Paulson Adebo. . . . - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Paulson Adebo. . . . (/thread-20429.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Paulson Adebo. . . . (/thread-20429.html)
Paulson Adebo. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-12-2020
I wonder why no one has called him out on this board for sharing his, relatively contrarian, position. Kerry Walsh Jennings was branded as stupid by multiple people here. Two Stanford athletes sharing their thoughts and opinions yet treated completely differently. Anyone? 2006? Gailtate?
In case you missed his twitter feed, here's a link:
https://twitter.com/paulsona17
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - 82lsju - 09-12-2020
looks like you don't read the COVID-19 board.....
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=20422
of course that thread quickly moved off of what he tweeted.....
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - slide - 09-12-2020
at least there is some consistency. his play in '19 was certainly anti-lockdown.
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - SamuelMcF - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 01:37 PM)slide Wrote: at least there is some consistency. his play in '19 was certainly anti-lockdown.
Lol. Lance's defensive scheme is already very socially distant.
Adebo was quite good on shorter routes, but double moves roast him. Teams noticed and adapted to that.
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 01:26 PM)82lsju Wrote: looks like you don't read the COVID-19 board.....I've been banned from commenting on that board, though I peruse it for the occasional chuckle.
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=20422
of course that thread quickly moved off of what he tweeted.....
To your point, the very first reply went off the topic of Adebo's tweets and changed the subject completely. Don't look over here, look over there. . . .
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - CowboyIndian - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 01:56 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Adebo was quite good on shorter routes, but double moves roast him. Teams noticed and adapted to that.
Not sure it would have made much difference but he had zero to very little safety help.
Spike - Spike - 09-12-2020
I’ve noticed that on this board we tend to lay off current student athletes but don’t have any problem being critical of our graduates.
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - TinderForMidgets - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 01:37 PM)slide Wrote: at least there is some consistency. his play in '19 was certainly anti-lockdown.
dad alert
RE: Spike - 2006alum - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 04:00 PM)Spike Wrote: I’ve noticed that on this board we tend to lay off current student athletes but don’t have any problem being critical of our graduates.
That's always been my view. Kerry is much my senior in age and experience, so I expect better, whereas I'm fairly confident I too said stupid things on (very nascent Facebook) social media in college. Also his platform is 1/1000th that hers is - hit me up when his tweets are a top story on ESPN News.
RE: Spike - cardcrimson - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 06:28 PM)2006alum Wrote:(09-12-2020, 04:00 PM)Spike Wrote: I’ve noticed that on this board we tend to lay off current student athletes but don’t have any problem being critical of our graduates.
That's always been my view. Kerry is much my senior in age and experience, so I expect better, whereas I'm fairly confident I too said stupid things on (very nascent Facebook) social media in college. Also his platform is 1/1000th that hers is - hit me up when his tweets are a top story on ESPN News.
And your point is what exactly? That he's saying stupid things because he's young, immature and ignorant? Seriously? Geez, that's pretty damning, but alas, you still won't call him out. Why not? Please enlighten him for his sake. Please bestow your wisdom upon him before it's too late.
Also, you expect better from an older grad? She has a different POV than yours, so you expect better? The arrogance of some "enlighten" Stanford grads knows no ends. Isn't diversity of thought important in your world? Good grief, it's what I cherish most.
And by the way, hit us up when your posts become a story outside of the Cardboard Covid-19 forum.
RE: Spike - CompSci87 - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 06:56 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-12-2020, 06:28 PM)2006alum Wrote:(09-12-2020, 04:00 PM)Spike Wrote: I’ve noticed that on this board we tend to lay off current student athletes but don’t have any problem being critical of our graduates.
That's always been my view. Kerry is much my senior in age and experience, so I expect better, whereas I'm fairly confident I too said stupid things on (very nascent Facebook) social media in college. Also his platform is 1/1000th that hers is - hit me up when his tweets are a top story on ESPN News.
And your point is what exactly? That he's saying stupid things because he's young, immature and ignorant? Seriously? Geez, that's pretty damning, but alas, you still won't call him out. Why not? Please enlighten him for his sake. Please bestow your wisdom upon him before it's too late.
Also, you expect better from an older grad? She has a different POV than yours, so you expect better? The arrogance of some "enlighten" Stanford grads knows no ends. Isn't diversity of thought important in your world? Good grief, it's what I cherish most.
And by the way, hit us up when your posts become a story outside of the Cardboard Covid-19 forum.
Jumping all over a poster here for "not calling out" a Stanford athlete? Pointless and offensive, IMO.
RE: Spike - teejers1 - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 07:54 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(09-12-2020, 06:56 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-12-2020, 06:28 PM)2006alum Wrote:(09-12-2020, 04:00 PM)Spike Wrote: I’ve noticed that on this board we tend to lay off current student athletes but don’t have any problem being critical of our graduates.
That's always been my view. Kerry is much my senior in age and experience, so I expect better, whereas I'm fairly confident I too said stupid things on (very nascent Facebook) social media in college. Also his platform is 1/1000th that hers is - hit me up when his tweets are a top story on ESPN News.
And your point is what exactly? That he's saying stupid things because he's young, immature and ignorant? Seriously? Geez, that's pretty damning, but alas, you still won't call him out. Why not? Please enlighten him for his sake. Please bestow your wisdom upon him before it's too late.
Also, you expect better from an older grad? She has a different POV than yours, so you expect better? The arrogance of some "enlighten" Stanford grads knows no ends. Isn't diversity of thought important in your world? Good grief, it's what I cherish most.
And by the way, hit us up when your posts become a story outside of the Cardboard Covid-19 forum.
Jumping all over a poster here for "not calling out" a Stanford athlete? Pointless and offensive, IMO.
Cardcrimson was being sarcastic for other purposes. I'm sure he/she has no interest in anyone here berating Stanford students or alums for their differing POVs. Think that was his point along (I suspect) with another . . . that "polite, enlightened" people do not like to admit. And since I am both (ha, ha), I'll let you decipher that.
But I do agree the tone was too harsh (and this from someone who gives a few and takes many).
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - fullmetal - 09-13-2020
Demanding that forum members here rag on athlete alumni is a poor look. There are more athlete alumni (and parents thereof) who have drunk some serious koolaid and are retweeting ridiculous BS, but there is no point to being outraged at more specific people.
And there certain is no point to being outraged that forum members are not outraged.
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-13-2020
(09-13-2020, 04:07 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Demanding that forum members here rag on athlete alumni is a poor look. There are more athlete alumni (and parents thereof) who have drunk some serious koolaid and are retweeting ridiculous BS, but there is no point to being outraged at more specific people.
And there certain is no point to being outraged that forum members are not outraged.
I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I thought it a bad look for forum members calling KWJ stupid and not worthy of listening to, etc. etc. etc., and was trying to call out the hypocrisy that the Paulson Adebo was spared their wrath and was curious as to why?
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - FarmBoy - 09-14-2020
(09-13-2020, 07:20 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-13-2020, 04:07 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Demanding that forum members here rag on athlete alumni is a poor look. There are more athlete alumni (and parents thereof) who have drunk some serious koolaid and are retweeting ridiculous BS, but there is no point to being outraged at more specific people.
And there certain is no point to being outraged that forum members are not outraged.
I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I thought it a bad look for forum members calling KWJ stupid and not worthy of listening to, etc. etc. etc., and was trying to call out the hypocrisy that the Paulson Adebo was spared their wrath and was curious as to why?
As one who was/is critical of KWJ take, I'm happy to weigh in on the difference I see. In KWJ's post, the idea of complaining that being required to wear a mask in public is leading to the end of our society, I saw really poor logic and selfishness which I just don't see how you can argue in support of logically. Seriously, her "brave" trip to shop without a mask was all vanity.
I saw PA's posts and cringed and I disagree with his takes, but I think it's more defensible to be critical of the degree of the shut down and skeptical of how the vaccine will play out. I think reasonable people can disagree on these things. So I won't call them out as being particularly stupid or noteworthy. Scrolling further down his twitter feed, I worry for his sake that he's being sucked down a dark rabbit hole of conspiracy theories...
I don't think it's reasonable to be anti-mask.
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - Goose - 09-14-2020
(09-14-2020, 08:33 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to be anti-mask.
I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to doubt the efficacy of masks. As BC pointed out at the beginning of this epidemic there wasn't really compelling data either way. At present, the data favoring masks is still not conclusive to the point we can say how much good they do. That said, the mandate to wear them isn't some kind of conspiracy to limit our freedom. It is the best estimate at present of what we can do to limit the spread of the disease given what we know now. It isn't political.
We all have to follow regulations and laws with which we may have some doubts. They may be "incorrect" in some sense. However, in order to make society "work", we have to comply. It is perfectly fine to think masks aren't very useful. It is not perfectly fine to not wear them. It may turn out that at the end of they day they didn't help much, but as of now they required. That is just how it is.
lex24 - lex24 - 09-14-2020
(09-14-2020, 10:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-14-2020, 08:33 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to be anti-mask.
I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to doubt the efficacy of masks. As BC pointed out at the beginning of this epidemic there wasn't really compelling data either way. At present, the data favoring masks is still not conclusive to the point we can say how much good they do. That said, the mandate to wear them isn't some kind of conspiracy to limit our freedom. It is the best estimate at present of what we can do to limit the spread of the disease given what we know now. It isn't political.
We all have to follow regulations and laws with which we may have some doubts. They may be "incorrect" in some sense. However, in order to make society "work", we have to comply. It is perfectly fine to think masks aren't very useful. It is not perfectly fine to not wear them. It may turn out that at the end of they day they didn't help much, but as of now they required. That is just how it is.
If we could just look at this on a risk- benefit scale, it would be so much easier.
RE: lex24 - FarmBoy - 09-14-2020
(09-14-2020, 10:42 AM)lex24 Wrote:(09-14-2020, 10:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-14-2020, 08:33 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to be anti-mask.
I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to doubt the efficacy of masks. As BC pointed out at the beginning of this epidemic there wasn't really compelling data either way. At present, the data favoring masks is still not conclusive to the point we can say how much good they do. That said, the mandate to wear them isn't some kind of conspiracy to limit our freedom. It is the best estimate at present of what we can do to limit the spread of the disease given what we know now. It isn't political.
We all have to follow regulations and laws with which we may have some doubts. They may be "incorrect" in some sense. However, in order to make society "work", we have to comply. It is perfectly fine to think masks aren't very useful. It is not perfectly fine to not wear them. It may turn out that at the end of they day they didn't help much, but as of now they required. That is just how it is.
If we could just look at this on a risk- benefit scale, it would be so much easier.
I'll admit, I don't spend a ton of time obsessing over COVID and updating my knowledge to the latest findings. Last I had heard, there was a lot of data supporting the idea that masks will at least reduce spread, and some that show no benefit. So on the whole, much more likely they are positive impact than no/negative impact. But I'll concede that when all is said and done, we may find that mask wearing had negligible direct impact (though maybe had indirect impact of making/reinforcing people being more careful in their daily interactions to reduce spread). And I'll concede that there may be (very rare) cases of people who would experience personal harm in wearing a mask. But given that the current best science is that masks reduce spread and keep other people safe, there's no justification for going out and about without one, unless you have a legitimate medical reason not to wear one (I'm not even aware of what this might be).
RE: Paulson Adebo. . . . - fullmetal - 09-14-2020
(09-13-2020, 07:20 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I thought it a bad look for forum members calling KWJ stupid and not worthy of listening to, etc. etc. etc., and was trying to call out the hypocrisy that the Paulson Adebo was spared their wrath and was curious as to why?
Gotcha. That's a fair question. I concur with the above replies that outline why KWJ's post was distinctly worse than Adebo's.
RE: lex24 - gailtate - 09-14-2020
(09-14-2020, 11:15 AM)FarmBoy Wrote:(09-14-2020, 10:42 AM)lex24 Wrote:(09-14-2020, 10:36 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-14-2020, 08:33 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to be anti-mask.
I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to doubt the efficacy of masks. As BC pointed out at the beginning of this epidemic there wasn't really compelling data either way. At present, the data favoring masks is still not conclusive to the point we can say how much good they do. That said, the mandate to wear them isn't some kind of conspiracy to limit our freedom. It is the best estimate at present of what we can do to limit the spread of the disease given what we know now. It isn't political.
We all have to follow regulations and laws with which we may have some doubts. They may be "incorrect" in some sense. However, in order to make society "work", we have to comply. It is perfectly fine to think masks aren't very useful. It is not perfectly fine to not wear them. It may turn out that at the end of they day they didn't help much, but as of now they required. That is just how it is.
If we could just look at this on a risk- benefit scale, it would be so much easier.
I'll admit, I don't spend a ton of time obsessing over COVID and updating my knowledge to the latest findings. Last I had heard, there was a lot of data supporting the idea that masks will at least reduce spread, and some that show no benefit. So on the whole, much more likely they are positive impact than no/negative impact. But I'll concede that when all is said and done, we may find that mask wearing had negligible direct impact (though maybe had indirect impact of making/reinforcing people being more careful in their daily interactions to reduce spread). And I'll concede that there may be (very rare) cases of people who would experience personal harm in wearing a mask. But given that the current best science is that masks reduce spread and keep other people safe, there's no justification for going out and about without one, unless you have a legitimate medical reason not to wear one (I'm not even aware of what this might be).
The (few) people I know who have problems with masks have these things in common: they are knee-jerk skeptics about anything having to do with public/government institutions and Democrats; and they spend a lot of time on Facebook and Fox News. Anybody else see a pattern here?