UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
View Single Post
  #70  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:18 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,616
Thanks: 3,383
Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,418 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by superfan99 View Post
lol. These kind of posts are hilarious. Especially when m21eagle is the one that completely missed Gazoo's point. Like when the grammar police have a misspelled word in their own post.

Gazoo's point has nothing to do with "final decision" or "proposed rule". He is saying that this rule (which may or may not seem like a big deal) will lead to another rule, which leads to another rule, so on and so on.

I thought he explained his point well with this example: "You're like the person in 1960 who says "expanding this government program won't have any impact on the future attitudes of Americans towards entitlements" and then he explained it poorly with his transgender example and confused everyone, but he is making the same point. He is trying to look "big picture" and how it could affect things in the future, not just look at this one rule.

Change is always incremental and then you look back and all the incremental changes add up to a big change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
I get what you are saying, but he said that I was making the point that the decision was final. I never once said that. Obviously there can be changes and things added to proposals, but right now, all we have is this proposal to debate.

This whole argument started when he said Siebert could transfer here and leave after 1 good year and not sit out. I said according to the proposed rule he would have to sit out if he left UD because it said you would only be able to transfer once and be immediately eligible. So he may be looking big picture and looking 10 steps ahead, but right now we are still are not even to step 1.

Last edited by m21eagle45; 09-14-2017 at 11:15 AM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.