(08-16-2019 03:06 PM)Flippmb Wrote: (08-15-2019 09:29 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: (08-15-2019 07:19 AM)Flippmb Wrote: (08-14-2019 08:42 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: I also decry the apparent lack of concern for "the church crowd". I doubt many here will be affected . . .
I'm curious. Where does the Church of the Sadducees meet?
(I kid. I kid.)
Hmmm...... Sorry, I'm missing the quip. Not offended in any way; just missing it.
I figure it's on the joke teller to make himself understood, so mea culpa.
I was just wondering how you determined that few people here are part of the "church crowd." The Sadducees reference was in that vein.
Ok..........so it was more generic than I would have guessed. And of course I can't know specifically which "few"(?) on this board (other than about 3 I know personally) that may apply to. BUT...........I personally know many (like dozens) regular church goers who attend most games in person. I'm sure some (but couldn't guess a percentage of those (maybe between 20-40%??)) will be affected by this. I could name *easily* a dozen just off the top of my head that will have that choice to make.
When I wrote "Not a good look", I was suggesting that the SoCon didn't take this factor into account, even here in the Bible Belt. If they did, and chose to go forward anyway, then ok. But because nothing in any press releases I've seen (and I admittedly haven't scoured them) mentions that factor, that's the impression it leaves. If that decision was made for overriding other reasons, I can grasp that, but a nod should at least be given - almost like some sort of "well, we know this will interfere/impact/whatever, but ...........". You know, some acknowledgment that at least there was some self-awareness.
And I still think it hurts the students, with more travel time. Not to mention it's more expensive for the schools.
All that said................using the Sadducees as a proxy wasn't the best way to go (imo), as it caused me to wonder how you meant it. In retrospect, it's not inconceivable someone could catch that, but it's really not accurate, either. But I can see the point now. As an aside, as someone who's dealt with communication 'issues' in important circumstances........I've thought about this a great deal, and come down to thinking communication is about 80-85% on the initiator, and 15-20% on the receiver, IN GENERAL, with HUGE leeway for asinine stupidity, inattentiveness, etc. - the normal variability in interactions.
(Not being critical at all; just sayin'.)