Jump to content

S36 Off-Season Schedule

Victor

By Victor
in Off-Season

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RandomHero
RandomHero

Getting excited for the draft tomorrow, should be a good draft and hopefully can be one of the better ones ever.   Also excited for when the prospects all-star game gets simmed

Mike
Mike

I can tell from your handwriting that you prefer to share your bed with the company of men instead of women.

Devise
Devise

So Drafts are taking place after pre season has started? Doesn't that sound silly to you? Should happen before rosters are even updated/added to for pre season etc to be honest. 

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/4/2014 at 9:03 PM, Kendrick said:

I don't cash em or see em on my statements Svec-neezy

 

It's Svec-Nasty.  ORRRRRR -Natty like Natty Ice.  Bitch.

 

  On 3/4/2014 at 9:07 PM, Svoboda_3 said:

All my posts are equally great, so I probably hit that button by accident thinking that I was liking someone elses' post. But I did laugh.

 

High five.

diamond_ace

diamond_ace 3,114

Posted
Posted
  On 3/3/2014 at 11:30 PM, STZ said:

War, what is it good for?

limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top

Megster

Megster 63

Posted
Posted
  On 3/4/2014 at 7:28 PM, flyersfan1493 said:

Not saying this is a bad idea, but aren't VHLM GMs supposed to do this anyway? I really only see this being a problem in cases like Coach D where you join in between the playoffs and the end of the off-season.

when I was on recruitment crew we did this whole thing where we were like told all the VHLM GMs that it was their job to mentor their players and we wrote this whole long instruction thing on how to and there was even talk about whether or not we should give them 1 TPE a week for doing their job, but that obviously wasn't going to happen.  So yeah, according to the recruitment crew post that was back on the smf forums you could lose your VHLM GM job if you weren't doing this but no one ever followed through and we got moved so the post doesn't exist anymore but yeah they are SUPPOSED to be doing this and it's a huge problem if they aren't.

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/4/2014 at 11:35 PM, diamond_ace said:

limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top

 

 

Demographics and the decline in birth rates are already doing their parts in this.

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 2:45 AM, sterling said:

He said limiting, as in limiting them socially, not eliminating them.

 

No I meant limiting, the average family worldwide is nearing the 2.1 tipping point.

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted (edited)
  On 3/5/2014 at 5:26 AM, sterling said:

You will have to explain yourself better.

 

The tipping point between an increasing and decreasing population is 2.1 children per family.  Most industrialized nations are around or slightly above 2.1 (US is 2.3 I think)...  Europe is starting to trend below it.  Most third world nations are a good amount above it, but with the advancements in Africa and Asia it's been trending downward.  Probably before the end of our generation we will see 2.1 as a worldwide average.

Edited by frescoelmo
sterling

sterling 2,000

Posted
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 4:10 PM, frescoelmo said:

The tipping point between an increasing and decreasing population is 2.1 children per family. Most industrialized nations are around or slightly above 2.1 (US is 2.3 I think)... Europe is starting to trend below it. Most third world nations are a good amount above it, but with the advancements in Africa and Asia it's been trending downward. Probably before the end of our generation we will see 2.1 as a worldwide average.

So how does this have a causal relationship with the growing income gap in North America as you stated

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 4:38 PM, sterling said:

So how does this have a causal relationship with the growing income gap in North America as you stated

 

In regards to, "limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top"?  Hmm...  Population hits a growth ceiling, population levels off, population is therefore limited?  I don't believe I ever stated such a thing about the growing income gap.

sterling

sterling 2,000

Posted
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 4:43 PM, frescoelmo said:

In regards to, "limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top"? Hmm... Population hits a growth ceiling, population levels off, population is therefore limited? I don't believe I ever stated such a thing about the growing income gap.

Thats what he stated and you responded to. That still doesnt explain why people are getting poorer, which was his point and which you responded incorrectly to. He wasnt talking about the population going down.

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 6:26 PM, sterling said:

Thats what he stated and you responded to. That still doesnt explain why people are getting poorer, which was his point and which you responded incorrectly to. He wasnt talking about the population going down.

 

It doesn't explain why people are getting poorer because I never addressed that statement, merely a reasoning for why the population increase is slowing down.  There's nothing incorrect about how I responded, it just wasn't what you were expecting.

sterling

sterling 2,000

Posted
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 6:35 PM, frescoelmo said:

It doesn't explain why people are getting poorer because I never addressed that statement, merely a reasoning for why the population increase is slowing down. There's nothing incorrect about how I responded, it just wasn't what you were expecting.

Again, he didnt say that so I am not sure why you responded that way. Just admit you read it wrong already

  • Moderator
frescoelmo

frescoelmo 1,286

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 6:39 PM, sterling said:

Again, he didnt say that so I am not sure why you responded that way. Just admit you read it wrong already

 

He said war was the reason why populations were limited.  I added in another reason why, strictly justifying his population claim.  That is 100% what I addressed in my original statement, and nothing else.  It makes complete sense how I responded.  Is this that hard to understand?

sterling

sterling 2,000

Posted
Posted
  On 3/5/2014 at 7:06 PM, frescoelmo said:

He said war was the reason why populations were limited. I added in another reason why, strictly justifying his population claim. That is 100% what I addressed in my original statement, and nothing else. It makes complete sense how I responded. Is this that hard to understand?

For you it is, yes.

He said war limits the low and lower middle class populations, keeping the rich on top. Where does he say anything about eliminating populations. No need to get touchy, but what you said didnt make sense. Look up the definition of limit and eliminate, son. They dont mean the same thing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...