Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Last Friday a thread about swim teams was among the most active threads that I discussed. I believe that was the first time that a swimming thread made this blog. But, not only has a swim team thread made the most active list again, this time it leads the list as yesterday's most active thread. This one was titled, "Swim Team Drama" and was posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. Since I have never been involved with swim teams, I don't understand much of what posters are talking about, including the original poster. The drama cited by that poster involved parents being upset about the times used for divisional lineups. Whatever this was, it stirred up drama in the thread itself as parents debated the rules back and forth. Other drama discussed often involved coaches, especially younger ones who seemed to disappear when needed. But, other than these examples, most of the dramas mentioned involved parents. Parents trash talking, parents arguing with each other, parents having issues with coaches, and even parents suing their pools. There also seemed to be a lot of drama surrounding team lineups. A number of posters reported drama-free seasons. Several others said the only drama on their teams was of the competitive type involving close races or slower swimmers improving and over-performing in the heat of a match. Based on this thread, I would guess that the bulk of the drama is caused by parents not understanding the rules, or — more likely — thinking they understand the rules when they don't. The original poster's example of drama was still being discussed 17 pages later, but apparently much of this is due to differences between leagues. There is also ongoing discussion about how to dress for the team banquet. I'm not sure if that actually counts as "drama", but plenty of posters have something to say about it.

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Hunter’s plea deal", the original poster was writing in the aftermath of Hunter Biden's appearance in Federal Court in Delaware. Biden had been expected to plead guilty to two tax charges. However, once court proceedings began, it became clear that the prearranged deal was not going to go through. Subsequently, Biden ended up pleading not guilty and his attorneys will work with Department of Justice prosecutors to try to resurrect some sort of agreement. Much of this thread was driven by the lack of information about what exactly had occurred in Delaware. Several posters posted what was more wishful thinking rather than actual facts. Indeed, many of the early posts contained information that turned out not to be true. Republicans have made Hunter Biden the center of their attacks on his father, President Joe Biden. They view the younger Biden as the conduit of illegal funds from Ukraine and China to Joe Biden — allegations rejected by both Bidens. Republicans have criticized the proposed plea agreement as too lenient. Therefore, early in the thread, conservative posters were quick to proclaim victory and argue that this signaled that the judge agreed with the Republicans' thinking. This turned out not to be the case. Rather, it appears that the Judge took a serious and informed look at the agreement and correctly identified parts that where not clear. For instance, she discovered that prosecutors and defense attorneys disagreed on their interpretations of a section addressing Biden's protection from future prosecution. The Judge's refusal to accept the plea was not because she believed the section was too lenient, but because she wanted the two sides to draft language on which they would agree on the meaning. Both sides expect to be able to reach an agreement that will pass the Judge's purview. Beyond the topic of developments in Court, many posters used the thread as an opportunity to re-litigate wider topics involving the Bidens and allegations of corruption. This topic illustrates the different realities in which Republicans and Democrats currently live. In the Republican world, the Bidens are clearly corrupt, while in the Democrats' reality, there is no evidence supporting such allegations. One problem facing Democrats, however, is that they are plagued by squishy supporters who are always ready to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Even after all that has happened, these posters still do not understand the lengths to which Republicans routinely go to lie, misconstrue, and misrepresent facts to create false appearances. These posters assume that where there is smoke, there must be fire. A correct understanding is that this simply illustrates that Republicans are expert smoke blowers. The Republican concern has nothing to do with legality and is purely a politcal endeavor.

The third most active thread was titled, "Do you believe in aliens, extra-terrestrials, life on other planets, etc?". When I read this title, I assumed the thread would be related to the House hearings on extra-terrestrials. But, instead, this thread was posted in the "Religion" forum with the original poster asking religious posters about their views of those from other planets. The original poster appears to have abandoned this thread shortly after starting it. Moreover, the thread almost immediately diverted to a discussion of the compatibility of science with religion. Religious posters insisted that their religious beliefs in no way prevent them from accepting scientific theories such as evolution and even the possibility of life on other planets. Lately, both the Religion forum and the Website Feedback forum have been plagued by fights between religious and non-religious posters with both groups accusing the other of disrupting threads. This is a perfect example of a thread in which non-believers really have no role to play. The original poster, who was likely not religious, clearly directed the original post towards those who are religious. Since the original poster then disappeared, there shouldn't be any responses from non-religious posters. But, non-believing posters in the religion forum have long since proven that self-control is not among their capabilities. As a result, the thread is full of posts from non-believers identifying conflicts between religion and science. Atheists are so prevalent in the thread that there are even atheists who take the side of the religious posters and argue against an inherent incompatibility of religion and science. So, a thread that shouldn't have any atheists in it ended up having them on both sides of the debate and that debate wasn't even on topic for the thread. The topic of aliens is virtually unmentioned in most of the discussion. This will probably require another thread in the Website Feedback forum for a proper airing of grievances.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Michigan vs. Wisconsin", the original poster asks if there are notable differences in academics or student life between the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin. There is fairly broad agreement among those who reply that Michigan is higher ranked academically and, therefore, more challenging to get into, especially for those out-of-state. But, nobody seems to hold Wisconsin in low esteme and it is considered by most posters to be a fairly strong second. Where there are differences of agreement is on the topic of Ann Arbor versus Madison. Some posters argue that there are big differences between the two cities while others contend that differences are marginal at best. Moreover, given that both universities have large campuses, it is questionable how much impact any differences in the towns would have. I grew up in the midwest and attended the University of Illinois. I have encountered enough Michigan grads to know that there is probably no school that produces such dedicated alumni. As a poster from Michigan explains, "Many Michigan grads think their peer schools are Ivies, Stanford, Northwestern." This is exactly my experience. Another poster from Michigan, far from denying this, argued that Michigan is "one of the top universities in the world". This created some pushback. The University of Wisconsin did have plenty of defenders, though they tended to avoid grandiose pretensions. Over the course of the thread posters delved into minutia to find strengths and weaknesses of both universities. Eventually this devolved to an argument over which state had the best lakes. Some posters concluded that, since both schools are so difficult to get into from out-of-state, the original poster should look elsewhere.