Two small additions to the great suggestions thus far.
One, drive the full length of Going to the Sun Road yourself -- no need for a tour situation. And start pre dawn. You'll have the road to yourself for several hours and sunrises will stick in your boys' minds for the rest of their lives. Bring binoculars because the sightlines at the pull-offs go on for miles and are full of things you don't see with the naked eye -- like mountain goats high on the mountainsides, eagles soaring over the valleys miles below you.
Two, if you are going to fish, try the North Fork of the Flathead on the far west side of the park. Crystal clear, deep holes, and full of cutthroats that will readily take dry flies or, if you don't fly fish, small spinners. Even if you don't fish (NTTAWWD), that side of the park is great because it is the least visited, very remote, lots of lush wild meadows and herds of elk and wildflowers like you cannot imagine.
Are you suggesting that "almost nobody" can never correctly be used as hyperbole? If you are not, then disregard this. But if you are, consider this:
If a once-popular TV show has fallen from its peak viewership of 10 million viewers to a woeful 2000 viewers, then it would be a reasonable use of hyperbole to say that "almost nobody" watches that show anymore.
If that same show falls further and eventually just one person still watches it -- then "literally almost nobody" watches it.
I don't know what scree is but the reservoir is not where the fish are. The South Fork of the Flathead flows north and feeds into the reservior from deep in the Flathead National forest; that's where you fish. You drive the length of the reservoir on a dirt road that hugs the reservoir shoreline. Its a rough road and thick with brambles (your car will get scratched and your muffler will take some hits even on an SUV), and the reservoir is long with lots of fingers so it takes three or so hours to traverse its 50 mile length. But when you finally get above the reservoir to where the river is, mother of god, you are in trout heaven. The river is wide in spots with vast gravel bars and ample room to cast, totally wadable, and every place that the river turns there are deep, deep cuts along the outside edge of the turn with cliffs above them. Looking down from the cliffs is where you see the fish suspended in the water, darting everywhere, feeding both deep and on the surface. Like a dream (if you're a trout bum). Never saw anything like it in the east or even elsewhere in the more popular streams of the west. And as noted above, they rarely see artificial flies and it is a low-nutrient stream so they attack at the sight of sizeable food. Its is not a place where you need to be an expert. I had my sons with me and neither has fly fished more than a few times and both caught 20-30 fish a day (10" - 18"). The only catch is that to fish the canyon areas you have to climb down about 50-75 feet. But I had the advantage of being old, so I didn't need to climb the whole way, just fell most of the way and ended up with raspberries on my ass. Worth it. The dirt road is aclled East Side Road (NF 38). Take it south from Highway 2 at Martin City just south of the border of Glacier Nat'l Park. Bring bear spray. We saw a grizzly and cubs about a hundred yards upstream from us one evening.
Question from a neophyte: in the O'Korn-Houdini sack-escape clip ("Wooop"), is what he does with his feet at the moment before he throws an example of what folks on this Board often emphasize re a quarterback properly "setting his feet" to throw? If so, impressive under the circumstances.
You are correct. Hungry Horse Reservoir. Stretch of the river near Spotted Bear Ranger District. Unbelievable. You can see trout stacked in the water down past 12 feet. They rarely see an angler so they attack your fly, shooting up from down deep like bottle rockets and its all visible. You'll share the river with moose and muledeer in the early a.m.
Happy to provide more specific info re where to fish if there is a way to do so off-site. Way OT here and I don't want to waste others' time more than I have.
Recommend: South Fork of the Flathead above Hungry Horse Lake. Very long drive on a rough dirt road; cutthroats visible in the pools by the hundreds; no other anglers for miles.
I am impressed. Lots of very sound and thoughtful advice in this thread based on my experience (father of 2 boys, 16 and 21). I'd add this: as soon as they can walk, take them to the nearest pond with a clear plastic container and a little aquarium net. Take yer shoes off, walk the shoreline shallows and catch creatures -- tadpoles, crayfish, water bugs, turtles, etc. Put them in the container and check them out for a while, then let them go. We spent countless hours doing this and both boys say those are among their most magical and vivid memories of their early childhood.
"Why are so many of your observations about the players bodies? His thickness? Filling out nicely? "Dang he is thick"?"
If I can hazard a guess -- he mentions the players' physiques and sizes because he is talking about a college football team where those things are extremely relevant to their on-field performance, which, last time I checked, was something a lot of people on this Board are interested in.
What is the "it" we are referring to here? Just what we know from the tweet of the disappointed recruit? Or are there more actual facts that are known about his recruitment?
We have 300+ comments now based on the tweet of an understandably disappointed 17 year old. We have no objective facts whatsoever except for the bare fact of a decommitment. I think it is fair game to say "this doesn't look good" and that such tweets could hurt recruiting and that the situation that has given rise to them -- whatever it is -- needs to be addressed. But in my view it is not fair game to go further and say "this is shameful." Reserving that kind of judgment unless and until sufficient facts are known does not equate to "blindly following Harbaugh." It is instead an approach of patience, fairness and reason, one that prevails in most areas of educated life beyond the hot-takes milieu of the internet, and one grounded in the lessons of recent history. In the Swenson situation, many gave face-value credence to the young man's tweet, as many are doing now with Weaver's, and then actual facts surfaced in the ensuing days that cast that tweet in a very different light -- maybe not a perfect light, but a light very, very different from the initial damning reaction to the tweet.
Get a large bound book with blank (preferably lined) pages. Always keep it in one place in the house. Every time something notable happens with the baby, make a note of it in the book, and date it. Or if you just have a particular thought or hope or fear. Jot it down and date it. Some notations will be two words, others two paragraphs or two pages. Start now before s/he is born. What you will create will be priceless. My sons are 15 and 19 and I still make entries in "The Book." They love it. It is a stange and beautiful chronicle of their lives, and countless times throughout their childhoods we sat and read it together, and it was always a great inspiration to tell and re-tell them stories about their past. Some of the notations are written by them, among their earliest written words. Another thing you will find is that your memory of so many of those little events will fade as you get older. I am 53 and my memory is shit. But I pick up the book and leaf through it and those moments when my boys were babies, toddlers, children, tweens, etc., come back to me in a vivid rush. First laugh, first word, first Michigan game, etc. I can only imagine what it is going to be like to read when I am 70 or 80; and for them when they are my age. If my house were on fire and that book was in one room and $1M cash was in another I'd save the book without giving it a second thought. Do it. You won't regret it. That's my advice. Sorry for the length.
Can anyone create a graphic of Jabrill as the Dos Equis "Most Interesting Man in the World"?: I don't always play offense, but when I do . . . look the f*#k out!
"Maybe I was to[o] forward/firm in the email" . . . "Now, maybe I was too forceful/blunt (it was over email) but I didn't think so."
I'd like to see the email before agreeing with some on this thread that the person who pulled the offer was in the wrong. Seems a potentially critical (and readily available) piece of evidence to me. Show us the email.
Hopefully we can refrain from even mildly disparaging commentary (e.g., "unstoppable throw god"). As far as I know, there has never been a suggestion that the kid did anything other than work his tail off and do what the coaches asked of him in practice and in class -- and kept fighting when the experience at Nebraska would have caused weaker or less dedicated kids to fold in any number of ways. Any quarterback here under the prior staff deserves the benefit of the doubt re his abilities and praise re his patience and faith.
There are nine circles of hell (the reference is to Dante's Inferno). Each circle represents some fundamental evil or infirmity -- e.g., lust, anger, heresy. Number 7 is "violence," so I think we are good.
"The test here is past reality (Hoke) versus future reality (new coach)."
By this logic, if Coach Hoke was, say, a 2 on a scale of 1-10 for on-field results, we'd consider the search a success if we found a coach who is a 3 out of 10 for on-field results.
That does not sound quite right. With due respect for Coach Hoke, I don't think the program should look to his tenure as a benchmark to measure success.
There appears to be a minor theme developing that Coach Hoke may deserve another year based on his handling of the Clark affair and this press conference. I respectfully disagree. Prior to the Clark episode, the rough consensus was that Brady Hoke was 1) a man of excellent character, and 2) a mediocre football coach. In my view, his handling of the Clark episode simply reflects and confirms 1) and says nothing about 2). That Mr. Brandon's departure seems to have coincided with an upturn in the quality of Coach Hoke's press conferences says, at most, that Mr. Brandon was inhibiting Coach Hoke's ability to be himself at his press conferences. To extrapolate from that the notion that Mr. Brandon was also inhibiting Coach Hoke from realizing his full potential as a football coach seems a stretch. Could an overbearing AD transform a Saban-, Harbaugh-, Dantonio-, Miles-, or Meyer-coached team into what we have seen on the field in the Brady Hoke era? I'm no authority, but I doubt it. And if Mr. Brandon was able to thoroughly supress all evidence of Coach Hoke's excellence simply by being overbearing, I think that says more about Coach Hoke's coaching mettle and spirit than about Mr. Brandon's unfortunate style. Coach Hoke was 47-50 when he arrived here. With all due respect, that is mediocrity incarnate. Mr. Brandon's error, in hindsight, was in hiring Coach Hoke. He may have compounded that error by interfering with Coach Hoke's handling of the football team, but the on-field performance of this team since the Sugar Bowl certainly can't be laid at Mr. Brandon's feet. A few refreshing press conferences and two tepid wins over opponents who in past years we'd have pounded into oblivion cannot change that. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but the idea that Mr. Brandon was the source of all woe and his departure will transform Coach Hoke into something he's never been -- a consistent winner at the highest levels -- seems delusional. Coach Hoke is an excellent man, as this presser demonstrates. He's not an excellent coach, as his record demonstrates. At Michigan, the coach needs to be both.
Dantonio wasn't the least bit offended by the stake and knows full well it was not a statement of disrespect for MSU. His reaction of righteous indignation and playing the "disrespect" card was totally strategic theater, part and parcel of what he has been doing masterfully for years -- instilling a mental edge into his players' heads (and a corresponding chip on their shoulders) at every opportunity. The chip on Sparty's shoulder vis-a-vis UM is a very powerful engine of that team's identity. Unfortunately, the 180 degree shift in the historic AA = alpha male / EL = beta male alignment is slowly but very surely becoming a twin engine. Dantonio has been masterful at orchestrating that shift in his players' own heads as well as our players' heads. Coach Hoke's apology plays right into Dantonio's hands. Dantonio baited him and he swallowed the bait. What this says about Coach Hoke's mindset is worrisome. On the one hand, he seems to have thrown the players under the bus. At least that's how I'd feel if I was a player. I'd want my coach to handle it internally if he disapproved of it, just like Dantonio did (or maybe failed to do) when their players tried to injure Denard's neck, or one of them punched Lewan in the face. And didn't they gather at midfield at the Bighouse after a win a few years back and symbolically trample the block M? How is any of that less disrespectful than the measly stake. Yet Dantonio rightfully never issued a public apology -- nor should he have. Handle it internally. Instead, Coach Hoke publically groveled. That has to suck some life out of this team. In my opinion, the stake was not a very effective means of motivational bravado -- just not imaginative or cool or witty or really bad ass in any way. But I'll give it this: for how much of an underdog these guys were, for the hostile environment, for the recent history of beat downs, and for the obviously high potential for blowback humiliation (as happened) -- the stake took balls; it took pride and spirit and it was a sign of a pulse to these guy's football guts and grit. Don't know if I would have had the guts to do it. But they did. Coach Hoke seems to have either not recognized that or valued the percieved PR benefit of an apology more. Either way, it does not reflect well on him. And if he was instructed to do it from a superior, he should have refused and let the chips fall where they may. If I was Joe Bolden or anyone else who gathered around him and jammed that stake into the turf, I'd feel disillusioned and hung out to dry. And that's why Mark Dantonio is smiling (on the inside).
If you are trying to persuade anyone that what you say is correct, you might want to refrain from calling them fools and bozos. No one is likely to come to your position who is not already there when you use such rhetoric to describe them, no matter how logical your position.
Recent Comments
Two small additions to the great suggestions thus far.
One, drive the full length of Going to the Sun Road yourself -- no need for a tour situation. And start pre dawn. You'll have the road to yourself for several hours and sunrises will stick in your boys' minds for the rest of their lives. Bring binoculars because the sightlines at the pull-offs go on for miles and are full of things you don't see with the naked eye -- like mountain goats high on the mountainsides, eagles soaring over the valleys miles below you.
Two, if you are going to fish, try the North Fork of the Flathead on the far west side of the park. Crystal clear, deep holes, and full of cutthroats that will readily take dry flies or, if you don't fly fish, small spinners. Even if you don't fish (NTTAWWD), that side of the park is great because it is the least visited, very remote, lots of lush wild meadows and herds of elk and wildflowers like you cannot imagine.
Isn't McCaffrey in the same circumstance he was in prior to the Speight transfer?
I am not high in the least but I cannot stop laughing at your comment re wii bowling. Thank you! I really needed that. Upvote.
Are you suggesting that "almost nobody" can never correctly be used as hyperbole? If you are not, then disregard this. But if you are, consider this:
If a once-popular TV show has fallen from its peak viewership of 10 million viewers to a woeful 2000 viewers, then it would be a reasonable use of hyperbole to say that "almost nobody" watches that show anymore.
If that same show falls further and eventually just one person still watches it -- then "literally almost nobody" watches it.
There's a difference, no?
I don't know what scree is but the reservoir is not where the fish are. The South Fork of the Flathead flows north and feeds into the reservior from deep in the Flathead National forest; that's where you fish. You drive the length of the reservoir on a dirt road that hugs the reservoir shoreline. Its a rough road and thick with brambles (your car will get scratched and your muffler will take some hits even on an SUV), and the reservoir is long with lots of fingers so it takes three or so hours to traverse its 50 mile length. But when you finally get above the reservoir to where the river is, mother of god, you are in trout heaven. The river is wide in spots with vast gravel bars and ample room to cast, totally wadable, and every place that the river turns there are deep, deep cuts along the outside edge of the turn with cliffs above them. Looking down from the cliffs is where you see the fish suspended in the water, darting everywhere, feeding both deep and on the surface. Like a dream (if you're a trout bum). Never saw anything like it in the east or even elsewhere in the more popular streams of the west. And as noted above, they rarely see artificial flies and it is a low-nutrient stream so they attack at the sight of sizeable food. Its is not a place where you need to be an expert. I had my sons with me and neither has fly fished more than a few times and both caught 20-30 fish a day (10" - 18"). The only catch is that to fish the canyon areas you have to climb down about 50-75 feet. But I had the advantage of being old, so I didn't need to climb the whole way, just fell most of the way and ended up with raspberries on my ass. Worth it. The dirt road is aclled East Side Road (NF 38). Take it south from Highway 2 at Martin City just south of the border of Glacier Nat'l Park. Bring bear spray. We saw a grizzly and cubs about a hundred yards upstream from us one evening.
Question from a neophyte: in the O'Korn-Houdini sack-escape clip ("Wooop"), is what he does with his feet at the moment before he throws an example of what folks on this Board often emphasize re a quarterback properly "setting his feet" to throw? If so, impressive under the circumstances.
You are correct. Hungry Horse Reservoir. Stretch of the river near Spotted Bear Ranger District. Unbelievable. You can see trout stacked in the water down past 12 feet. They rarely see an angler so they attack your fly, shooting up from down deep like bottle rockets and its all visible. You'll share the river with moose and muledeer in the early a.m.
Happy to provide more specific info re where to fish if there is a way to do so off-site. Way OT here and I don't want to waste others' time more than I have.
Recommend: South Fork of the Flathead above Hungry Horse Lake. Very long drive on a rough dirt road; cutthroats visible in the pools by the hundreds; no other anglers for miles.
Weather for game day ... 100% chance of a Hail! Storm.
I am impressed. Lots of very sound and thoughtful advice in this thread based on my experience (father of 2 boys, 16 and 21). I'd add this: as soon as they can walk, take them to the nearest pond with a clear plastic container and a little aquarium net. Take yer shoes off, walk the shoreline shallows and catch creatures -- tadpoles, crayfish, water bugs, turtles, etc. Put them in the container and check them out for a while, then let them go. We spent countless hours doing this and both boys say those are among their most magical and vivid memories of their early childhood.
If we are who we think we are, we'll punish this team.
Agree. An instant classic. I assume someone on this board is presently working on adapting the lyrics. Thanks in advance!
"Why are so many of your observations about the players bodies? His thickness? Filling out nicely? "Dang he is thick"?"
If I can hazard a guess -- he mentions the players' physiques and sizes because he is talking about a college football team where those things are extremely relevant to their on-field performance, which, last time I checked, was something a lot of people on this Board are interested in.
Re: "Is it morally or ethically cool? Nope."
What is the "it" we are referring to here? Just what we know from the tweet of the disappointed recruit? Or are there more actual facts that are known about his recruitment?
We have 300+ comments now based on the tweet of an understandably disappointed 17 year old. We have no objective facts whatsoever except for the bare fact of a decommitment. I think it is fair game to say "this doesn't look good" and that such tweets could hurt recruiting and that the situation that has given rise to them -- whatever it is -- needs to be addressed. But in my view it is not fair game to go further and say "this is shameful." Reserving that kind of judgment unless and until sufficient facts are known does not equate to "blindly following Harbaugh." It is instead an approach of patience, fairness and reason, one that prevails in most areas of educated life beyond the hot-takes milieu of the internet, and one grounded in the lessons of recent history. In the Swenson situation, many gave face-value credence to the young man's tweet, as many are doing now with Weaver's, and then actual facts surfaced in the ensuing days that cast that tweet in a very different light -- maybe not a perfect light, but a light very, very different from the initial damning reaction to the tweet.
Comment of the day! Would upvote if I knew what an upvote actually was, what it meant, why it was important, or how to actually accomplish one.
Get a large bound book with blank (preferably lined) pages. Always keep it in one place in the house. Every time something notable happens with the baby, make a note of it in the book, and date it. Or if you just have a particular thought or hope or fear. Jot it down and date it. Some notations will be two words, others two paragraphs or two pages. Start now before s/he is born. What you will create will be priceless. My sons are 15 and 19 and I still make entries in "The Book." They love it. It is a stange and beautiful chronicle of their lives, and countless times throughout their childhoods we sat and read it together, and it was always a great inspiration to tell and re-tell them stories about their past. Some of the notations are written by them, among their earliest written words. Another thing you will find is that your memory of so many of those little events will fade as you get older. I am 53 and my memory is shit. But I pick up the book and leaf through it and those moments when my boys were babies, toddlers, children, tweens, etc., come back to me in a vivid rush. First laugh, first word, first Michigan game, etc. I can only imagine what it is going to be like to read when I am 70 or 80; and for them when they are my age. If my house were on fire and that book was in one room and $1M cash was in another I'd save the book without giving it a second thought. Do it. You won't regret it. That's my advice. Sorry for the length.
Exactly. This fact is not lost on Harbaugh.
Can anyone create a graphic of Jabrill as the Dos Equis "Most Interesting Man in the World"?: I don't always play offense, but when I do . . . look the f*#k out!
Yes, but what kind of wall?
Brrok. Rainbow. Brown. Your avatar. I like.
Bo: "Those who stay will be champions."
Harbaugh: "Stick with me and you'll be farting through silk."
Same thing.
"Maybe I was to[o] forward/firm in the email" . . . "Now, maybe I was too forceful/blunt (it was over email) but I didn't think so."
I'd like to see the email before agreeing with some on this thread that the person who pulled the offer was in the wrong. Seems a potentially critical (and readily available) piece of evidence to me. Show us the email.
Wholly agree. It bothered me, too.
Green Mile?
You put a tough front, OMG, but deep down you just want to be held. (I'm guessing here).
We're glad our ignorance is amusing but do we get blessed with the context at some point?
Hopefully we can refrain from even mildly disparaging commentary (e.g., "unstoppable throw god"). As far as I know, there has never been a suggestion that the kid did anything other than work his tail off and do what the coaches asked of him in practice and in class -- and kept fighting when the experience at Nebraska would have caused weaker or less dedicated kids to fold in any number of ways. Any quarterback here under the prior staff deserves the benefit of the doubt re his abilities and praise re his patience and faith.
Edit: I see we're on the same page, Sport.
Not so fast. Sources say the Raiders are poised to make a run at him.
There are nine circles of hell (the reference is to Dante's Inferno). Each circle represents some fundamental evil or infirmity -- e.g., lust, anger, heresy. Number 7 is "violence," so I think we are good.
So what's Plan B?
I heard from a credible inside source that Brian was offerred that but he "rebuffed" it.
Cool story, Bro.
"The test here is past reality (Hoke) versus future reality (new coach)."
By this logic, if Coach Hoke was, say, a 2 on a scale of 1-10 for on-field results, we'd consider the search a success if we found a coach who is a 3 out of 10 for on-field results.
That does not sound quite right. With due respect for Coach Hoke, I don't think the program should look to his tenure as a benchmark to measure success.
There appears to be a minor theme developing that Coach Hoke may deserve another year based on his handling of the Clark affair and this press conference. I respectfully disagree. Prior to the Clark episode, the rough consensus was that Brady Hoke was 1) a man of excellent character, and 2) a mediocre football coach. In my view, his handling of the Clark episode simply reflects and confirms 1) and says nothing about 2). That Mr. Brandon's departure seems to have coincided with an upturn in the quality of Coach Hoke's press conferences says, at most, that Mr. Brandon was inhibiting Coach Hoke's ability to be himself at his press conferences. To extrapolate from that the notion that Mr. Brandon was also inhibiting Coach Hoke from realizing his full potential as a football coach seems a stretch. Could an overbearing AD transform a Saban-, Harbaugh-, Dantonio-, Miles-, or Meyer-coached team into what we have seen on the field in the Brady Hoke era? I'm no authority, but I doubt it. And if Mr. Brandon was able to thoroughly supress all evidence of Coach Hoke's excellence simply by being overbearing, I think that says more about Coach Hoke's coaching mettle and spirit than about Mr. Brandon's unfortunate style. Coach Hoke was 47-50 when he arrived here. With all due respect, that is mediocrity incarnate. Mr. Brandon's error, in hindsight, was in hiring Coach Hoke. He may have compounded that error by interfering with Coach Hoke's handling of the football team, but the on-field performance of this team since the Sugar Bowl certainly can't be laid at Mr. Brandon's feet. A few refreshing press conferences and two tepid wins over opponents who in past years we'd have pounded into oblivion cannot change that. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but the idea that Mr. Brandon was the source of all woe and his departure will transform Coach Hoke into something he's never been -- a consistent winner at the highest levels -- seems delusional. Coach Hoke is an excellent man, as this presser demonstrates. He's not an excellent coach, as his record demonstrates. At Michigan, the coach needs to be both.
These emails unfortunately corroborate Dantonio's core critique against Michigan: arrogance.
Dantonio wasn't the least bit offended by the stake and knows full well it was not a statement of disrespect for MSU. His reaction of righteous indignation and playing the "disrespect" card was totally strategic theater, part and parcel of what he has been doing masterfully for years -- instilling a mental edge into his players' heads (and a corresponding chip on their shoulders) at every opportunity. The chip on Sparty's shoulder vis-a-vis UM is a very powerful engine of that team's identity. Unfortunately, the 180 degree shift in the historic AA = alpha male / EL = beta male alignment is slowly but very surely becoming a twin engine. Dantonio has been masterful at orchestrating that shift in his players' own heads as well as our players' heads. Coach Hoke's apology plays right into Dantonio's hands. Dantonio baited him and he swallowed the bait. What this says about Coach Hoke's mindset is worrisome. On the one hand, he seems to have thrown the players under the bus. At least that's how I'd feel if I was a player. I'd want my coach to handle it internally if he disapproved of it, just like Dantonio did (or maybe failed to do) when their players tried to injure Denard's neck, or one of them punched Lewan in the face. And didn't they gather at midfield at the Bighouse after a win a few years back and symbolically trample the block M? How is any of that less disrespectful than the measly stake. Yet Dantonio rightfully never issued a public apology -- nor should he have. Handle it internally. Instead, Coach Hoke publically groveled. That has to suck some life out of this team. In my opinion, the stake was not a very effective means of motivational bravado -- just not imaginative or cool or witty or really bad ass in any way. But I'll give it this: for how much of an underdog these guys were, for the hostile environment, for the recent history of beat downs, and for the obviously high potential for blowback humiliation (as happened) -- the stake took balls; it took pride and spirit and it was a sign of a pulse to these guy's football guts and grit. Don't know if I would have had the guts to do it. But they did. Coach Hoke seems to have either not recognized that or valued the percieved PR benefit of an apology more. Either way, it does not reflect well on him. And if he was instructed to do it from a superior, he should have refused and let the chips fall where they may. If I was Joe Bolden or anyone else who gathered around him and jammed that stake into the turf, I'd feel disillusioned and hung out to dry. And that's why Mark Dantonio is smiling (on the inside).
If you are trying to persuade anyone that what you say is correct, you might want to refrain from calling them fools and bozos. No one is likely to come to your position who is not already there when you use such rhetoric to describe them, no matter how logical your position.