methodical

On 4/2/2018 at 6:13 PM, Landlord said:

 

 

I don't think this is true at all. First of all, Facebook is still the biggest social media platform by a landslide. In fact, if you include facebook, facebook messenger, whatsapp, and instagram as separate platforms, which are all facebook entities (and 4 of the top 10 biggest social platforms), there are well over four billion more active users than Snapchat.

 

Second, Facebook is already not the next MySpace. MySpace was a 4-5 year product that never innovated, and focused solely on the demographic of people using it's platform to connect socially. Facebook has already dominated for a decade, it's existence is essentially the reason Donald Trump is President (talk about power), and teenagers actually using the platform to connect with their friends is the last of their concerns. If you're right and 10 years from now Facebook goes the way of the dinosaurs, that's still a 20 year run of social domination the likes of which humanity hasn't seen. They're interested in ad revenue, integration into key services in the rest of your life (every single website has a 'login with facebook' and a 'share to facebook' option), and being a behind the scenes leader in future tech ventures like VR, "free" internet, machine learning algorithms, etc. 

VR has been the "Next big thing!" since the 90s.  It's not ever going to be the next big thing.  Augmented reality will have some interesting things but that's about it.

Machine learning is being developed by every major tech company.  But being scared of someone's potential future growth doesn't mean they are a monopoly now.

Frankly the Barrier to entry for all of these things is so low and there are so many competitors that other than traffic I don't see how you can think they are monopolies.  They are at the top because they are the best in their space.  Nothing is stopping you from using another search engine (other than it not being as good, most of the time) or another social network (or quitting altogether like everyone that doesn't care their extended acquaintances had for dinner or what their kids and pets are doing did after facebook went away from college addresses only) or another online retailer (shop around online, lots of times amazon isn't the best price and can be harder to sift through then specialized retailers, although sometimes prime shipping convenience pushes them over the edge and their return policy is better then most other online retailers were offering years ago).

Nothing is going to bring malls back.  Malls suck(ed).

I work in tech and have been involved on the internet since the early/mid 90s.  I don't have a problem with any of these companies other than the creepy amount of data they have on people.  Nothing is stopping something better from coming along.  Frankly other than amazon, all of them are less worrisome than Microsoft, still.  So I voted no on all of it.  If you want actual monopolies that need broken up and solved by making the last mile wholesale, try the cell phone companies and internet service providers/cable companies as that's where fear of oligopolies would be rightfully directed in America.

On 4/3/2018 at 9:52 AM, Enhance said:

That said, the last time someone went after a Fox News' anchor's advertisers, it involved sexual harassment. This time it involves someone's ill-advised comments about grades. That's a fairly huge discrepancy.

It was an ad-hominem attack from an adult with a show on a national cable network against a high-school kid she (or her network and their sheep) disagrees with on gun control.  It should absolutely result in the backlash she got and more IMO.  I don't see celebrating advertisers pulling out of shows who's hosts show publicly that they are actually really disgusting people like Laura Ingraham any differently than celebrating sponsors dropping an athlete that publicly disgraces themselves.  It's what happens when your livelihood depends on sponsors and you decide to cross the line that embarrasses them to be associated with you.  It's not like they pulled out because they care what her political stance was, so there was no escalation, and the tweet was wrong to pretend that it's the same as going after a piece of reporting or "a side" as opposed to a right wing "celebrity."

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

^ Hopefully the car companies are smart enough to realize this will be changed back when President Dumbf*** is gone.

 

Have these guys not seen what L.A. used to look like and what it looks like now?

 

It doesn't matter if climate change is real — pollution can cause cancer and lung problems.

Yeah, giant inefficient gas guzzlers are not the direction the industry is taking, I doubt this is something they've even lobbied for.  The future is definitely going to be electric, the performance is better, the fuel is way cheaper, and the maintenance is an order of magnitude less over hundreds of thousands of miles.  The only drawback at this point really seems to be the time you'd have to recharge on long trips.

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is not going to end well. 

Nope its not and I'm betting they'll hit back on the agricultural exports the most just to really stick it to trumps voter base.

What this whitehouse can't fathom, because they are a group of idiots jockeying for position to kiss the ass of president idiot is that: the relationship with Putin is acrimonious either way, because he views the US and NATO as enemies and is actively running operations to weaken us all.  By doing things like congratulating him for his "re-election" you look like an ass kissing moronic puppet to the rest of our allies and it looks like you are endorsing Russian style "democracy."  Including assassinating foreign exiles on British soil, meddling in the US and other NATO allies election,  and disqualifying opponents from running in elections (who knows why when Putin's stuffing the ballot boxes anyways).

Trumps view is bull, its the same crap republicans (rightly) crapped on Obama for with his "Russia reset".  The reason leaders like Putin and Netanyahu hated Obama is because eventually he at least had the common sense to see when they were trying to pull the wool over his eyes (IMO).  Trump doesn't have an ounce of that common sense and that's why these guys love him, they can show up with their "Strong Man" act and smile and tell Trump how great he is and Trump fawns all over them like a teenage kid with a crush.

6 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Eh. Most of the FB data in question wasn't given freely by its users. E.g. if a website has a private mode it should actually mean what it says.

 

The FB data used was stuff found on user profiles and things that they clicked/liked.

 

I wonder what FB gets more of their $ from - ads or data.

I personally don't view them as separate.  That data is what allows them to make money from advertising.

Facebook would never have a private mode, people and their data is Facebook's product.  Using their platform doesn't mean you are their customer.  Their customers are the people and businesses that pay them for access to you and your personal data.  Frankly their tracking and data gathering extends far beyond their own website and out to any site that includes Facebook javascript and buttons so they track you well beyond what you do on Facebook itself, and that's their entire business.  Allowing you to turn that off, or any part of that doesn't make sense for them.

What did Snowden say about it?  

Found it: Facebook is a surveillance company rebranded as social media.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/edward-snowden-facebook-is-a-surveillance-company-rebranded-as-social-media

That applies to all the data harvesting tech companies you know of and tons of them that probably most people don't know even exist.  The fact that people give them so much detail about their private lives is nuts, because they just turn around and sell it.  Of course it's going to be abused and it just depends on the customer's agenda as to how they will use it.

That did happen.  In several cases if I recall. 

It amazes me how deep the evil runs in the Cheney family.  In a sane world they should be reviled by everyone on both sides of the aisle.

It wont change.

trump-ism is the party's go forward path because its become the party of the intellectually lazy, those living in constant fear and outrage (ie far right media consumers), the bigoted and the christians all lead by the spineless.  The chances of any one of those groups collectively going "we didn't sign up for this" is about zero.  It was the path before trump ever came into the picture.  It's been the path since fox news and talk radio realized they'd make tons of money stirring up outrage of those people and the republicans started having to swing right to the tea party idiots to keep their seats.  They did that themselves by their gerrymandering.

So I have doubts that it has anything to do with candidate messaging or using common sense, or that they will ever recover from trump (nor should they).  It maybe will end when districts are drawn so they don't have to out-far-right each other but they still have their nutty propaganda machine and other right wing billionaire sociopaths that they have to kowtow to.  By now though the damage is already done, maybe not right now this year, but as soon as the boomers decline.

4 hours ago, funhusker said:

Conversation on 1110KFAB this morning as I drove into work:

 

"Who's worse: a married State Senator with children kissing a female lobbyist (who's not his wife) at a bar, or the 'scumbag' that follows him around and records it?"

 

and go!

It's not surprising, talk radio has been like this for two decades at this point.

They are the propaganda arm of the R party.  They firmly believe that no matter what evils their members commit they are justified, because winning at all costs in elections keeps those god hating, tax loving, queer liberals from ruining their country.  I mean at this point the republican party has all but directly said to the country, we will do anything to win elections and hold onto power and it's all justified, there will be no accountability because there is no line that shouldn't be crossed if it means keeping those liberals out of office.  We see it every week from Washington on down.

I mean there are probably plenty of people that do want to ban all guns, but here's the problem with the NRA and the right.  There's been many opportunities to have common sense closing of loopholes after past tragedies and instead they dug their heels in and went to state legislators to get more permissive laws passed still.  That digging in means that when there's enough political will to do something in the opposite direction its going to snap back the other way to the extreme.  I have very little sympathy for the far right on this, even as a gun owner, they've made that the inevitable outcome by blocking any attempt for very small limits to who can get guns and more background checks for all these years as mass shooters keep upping the body-count.

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Replying to the person in this article...

 

I talked a bit about this in a post I made yesterday, but we do need some guns.  Hunters, especially in rural areas, provide a necessary service in keeping the animal populations down.  We cannot have deer breeding rampantly and wandering onto highways getting plowed into by cars, or getting into fields and destroying crops. 

 

So while I advocate better regulation of guns, I don't advocate elimination of guns entirely. They're a tool we need.

I think the problem you'll run into is you just will have republicans do what they tend to do with anything their overlords don't agree with, remove funding from whoever does the regulation.

I don't see any real problem with having licensing similar to Australia and having them be progressively more expensive and restrictive for things like semi automatic rifles, assault or otherwise along with requirements for having a gun safe before purchase.  Maybe add the title 2 firearms resale restrictions on semi-automatic rifles as well.  Making ownership transfers require tax stamps and ATF approval/records for people that are licensed.

I honestly don't have a problem with gun ownership for really any gun.  I have a problem with it being a god given right for every maladjusted idiot, uncaught criminal, and headcase in the country.  I liked gun rights as a kid, thought I wanted to be a member of the NRA one day, but it transitioned from being a sportsman's organization to stiring up a bunch of nutcases because that's where money is.

39 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So....I'm sitting here listening to the meeting at the White House with parents, teachers and kids on gun control and school violence.

 

Guess what, almost everyone I have heard speak have gone through the, "thank you President Trump for doing such a great job.  I know you will do the right thing and thank you for your leadership"

 

What a farce.  

I mean this is the guy that got a room full of congressmen and cabinet members to go around the table and embarrassingly kiss his ass in front of the cameras.  This is what photo-ops for this president are...  They are made to not pop his bubble and to stroke his massive ego and impersonate the propaganda of a third world dictatorship.  He envy's men like Putin and other "strong" dictators that surround themselves with yes-men and can get rid of anyone who opposes them, he's said as much prior to the election.

If these are the things that supposedly make Trump a good president you must have been ecstatic with Obama in office and going from a tanking economy to 8 strait years of growth and prosperity.

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

The GOP really cares about babies though

Well up until they are actually born, then screw those little freeloaders.

5 hours ago, Bornhusker said:

 

Off the top of my head net neutrality. Of course if I don't produce info from the appropriate liberal approved site it won't matter what I use to back my claim.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528

 

is this to right wing nut job? I have no clue, honestly.

It's not just that it was a thing people were talking about needing in the tech industry years before Obama ever went into politics, which it was as Moriaine rightly points out.  In that ridiculous article it basically say it is a good thing, except the free market will take care of it and its just another Obama regulation.  Then gives an example of "telemedicine" which frankly would never apply, because they aren't going to do that over your s#!tty comcast cablemodem.  Any business that needs internet connectivity like that will 1) have a leased business quality line with a SLA where they can work out with their provider(s) - (because they'd need redundancy in the case of telemedicine like surgery) - what traffic to prioritize.  They'd also have business grade networking equipment to do that themselves as the traffic enters and exits their network.

So basically it lies about two things, first it assumes there's a free market where actually exists an oligopoly, and second it states that businesses like your hospital need to be able to pay for fast lanes but pretends that they are using the same consumer internet that we all do.  They need fast lines but aren't buying comcast/cox consumer internet.  They need them to be business quality lines that aren't oversold because they need a vastly superior level of service and an SLA that comes with business quality internet lines and for telemedicine I'd assume also redundancy.  They also need business class equipment where they can set their own policy on traffic, and if they want their ISP to change the priority on certain traffic they can either do it themselves or specify that in their contract.

So its lying, because it knows that 1) many republican's blindly hate Obama, so if you throw his name at something they obviously see red and believe anything you say he was for is some attack against them personally and merica in general.  2) most people that will so blindly hate someone are pretty stupid and will believe anything you can throw in there to scare them.

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

They also make money for millions of employees and provide good livings.  Yes, there are bad things they do.  But, corporations are nothing more than an entity that people perform certain tasks with for benefit.  Yes....some drastically take advantage of people for the benefit of the few.  But, at the same time, there are millions across America that many people provide for their families very well with.

5 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

Corporations entire reason for existence is to create wealth for their shareholders without them being liable for the actions.  They have no conscience, they are not benevolent.  They are pure self serving greed in a legal entity.  There's nothing wrong with that, that's what they were designed to be, but that's why they need rules and regulations to set limits.

3 hours ago, Vizsla1 said:

I found prior to Net Nutraulity the internet worked fine, and even after it was repealed it works fine today... Don't by into a fancy name- "Net neutrality" "affordable healthcare" "planned parenthood"--all misnomers IMHO... the free market works fine.  If someone wishes to invest in faster ISPs etc.. then those willing to pay the extra cost, can have a fast track pass just like Disney

See this is where it pays to actually understand technology at all, or to try and be actually informed on an issue.  NN is exactly how the internet work(ed) fine for the past 20+ years!  it is the premise that any data packet you send or receive over the network should be treated equally by your ISP to every other data packet sent or received regardless of source or destination, that's it, that's all.

It's got nothing to do with faster connections for you or anyone else.

Nobody is complaining that comcast, verizon, and cox et al. are going to be building special bigger data links to some businesses.  Because that isn't what they were doing or why they are fighting against this.  They see you as a commodity that they own because you have s#!t for choices in actual ISPs.  They want to charge the companies who's content you want to access for the data they send to you, and any company that doesn't pay up they will simply slow down the traffic coming from in software on their network equipment.  This isn't going to result in more innovation in networks or faster internet speeds.  In fact its the exact opposite, doing this allows them to not invest in their network as much, because they can throttle the data you the paying customer tries to access down to a speed they decide you should access it at, unless that company also pays them for un-throttled access to you. "Hey netflix, we've got 50 million customers, probably 10million are your subscribers, sure would be a shame if they all were buffering half the night and chose our competing service instead."

They can also throttle things they don't like based on protocol. Things like torrents, other file sharing applications or VPNs, or simply cut off the ability to use outside services like some isps have tried with VOIP phone services.  I'll let you in on a little secret, in order to do that they are looking at all the data you are sending and receiving on the network, that's got a fancy term too, deep packet inspection.  You know your favorite party just made it okay for them to sell that data too.  So on top of throttling your connection to sites that don't pay up they also get to spy on you and sell the data detailing what you and anyone in your household access and when.

In short, don't let your republican masters spout the same old tired bulls#!t and pull the wool over your eyes yet again.  Just remember to think for yourself, when they start spouting "regulation bad, free market solves everything, taxes are bad, entitlements the devil."  What they are actually saying is this regulation is bad for the giant telecoms and cable cabal increasing their profits without doing any actual upgrading or innovating, but those guys pay for our election and we don't want that to end.

17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yea, it is a big disagreement. 

 

There is is a big difference between:

 

a). Public owns everything and we will decide what you get. 

 

And. 

 

B). People have personal ownership that you can work towards owning more and that you use as you want to. Some of what you earn needs to be paid in so the government can do what it needs to do. 

 

This is a very basic view that causes me to not be able to get behind very liberal politicians. 

 

And, to your first statement, that’s just a load of BS to use to justify society owning everything and having the complete power to redistribute it as it sees fit. 

 

Just because Bill Gates owns way more than me, doesn’t mean I have less freedom. I still have the ability to live my life as I see fit. 

 

Just because I own my house, doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t own a house has less freedom. 

 

I mean it does ultimately mean you have more freedom if you have more money and can afford things like healthcare, emergency or otherwise, college without a half a lifetime of debt etc.  Nobody on the left is arguing for communism, and pretending they are is plain old hyperbole.  I think the main thing here is a difference in opinion, I'd consider myself about bernie sanders left and the reason is simple.  Things like universal healthcare will result in a healthier population that will ultimately be more productive for the country, for employers, and wouldn't saddle people and their families with crippling debt if they happen to win the crippling disease lottery. It would also provide more stability for people and families when they leave a job to advance their career or get laid off so people would be more able to leave crappy jobs for better jobs.  Things like education provide a better overall national workforce, more innovation, higher productivity, which increases GDP and tax revenue for the country, etc.  Things like these are investments in the future welfare of the country as a whole, long term.

On 12/16/2017 at 8:23 PM, 84HuskerLaw said:

If all the horrors that the regulation lovers actually suggest (thev have not so far), then it is just as easy to reimpose net control as it was to terminate.   The internet has been so great without it, why on Earth would we want it now?   What bad experiences has anyone suffered before Obama and Dems imposed it?   I would really like to know.  The internet has thrived and exploded into such a popular, highly functional system.   Why would we want to stifle it so now?   The free market is the most effective and efficient way to improve society and make people's lives better.   The more open, free and and uncontrolled the more competition will develop bigger, faster, smarter and CHEAPER.   

1) The FCC reclassifying the ISP as title 2 originally to enforce network neutrality was in direct response to them pulling some of the things us "regulation lovers" are warning about.  They started doing this years ago.

2) ISP's are local monopolys in most cases and you cant really rely on a free market as there is no free market by their nature.  They are granted exclusive agreements to run the cable to the homes in a municipality in most cases and that investment in infrastructure is then theirs alone.  No other ISP can come in and use it without having to lay the same cable again which is a huge barrier to entry.  The large national ISPs collude to split up territory because it doesn't make sense to try and rerun the same infrastructure over and over there'd be no sense in making that investment multiple times to fight for one customer.  So unless the government was to take over last mile cable/fiber to the home/business and offer the lines to any ISP at wholesale you aren't going to get a free market economy for Internet Service Providers.  So you can just stop the regurgitation of the free market line, because that isn't happening any more than running utility lines and power are going to be solved by the free market.

3) Stifle? LOL, no network neutrality is how the internet worked for the first 10+ years, it lowered the barrier of entry for new businesses.  NN codifies that ISP's can't do the things they were starting to do in the past 10 years to double dip or kill competing services by charging companies for good access to their ISP customers or blocking other services from competing with services ISP's themselves were trying to offer at a premium (like blocking voip so customers had to order their in house phone service).

NN is about your free and open and uncontrolled access to information on the internet not to be f'd with by your ISP and whoever told you otherwise sold you a line of bulls#!t.

9 hours ago, RedSavage said:

Full Disclosure:  I'm for Net Neutrality.

 

One of the arguments I've seen is that certain users (people who stream a lot) use a lot more of the ISP's bandwidth when compared with a user that uses it more for social media, online shopping, checking e-mail, things like that.  So the rationale is the user who uses more of the bandwidth should be charged more, when they are a more "expensive" customer to the ISP.

I mean its good you support it, but anyone making that argument doesn't understand what NN is at a fundamental level and is spewing nonsense as others have pointed out.  NN just means ISPs have to treat data their customers request and send equally to all other data sent and requested, not giving preferential treatment to some service over others.

8 hours ago, RedSavage said:

Hmm interesting.  I know there’s the caps for pretty much all the phone companies (AT&T as mentioned, Sprint, Verizon, etc).  In Omaha there are really only two choices, Centurylink and Cox and to my knowledge, neither of them have any sort of caps.  

They both do, they don't advertise it, but if you get close to hitting it you'll get a nasty email or throttled service based on your tier of service. Once again though NN doesn't have a single thing to do with tier'd service for you the ISP customer.  It has to do with them playing gatekeeper to you by choosing what services will work well on their network both on an application(like no more bit-torrent or voip calls) or site level(no good connection to netflix unless netflix is willing to pay so you can get a better connection with less buffering for example). 

They want to be able to not only charge you for the honor of using their service, but charge the services for access to you, when you are already paying to access them (or whatever you want) by paying for internet service.  As well as throttling things like streaming video and P2P which allows them to shape traffic so they don't have to upgrade their networks or can push you towards their in-house or partner services.

It also doesn't help that basically every large national ISP is also in the content business, cable business and wireless business and have a vested interest in their own services.  

8 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

I wonder if there are Democrats in Alabama who will vote for Moore, knowing that they could tie a "Sen. Moore (R)", to every Republican Senator/Congressman during next years midterms; and if there are Republicans in Alabama who will vote for Jones because they don't want there the be a Sen. Moore (R) for the very same reason.

I doubt it, if you don't think the republican party at large is already tied to Roy Moore you're fooling yourself.  They got in bed with him again even after it was revealed that he tried to get into bed with underage girls.  That stink isn't going to wash off regardless of whether the voters of Alabama pull their heads out of their collective asses or not.

Its time to move on, there's nothing he can do to magically become some great coach.  He was exactly what his record suggested he would be.

What did we learn: that when you hire the entire Oregon State staff and end up being Oregon State some people are surprised...

 

 

 

 

Not quite the whole story Headley. He made Osborne the AD, not the interim AD. Then when Osborne wouldn't get rid of Pelini he started looking for TO's replacement without his knowledge. When Osborne found out he announced his retirement. Harvey is a snake in the grass.

 

What proof of this do you have? I ask because this sounds like Osborne was forced out and Osborne himself has gone on record to say he wasn't forced out.

 

osborne went on record saying the only possible thing he could say in that sitatuation. pelini was on record saying something different.

 

not saying either is true, but i don't think pelini would just make that crap up, and i wouldn't expect osborne to every confirm it as fact.

 

 

Some people here have trouble reading between the lines. Osborne was probably brought in to "right the ship" after the Steve Peterson experiment ran off the rails probably less so then he was brought in to save Perlman's ass from all the pitchfork wielding fans and boosters for making that hire, giving everyone contract extensions, etc. Then once things calmed down and Perlman decided Bo had to go in comes another puppet that was hired without consulting or any involvment by the current interim AD, who is a living legend in that place, and he gets phased out so HP could push his agenda without someone above football who could actually push back at all.

 

So no, the Chancellor shouldn't be judged on Athlectics usually excepting that he keeps sticking his nose in them. That's why if Coach Riley ends up with a similar record here to his long history of mediocrity in Corvalis Perlman will need to get canned along with the rests of the staff and AD. Nobody is rooting for that, but that'll be the reality of the situation if the program needs saving again. Otherwise we'll just keep letting Perlman repeat the same cycle that's already kept the program down for over a decade now.

 

Osborne was "probably brought in to right the ship"? Really? That's exactly why he was brought back in as interim AD after Pedersen was fired.

 

Again, I'll ask why Osborne needs to be consulted for every decision concerning the football team? And exactly what is this agenda Perlman is pushing?

 

Perhaps because he was in the job that was being filled and has a long history in athletics and had basically been running that part of the job in football since before devany left, because he built the thing to what it was when it was at it's best, or because he calmed the boosters that would've taken HP down too by coming back. Not saying he should have had final say, but you know getting his opinion of candidates during the process wouldn't have been a bad thing, even if it was ignored at least it would be respectful.

 

 

 

 

Not quite the whole story Headley. He made Osborne the AD, not the interim AD. Then when Osborne wouldn't get rid of Pelini he started looking for TO's replacement without his knowledge. When Osborne found out he announced his retirement. Harvey is a snake in the grass.

 

What proof of this do you have? I ask because this sounds like Osborne was forced out and Osborne himself has gone on record to say he wasn't forced out.

 

osborne went on record saying the only possible thing he could say in that sitatuation. pelini was on record saying something different.

 

not saying either is true, but i don't think pelini would just make that crap up, and i wouldn't expect osborne to every confirm it as fact.

 

 

Some people here have trouble reading between the lines. Osborne was probably brought in to "right the ship" after the Steve Peterson experiment ran off the rails probably less so then he was brought in to save Perlman's ass from all the pitchfork wielding fans and boosters for making that hire, giving everyone contract extensions, etc. Then once things calmed down and Perlman decided Bo had to go in comes another puppet that was hired without consulting or any involvment by the current interim AD, who is a living legend in that place, and he gets phased out so HP could push his agenda without someone above football who could actually push back at all.

 

So no, the Chancellor shouldn't be judged on Athlectics usually excepting that he keeps sticking his nose in them. That's why if Coach Riley ends up with a similar record here to his long history of mediocrity in Corvalis Perlman will need to get canned along with the rests of the staff and AD. Nobody is rooting for that, but that'll be the reality of the situation if the program needs saving again. Otherwise we'll just keep letting Perlman repeat the same cycle that's already kept the program down for over a decade now.

 

It's ironic that your user name is methodical when your logic is anything but. What agenda are you talking about? If you're going to make accusations you need to articulate Pearlman's vision. Since you can't, maybe you should just stop posting or get over your feelings being hurt. The words in bold seem like exactly what you're rooting for.

 

The adhominem attacks for anyone that doesn't go along with the groupthink on this site is why the posters with good info have left this site years ago. Mine's second hand because I've been around long enough to know who to listen to.

And we're all Nebraska fans here, nobody is rooting for the team to take a step back. Some of us are just pointing out that should it become necessary to rid ourselves of another Peterson/Callahan level f-up, the problems will have started from the top down and that's where the cutting will need to start.