new rules:

• Boring is out; brash is in. That whole hyper-paranoid, “One Voice,” never-say-anything-that-might-rile-your-opponent approach employed by New England coach Bill Belichick? That is so last decade. The new product – with Ryan as its, uh, foot model – features swagger, self-aggrandizing behavior and as much unchecked smack talk as a locker room can muster. Whereas Belichick went so far as to bench his top receiver, Welker, for the Pats’ first offensive series because of the player’s veiled shots at Ryan earlier in the week, the Jets were utterly encumbered by such trivialities and hell-bent on defending their coach’s leadership style and honor.

• Chemistry and gutty role players are out; talent and playmakers are in. For all the talk about the post-Randy Moss(notes) Patriots’ success in spreading the ball around to guys like undersized halfback (and Jets reject) Danny Woodhead(notes), rookie tight end Rob Gronkowski(notes) and resuscitated receiver Deion Branch(notes), the Jets prevailed in part because their skill-position studs – most notably wideouts Santonio Holmes(notes) and Braylon Edwards(notes) and halfback LaDainian Tomlinson(notes), a former league MVP – parlayed their superior athletic ability into end-zone trips.

• Belichick’s reign as football’s unparalleled defensive guru is out; Ryan’s coronation as his equal or (gulp) patron is in. Belichick, with three Super Bowl rings as a head coach and two others as an assistant to his credit, has confounded many a great mind over the years. But he got owned by Ryan on Sunday for 68,756 fans and all the TV-watching world to see, and it is likely to torment him throughout the offseason and beyond. When Ryan opened his postgame news conference by referencing an earlier prediction and proclaiming, “I thought it would come down to me and Belichick and thank goodness it never did because he won that battle like he always does,” it was hard to avoid bursting into laughter.

A few minutes later, in an emotional and predictably loud locker room, Ryan’s players made it very, very clear that they are galvanized by their second-year coach’s leadership.

To be fair, we’ve known this for awhile. After making a splash in his rookie season by speaking candidly and cockily as the Jets made an unlikely run to the AFC championship game, Ryan turned up the volume in 2010, becoming the undisputed star of the team’s summertime soiree on HBO’s “Hard Knocks” and openly declaring that his team was Super Bowl-bound.

He stayed unsubtle and unrepentant throughout a choppy campaign that bottomed out with consecutive December defeats to the Patriots and Miami Dolphins and later included the surfacing of Internet foot-fetish videos that appeared to feature Ryan and his wife, Michelle. When Welker, in the wake of comments by Ryan mildly critical of Brady – and Cromartie’s expletive-laced depiction of the quarterback – made 11 references to feet in his news conference last Thursday, both Belichick and the Jets’ players believed he had crossed the line.

Belichick, according to CBS, benched Welker because the receiver had violated the coach’s edict to avoid inflammatory statements. Meanwhile, Scott told Newsday, “Be very careful what you say about our coach. His days in a uniform will be numbered. Put it like that.”

Why so serious? Scott explained after Sunday’s game: “They made it personal ‘cause they attacked my coach. I’ll go to war for a man who’s willing to put himself on the front line and fight with his troops, instead of dictating from a tower and sending ‘em into battle. Because the reason people have his back is he’s protecting us. He was saying [last week] it was his fault that we lost last time. We know we didn’t play our best, that they came out and had more of a sense of urgency than us, and took it to us. We knew we played a huge part in that defeat. Yet he puts himself out there. How can you not play hard for a man like that?”

Added Pryce: “He’s one of us. First of all, he has your back before you have his. And he’s been through so much this year. It’s been hard watching someone you care about go through all he’s gone through this season. The bottom line is he lays it all out there for you, and you’ll do whatever you can for a coach like that.”

Before Sunday’s game, Ryan told his players that they were a better team than the Patriots – whom they had defeated in the second week of the season – and that they were superior as individuals, too. As the game played out, it was hard to argue either point.


Santonio Holmes' seven-yard touchdown catch gave the Jets a 10-point lead early in the fourth quarter.
(Winslow Townson/AP Photo)
After falling behind 3-0, second-year quarterback Mark Sanchez(notes) (16-of-25, 194 yards, three touchdowns, no interceptions) rediscovered the deft touch he’d displayed in that September triumph over New England at the New Meadowlands Stadium and utilized the talented targets at his disposal.

Former Pro Bowl wideout Braylon Edwards, acquired in a 2009 trade with the Cleveland Browns, got free for a 37-yard completion that set up Sanchez’s seven-yard scoring pass to Tomlinson with 10:24 remaining in the second quarter. Thirty-three seconds before halftime – and four plays after a ruinous fake-punt attempt that gave New York the ball at the Pats’ 37-yard line – Edwards dragged defensive backs Brandon Meriweather(notes) and Devin McCourty(notes) into the end zone on a 15-yard touchdown catch that give the Jets a 14-3 lead.

When the Pats closed to 14-11 just before the end of the third quarter, No. 3 wideout Jericho Cotchery (five catches, 96 yards) got the final quarter off to an emphatic start, turning upfield after catching a Sanchez pass over the middle and racing ahead for a 58-yard gain. Three plays later, on third-and-goal from the 4, Holmes – acquired in an offseason trade with the Steelers – caught a gorgeous fade from Sanchez in the left corner of the end zone, beating cornerback Kyle Arrington(notes) and somehow getting his foot and knee onto the turf just inches inside the white lines.

It was eerily similar to the game-winning catch against the Arizona Cardinals two seasons ago that earned Holmes Super Bowl XLIII MVP honors, and it was yet another reminder that when a season is on the line, pedigree often trumps locker-room tranquility and resourcefulness. As Ryan said later: “You know, we’ve got some weapons now.”

Added veteran fullback Tony Richardson(notes): “You can’t knock what [the Patriots have] been able to do. They’ve been able to do a lot without having those superstar players, other than Brady. But yeah, I think you do have to have playmakers. When you have Braylon, Santonio, Jericho, two great backs, a tight end [Dustin Keller(notes)] – you name it, we’ve got it.”

The Jets’ collective edge in big-game experience didn’t hurt, either. “I sensed a group that had never really been in that situation,” said Tomlinson, who signed with the Jets last spring after being released by the Chargers. “I sensed a group that for so long throughout the year was used to being up, to scoring a bunch of points, to getting turnovers, to having their way. When things get tight, you see what they’re made of. That’s what was so shocking.”

Nothing, however, was more shocking than the sight of Brady looking utterly discombobulated in the pocket. Having ended the regular season by throwing an NFL-record 335 passes without an interception (he was picked off only four times on the season, against 36 TD tosses) and directing an offense that averaged a league-high 32.4 points a game, Brady entered Sunday’s game looking like a man poised to match Hall of Famers Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw by winning a fourth Super Bowl ring.

Instead, he continued a recent run of postseason struggles, beginning with an ill-advised screen pass to BenJarvus Green-Ellis(notes) on New England’s opening drive that ended up in the hands of Jets linebacker David Harris(notes). Following a 58-yard return, Harris was run down at the Pats’ 12 by veteran tight end Alge Crumpler(notes), and Nick Folk(notes) shanked a 30-yard field goal, sending the Gillette fans into a euphoric fit of taunting.

Yet while the Jets had their share of missed opportunities, including a pair of Patriots fumbles in their own territory that New York failed to recover, their ability to rattle Brady grew more pronounced as the game continued. The Jets had five sacks – two by defensive end Shaun Ellis(notes) – and star cornerback Darrelle Revis(notes), Cromartie and their fellow defensive backs and linebackers were so good in coverage that Brady struggled to find open receivers and repeatedly held the ball for uncomfortably long stretches.

The Jets flooded Brady’s passing lanes with defenders, disguised their schemes masterfully and mixed things up with regularity. There were zone packages disguised as man-to-man defenses, and vice-versa, with no discernible pattern. According to Scott, when the Patriots motioned players to try to get a sense of what coverages the Jets were playing, “we never moved – and they still had no idea what we were doing.”


Tom Brady is expected to win NFL MVP, but the Jets put him down and out of the playoffs
(David Butler II/US Presswire)
Brady also lacked an obvious go-to target, something he once had in Moss, whom the Pats surprisingly traded to the Minnesota Vikings in October. Moss’ departure undoubtedly was a positive development for the Pats, who reacquired Branch from the Seahawks and thrived by divvying up the opportunities to a variety of less-heralded targets. However, Sunday called for a game-breaking receiver with star quality, and for Brady, there seemed to be a direct path from No Moss to No mas.

“Our coaches found a way to make it as complicated as possible, and Tom Brady literally had no answer,” Pryce said. “When he threw the interception to David, it was like, ‘Uhhh, we got him.’ I could see some of the horror in his eyes. When nobody was open, he’s not a running quarterback, and he knew he was gonna get hit. And believe me, he got hit.

“He was terrified. He was absolutely frazzled. Anytime you see him running around like a chicken with his head cut off, it’s shocking, ‘cause you don’t see that very often. He was shook.”

Most stunning of all was the sight of Brady, trailing 21-11 after Holmes’ touchdown catch with 13 minutes left, direct a 14-play, 53-yard drive so deliberate, it evoked unpleasant memories of Donovan McNabb’s(notes) infamous attempt to bring the Philadelphia Eagles back from a 10-point deficit to the Pats late in Super Bowl XXXIX. Seven minutes, 45 seconds later, when Branch dropped a fourth-and-13 pass, the Patriots were in deep trouble.

Brady, one of the best ever to play the position, wouldn’t go down quietly – New England got the ball back and closed to within a touchdown on Shayne Graham’s(notes) 35-yard field goal with 1:57 to go. Graham’s promising onside kick, in a sight that had to nauseate Pats fans like no other, squirted past the front line of the Jets and was scooped up by Cromartie, who raced 23 yards to set up a first-and-10 at the New England 20. Two plays later, halfback Shonn Greene(notes) (17 carries, 76 yards) broke free around right end and completed a 16-yard scoring run, taunting his fallen foes in the end zone by feigning sleep while using the football as a pillow.

Ryan, ostensibly peeved that the second-year runner hadn’t gone down before the goal line, which would have allowed the Jets to kill the clock with kneel-downs, rumbled down the sideline to join in the celebration.

“When I was running down there, I was yelling to get down,” Ryan said. “But I really wasn’t.”

Of course he wasn’t. As we learned on Sunday – and, perhaps, as Ryan and his players knew even before the game started – conventional wisdom no longer applies. It’s Rex’s world, in all its unrefined splendor, and the volume is only getting louder.

Before the game, during the game, after the game, his was the mouth that roared.

“Same old Jets going to the AFC championship game two years in a row,” Ryan declared, his voice drenched in I-told-you-so sarcasm. Then, in an instant, he turned dead serious: “Only difference is, we plan on winning this one.”
 
new Steve Martin album

Comedian/actor/author/banjo player Steve Martin has recorded the followup to his 2009 Grammy-winning bluegrass album The Crow. And to do so, he got by with a little bit of help from … Sir Paul McCartney!


The former Beatle joined Martin in the studio, and while both are superstars, Martin still admitted to being a bit starstruck.

“It’s very hard to believe,” Martin said. “I was a kid when I first heard Paul McCartney, and if you told me one day that he’d be singing one of my tunes, I’m still flabbergasted.”

The Dixie Chicks also help out on the 14-track LP, entitled Rare Bird Alert and due for stores in March.

Most importantly, one of those 14 tracks will be a live version of everyone’s favorite Steve Martin song … “King Tut”!
 
Mon Jan 17, 9:49 am ET
Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm’
By Liz Goodwin

A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake.

It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State.

The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence.

The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile.

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes.

Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release.

Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/
 

FoTi

Crusader
The picture of that possible superstorm shows not only California, but Oregon and Washington....the whole west coast all the way over to the Rockies. :omg:
 
On a Phone, Interfering With Safety



CHRISTINE NEGRONI, On Monday January 17, 2011, 4:17 pm EST

The announcement over the plane’s speaker seems as much a part of the routine before takeoff as the demonstration of how to buckle a seat belt: Please turn off all electronic devices.

But some passengers invariably ignore the request, perhaps thinking that their iPods or e-books do not count. And really, does it matter if the devices are left on?

The answer, it turns out, is that sometimes it may.

“It’s a good news-bad news thing,” said David Carson, an engineer with Boeing. Electronic devices do not cause problems in every case, he said. “And that’s good,” he said. “It’s bad in that people assume it never will.”

Passengers are taking an increasing array of devices on board planes — cellphones, tablets, GPS units and more. Many of these devices transmit a signal, and all of them emit electromagnetic waves, which, in theory, could interfere with the plane’s electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best shielding against the latest generation of devices, some engineers said.

“Is it worrisome?” asked Bill Strauss, an engineer who studied passenger use of electronic devices several years ago. “It is.”

Safety experts suspect that electronic interference has played a role in some accidents, though that is difficult to prove. One crash in which cellphone interference with airplane navigation was cited as a possible factor involved a charter airplane in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2003. Eight people died when the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.

The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight. In the final report, the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission stated, “The pilot’s own cellphone might have caused erroneous indications” on a navigational aid.

Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports filed by pilots in the United States with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA. In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away. “I had this exact problem about 10 years ago under the same circumstances,” the pilot wrote.

The Federal Aviation Administration says there are risks associated with electromagnetic interference and prohibits the use of electronics below 10,000 feet because pilots have less time at lower altitudes to deal with a problem. It is up to each airline to set the policy at higher altitudes. “There’s not enough evidence to warrant a change,” said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the agency.

There are many reasons that passengers do not comply with the restrictions. Mr. Carson of Boeing cited one. “Devices blur the distinction. P.D.A.’s that are cellphones, cellphones that play music. In the mind of the nominal consumer, it is hard to know what the device is actually doing.”

Some passengers are like Nicole Rodrigues of Los Angeles, who acknowledges that she listens to music on her cellphone when she is not supposed to. “In my head, I imagine it not being a problem,” she said. “The whole airplane is filled with electronics that are constantly on. Is my little cellphone going to make that big of a difference?”

Even flight attendants, charged with enforcing the rules, can fail to recognize the potential for problems, said Dinkar Mokadam, an occupational safety specialist with the Association of Flight Attendants. “I don’t believe it is general knowledge that someone could plug in an iPod and potentially harm the aircraft — even among the flight attendant and pilot community,” Mr. Mokadam said.

There is no recent survey of how often passengers ignore restrictions on use of their gadgets, though seven years ago, Mr. Strauss, then a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University, monitored the signals emitted from cellphones during flights and discovered that they were being left on. “More than once a minute, the devices were chirping a signal to either reach the ground or make a call,” he told Avionics magazine in 2006.

Airline executives say that for the moment, they do not plan to create more restrictive policies. “We’re accommodating the wishes of our passengers,” said Tom Hendricks, head of safety and operations for the Air Transport Association, the airlines’ trade group. “They wish to use these devices.”

John Darbo, an air safety consultant and former airline executive who was a member of the group that helped the F.A.A. develop rules, said airlines could not police passengers or stop them from bringing electronics on the airplane. “Do you expect us to do that?” he asked. “That’s absurd. What we have to do is tell them what’s going on, elicit their cooperation and harden the airplanes.” Before deciding whether to allow passengers to use phones before takeoff, several airlines conducted ground tests to see if cellphones would interfere with systems. At American Airlines, people dialed cellphones from out-of-service planes parked at various airports. “They found no interaction with the aircraft instruments on any aircraft type,” said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American.

As a result, the airline like most others, decided to permit the use of phones at the gate before departure and after landing. “We have not encountered cellphone issues on the ground since allowing the practice,” Mr. Smith said.

Newer airplanes have more sophisticated protection against electromagnetic interference, which is why most reports of electronic problems come from older models. “The technical advancements for wireless devices and portable electronic equipment is so rapid, it changes every week,” said Doug Hughes, an electrical engineer and air safety investigator. “The advances in airplanes take 20 years.”

Still, Mr. Strauss said the deterioration of planes and devices over time had not been taken into account. “A plane is designed to the right specs, but nobody goes back and checks if it is still robust,” he said. “Then there are the outliers — a cellphone that’s been dropped and abused, or a battery that puts out more than it’s supposed to, and avionics that are more susceptible to interference because gaskets have failed. And boom, that’s where you get interference. It would be a perfect storm that would combine to create an aviation accident.”
 

purple haze

Patron with Honors
in a different bent

STORM OF INNOCENCE:

IMHO not about "feelings" my friends...[in answer to a FACEBOOK open reply under a picture thread {Candy Swanson FB page} wherein I questioned the state of Clear]:

in the 1950s, I believe it was all about changing reality, which I continue to endeavor to achieve...in the present.

Feelings, smeelings, DEAL WITH IT, i say to my clients;

let's get below the tip of the ICEBURG and do some REAL work...

I realize i blaspheme the Hubbard Craziness of the late 60's early 70s and so on...and so forth, with DM running his CASE all over the place.

Wall of Fire.. Fxxk that case shit...let's deal with real life first, pleeze...

pass me the ketchup and can we feed the hungry and cure the sick?

BEFORE we CBR it off into another dimensional alternative to LRH's 3rd Dynamic Case?

Let's cut the bias and crap outta it and go direct truth, and, believe me, IT will AS IS, not PERSIST, and harmony may be achieved

there is no ROAD TO ANYWHERE or BRIDGES to ensnare the naively bereft of judgment and sanity...let's not take advantage of anyone = without their FULL AWARENESS AND CONSENT...

I hate with such intensity what is being paraded by the current cos and the exes, under many guises; it's all a camouflaged hole to me; each trying to out do the other in standardness while bastardizing the original tech... not from Hubbard, the dimwit..but Hubbard the GREAT ORGANIZER of others' knowledge and intelligence,

nuff said

you get my drift?

PASSION OF THE HUBBARD :)

he's dead. let him rest in peace. let go of all the rigmarole and

on to the next game

hopefully

HOPE

:melodramatic:

purple clear as a bell:p
chiming the 11:15 hour:thumbsup:

time to head to Gary's place:coolwink:

:happydance:
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
What I find ironic is that the slaggers and degraders have had exactly the effect on this board that the person they slag the most - LRH - predicted that such people would always have on an area where they were let loose. What gowes arouns comes around.

I would suggest that a facility be installed into the software on this board so that the guy who starts a thread - its "host" - be allowed to monitor that particular thread and delete any post he considers unwanted, and also to block any person he wants to from posting on his thread. This way the slaggers can have their free seech on their own threads - which the rest of us can ignore, and the decent threads can remain up tone.

Oh. A closet censor!

If you want to talk about censorship Terril, talk with Leon.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Where did I advocate any increase in censorship? tell me where, please.

All I suggested was that powers already vested in the monitors of this board should be granted also to thread hosts only as far as that particular thread is concerned.

This does not extend any of the censorship actions already in place on this board.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Where did I advocate any increase in censorship? tell me where, please.

All I suggested was that powers already vested in the monitors of this board should be granted also to thread hosts only as far as that particular thread is concerned.

This does not extend any of the censorship actions already in place on this board.

I've got rid of my banky response to your original suggestion, and now I'm curious. What do you believe will be the benfits to ESMB if people "hosting" threads are given the power to control content?
 
I've got rid of my banky response to your original suggestion, and now I'm curious. What do you believe will be the benfits to ESMB if people "hosting" threads are given the power to control content?

The obvious clear benefit would be the thread owner would then have the ability to remove all posts which served only to derail the thread from his intended topic or descend into public hissy fits. Of course, nothing is free and that comes with tradeoffs.


Mark A. Baker
 

Terril park

Sponsor
The obvious clear benefit would be the thread owner would then have the ability to remove all posts which served only to derail the thread from his intended topic or descend into public hissy fits. Of course, nothing is free and that comes with tradeoffs.


Mark A. Baker

Interesting idea, but probably unworkable. It would need thread openers to be given limited moderator powers. I have no idea if the software allows that.
Also if it could be done, I'd say those posts that the OP poster wants to delete should still stay there, with the reasons given for deletion. Clearly merely deleting posts with an opposite view is not useful for the wider audience. But with reasons given one can have a better judgement re the OP poster and those opposing.

Would be an interesting experiment if it could even be tried.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Interesting idea, but probably unworkable. It would need thread openers to be given limited moderator powers. I have no idea if the software allows that.
Also if it could be done, I'd say those posts that the OP poster wants to delete should still stay there, with the reasons given for deletion. Clearly merely deleting posts with an opposite view is not useful for the wider audience. But with reasons given one can have a better judgement re the OP poster and those opposing.

Would be an interesting experiment if it could even be tried.

Another problem with for example this thread, is that one of the regular posters has the ability to moderate where other major contributors don't.
 
3 good reasons to make the first move
By Theo Pauline Nestor
Share:

When my friend Stuart was a teenager, he and his friend were on a mission to find some fireworks. They stumbled into a convenience store where Stuart found himself face to face with a young and attractive clerk. Stuart then meekly inquired, “Do you have any firecrackers here?” The young woman, he recalls, scanned him from head to toe in a slow once-over and then breathily replied, “Just me, honey.”

Shy and flustered, Stuart admits he left the store that day pretty darn fast, but also confesses that most of his relationships throughout his life have been initiated by women because, as he tells it, he’s a “chicken” when it comes to making the first move. While I rather admire the nervy convenience store clerk, I tend to be a little more like Catherine, a 41-year-old nurse who was taught that nice girls don’t make the first move. Two years ago, Catherine decided to challenge the rules she grew up with and contacted a guy on Match.com whose profile caught her eye.

“This was a biggie for me,” Catherine says, “after being raised by a Catholic ex-Marine with four daughters who always said guys will think you are easy if you call them. Of course, he refused to let us pierce our ears or wear makeup because he wasn’t, after all, ‘raising a bunch of harlots.’” Today, she’s still going strong with the man with the intriguing profile. All good-girl Catherine needed to do was take a chance and break out of her ingrained (but outdated) patterns concerning dating stereotypes.
Browse Local Singles at Match.com on Yahoo!
I am a: Seeking a: Near: Like Catherine, many women have decided they’re not interested in waiting around and have realized that there are a lot of good reasons why a man might not be making the first move. Here are a few possibilities to consider:

1. He’s not so good at flirting
You might think of it this way: there’s one set of skills that are crucial for initiating relationships (flirting, for example), and there’s a completely separate set of skills for sustaining an established relationship. The man you’re interested in could be very skilled at sustaining a relationship, but have no clue when it comes flirting (and if you think about it, a guy like this might be a very good catch). Remember my friend, Stuart? He belongs to the latter category. “I’ve made the first move a couple of times,” Stuart says, “and they’ve been disasters. One previous girlfriend noted that I have zero flirting skills, which is what most people use to judge the terrain before making a move. Because I just lumber in, it’s usually a disaster. So almost all of my, uh, dates have been initiated by the woman or have been low-risk setups.”

2. He’s just a wee bit intimidated
Remember that annoying “Out of your league” expression? As in, “Don’t even try it, man. She’s waaaaaaaaay out of your league.” Well, as silly as that sort of thinking is to us now that we’re grown, it can linger on in some men’s brains and create confidence-crushing fantasies, such as this one: 1) Glance at beautiful woman; 2) Wonder momentarily if maybe, just maybe, she’d… 3) Have fantasy brutally interrupted by memory of “frenemy” (think Reggie from the Archie comic books or Iago from Othello) jeering: “Forget about it, man. She’s waaaaaay outta your...” and scene. Some fantasy, right?

In fact, I think this is exactly what may have happened to Sara’s future husband, Tom. At the time — some 15 years ago now — Sara and Tom were both working as promoters in the music industry. “People at radio stations all around the country would say to me, in a sing-song voice, ‘Somebody liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes you!’” says Sara, now a 44-year-old psychotherapist. “It actually began to annoy me, because I felt that if he liked me so much he should let me know. I refused to make the next move because I thought the whole thing smacked of high school.”

But when Tom did finally work up the nerve to call Sara, her roommate told him she was in Santa Fe for the weekend. Tom then conjured up the idea that if a beautiful woman like Sara were in Santa Fe, she must be there on a romantic weekend with a boyfriend. So, intimidated and discouraged, Tom decided not to ask Sara out. A year later when Sara spotted Tom at a party, she decided to make the first move. “Are you ever going to ask me out?” asked Sara. “I will now,” Tom replied. And he did. They’ve been married for 15 years.

3. He’s been treated badly in past relationships
Maybe you’re a bit like Sara and you’re thinking, “If he likes me so much, surely he can ask me out!” But before you dismiss him on the grounds of “not stepping up to the plate,” stop to consider what he’s been through. A painful, recent rejection — a long relationship ending suddenly against his wishes, perhaps — might be one reason why he’s hesitant to put himself on the line.

Sometimes, making “the first move” doesn’t even mean asking the guy out. It can be as easy as taking the conversation with an acquaintance to the next level by turning it from what’s happening in the news to what’s happening over the weekend. As Sara recalls, “It worked out well, my making the first move, but there was a lot of groundwork to be put down beforehand that helped me make that move a little bit easier.”

Theo Pauline Nestor is a regular contributor to Happen magazine and author of How to Sleep Alone in a King-Size Bed: A Memoir of Starting Over (Crown 2008).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top