Login to view embedded media
My freshman year- beating the piggies the last time they would play in Austin when they were in the SWC.

I hate the piggies.

He’ll join Dirk Nowitzki as the only other Stars or Mavs player with a statue. It’s very well deserved if you ask me. A generation of DFW area kids grew up watching him and how he made hockey popular. Now let’s hope that he will bring the Stars some good mojo. They are in a 3 way tie for the division lead with Winnipeg and Colorado after a couple of bad games. Are any of youse guys going to the game tonight?

I am retired and wife passed away last year from brain aneurysm. Daughter convinced me I need some company. Thinking an adult dog better than raising puppy at my age. I am active person and want a dog to hang out with and do things and thus dog needs to be sociable and comfortable in public setting Would like to return to doing hospital pet therapy as did with prior dog Any ideas as to source?

IN what can only be characterized as stupidity but is likely a well managed program

Ken Buck announces his leaving Congress ( couldn't stay thru the year to assist the razor thin margin Republicans have in the House )
Buck joins Kevin McCarthy who was so loyal to the Republican Party he left last year eroding the Republican lead ...to do ...? nothing ...he's doing nothing in the private sector...why leave ? these moves only hurt the Republican party and assist the Liberals

and just so the Rino's could assure there is no doubt about their former RNC type management ...they ran George Santos out of Congress for ..get this...........repeatedly lying about his record during the campaign...yes Republican Party, you upstanding, forward thinking, shining visage of purity ...isn't that the job of the citizens in his district ?

meanwhile back on the Democratic Plantation Sen. Menendez added another round of charges for taking money ( this time gold bars) for political favor....no, not Joe Biden that was different set of Crimes and there's no self governing actions by Liberals ...just like nothing happened with Schiff, Swalwell, Omar, Levin, Tlaib, Clark, Dean, Escobar, Jacobs, Lee,and on and on in fairness to the Menendex inquiries 28 Democratic Senators have called upon Menendez to resign


but its easy to see when the Republicans go out of there way to police their own and also leave the institution without regard to the benefit of the party and country while Democrats do not and then to add further insult to injury , Democrats run over Republicans on legislation issues and law making / maintaining


Republicans are either stupid or complicit , Democrats are who we thought they were

Pfizer scientists giving facts of what they knew and were concerned about with the mRNA gene therapies in 2021. I was telling the Board of these concerns about a possible “vaccine” in 2020. Again, everyone who even partially understands the science about these subjects were all silenced and deplatformed. Why?

Also, don’t you think if all the testing Pfizer, Moderna, FDA, other health agencies, etc actually showed these tests were “safe and effective” that they would be sharing all of the studies with the Public? Why do you think they are doing the opposite? Wake up people!

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media
To prove my question above, did you see the latest study the CDC released to the public about the “vaccines” and myocarditis? Only 148 pages of completely redacted information. Yet, some of you still want to believe they are actually trying to protect the people this way!!

Login to view embedded media

7 AKC lab puppies for anyone interested. We sold a few from our last litter to OB members. Click link below to view the puppies.

Cliffs Notes: Texas turned a close game into a fourth-quarter runaway, as the Longhorns advanced to the Big 12 Tournament semi-finals with a 76-60 win over Kansas.

The Participants: No.3 Texas (28-4, 14-4 Big 12) and Kansas (19-12, 11-7 Big 12)

Pre-Game NET Rankings: Texas (No.3) and Kansas (No. 39)
Pre-Game RPI Rankings: Texas (No.8) and Kansas (No.30)

Game MVP: Freshman Madison Booker finished with a team-high 21 points and a team-high 7 assists to lead the Longhorns on a night when four different starters scored in double figures.

Key Stretch: The Longhorns entered the 4th quarter with a 48-43 edge, but were able to turn the lead into 11 points with 8:11 left in the fourth quarter on a Shaye Holle three-pointer and a Taylor Jones lay-up. The Jayhawks never got it under double-digits again.

Front-court Trio Fun : The three-forward line-up of Booker, Jones and Aaliyah Moore combined for 55 points, 23 rebounds, 8 assists and 4 blocks.

Not enough help: The Texas bench only contributed 7 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists and 0 steals on the night.

ESPN Bracketology: The Longhorns are back in the No.1 seed territory.

Some good stuff here.

DEATH OR GLORY: The INSANITY that is FLAT OUT FRIDAY Motorcycle Racing
Login to view embedded media
@tzrider

All these career politicians who make $250K a year who retire with $50M+ net worths?

Maybe Trump is or maybe he isn’t guilty of fraud…. I don’t know. What I do know is this. As a man who owns a construction company and builds $3M+ homes (construction cost only, add another $1.5M minimum for small lake front lots) in Austin I know it is absolutely laughable that Mar A Lago was assessed at $18M for this case. I don’t know how high it should be valued but it has to be significantly higher than that and that begs the question…. Why did the judge come up with an $18M number?

So we've always said being in the SEC would be better for recruiting in FB because it's clearly the best conference. What about recruiting in BB? The Big 12 is clearly a notch above every other conference, including the SEC. Does that hurt us at all? Clearly, CFB draws more eyes and revenue, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Thoughts?

Login to view embedded media
I hinted in the 3-2-1 that something might be up with Texas and Anthony Williams. Now there's this ...

Login to view embedded media

Glad we are in the SEC but kind of crazy how much more Big 10 & SEC are going to get.
In 1960, Northwestern athletic director Stu Holcomb got a wild idea: A playoff in college football!
The former Purdue football coach was a fan of the tournaments that were taking root in sports such as basketball and baseball, and he wanted something similar for the most popular college sport. He envisioned an eight-team venture including the champions of the AAWU (the future Pac-10), ACC, Big 8, Big Ten, SEC and SWC, plus two at-larges (possibly selected among the powerful independents of the time), and he suggested that some of the revenue such a tournament would generate could be diverted to the American Olympic Fund and other worthy causes such as medical research. "It would be a wonderful thing if such a tournament could come about," Holcomb told The Associated Press.

ADVERTISING​

Needless to say, the idea went nowhere. It earned a couple of rounds of newspaper headlines and plenty of positive and hilariously negative responses from newspaper columnists, but it vanished from the papers by the middle of the year. Talk of a college football playoff wouldn't really resume until Michigan State coach Duffy Daugherty picked up the mantel a few years later. Still, viewed from a present-day lens, it was a surprisingly noble proposal. Playing some extra football games to both determine a true national champion and raise money for good causes? As naive as the proposal might have been, what's not to admire about that?
Granted, the current College Football Playoff, which came into existence more than 50 years after Holcomb's proposal (and with half the teams), does end up sending a lot of money to Olympic sports in the form of funds for college teams. However, the newly expanded playoff -- 12 teams in 2024-25, then, as recently rumored, likely 14 teams in the years that follow -- offers a similarly noble opportunity: to ensure there are as many athletic departments as possible ready to fund the athlete compensation that is coming down the pike in one form or another.

EDITOR'S PICKS​

• ​
  
  

  CFB's alternate universe: Playing out 60 years of playoff scenarios, from a Miami four-peat to a dominant K-State
  5dBill Connelly​

• ​
  
  

  College football future Power Rankings: Quarterbacks
  3dAdam Rittenberg​

• ​
  
  

  Predicting Week 1 starters from CFB's most interesting QB situations this spring
  10dAdam Rittenberg​

​

Instead, that money is going to be used to make sure the SEC and Big Ten expand their financial advantages over everyone else.
In December, NCAA president Charlie Baker proposed rule changes that would, for the first time, allow Division I schools to pay their athletes. "[It] is time for us -- the NCAA -- to offer our own forward-looking framework," he said. "This framework must sustain the best elements of the student-athlete experience for all student-athletes, build on the financial and organizational investments that have positively changed the trajectory of women's sports, and enhance the athletic and academic experience for student-athletes who attend the highest resourced colleges and universities." The proposal was loose with specifics, but the general idea was that schools in a newly created subdivision would pay at least $30,000 per athlete per year for at least half their athletes, and those payments would be split equally between male and female athletes.
Baker's proposal was clearly an attempt to head off what the court system could be sending the NCAA's way in the coming years. It faces athlete unionization efforts, antitrust lawsuits, fair labor lawsuits and state law changes, all of which are guiding (or shoving) it toward a player compensation model of some sort. For years, its only strategies were stalling at all costs or begging Congress for help. Baker's maneuver might not end up being enough, but it was the first progressive step the NCAA has taken on this matter, well, ever.
Now, let's do some back-of-the-napkin math. Depending on how many sports a Division I program offers (and whether it offers payments to all of its athletes or just the prescribed half), such a plan would theoretically cost athletic departments between $4 million and $12 million per year at minimum. Considering that the most recent figures from USA Today's financial database (for public universities only) show 49 public D-I programs took in revenue of at least $100 million in 2022-23, this would not be a particularly high bar for many major athletic programs to clear, even if it takes a little bit of reconfiguring in terms of other salaries, building projects, et cetera. But considering nearly two-thirds of the programs at that level took in less than $40 million in revenue, this would be an impossibility for quite a few other universities, at least without cutting quite a few sports teams.
While we wait for official details from the forthcoming CFP television contract, considering a 12-team CFP was set to draw something around $1.3 billion annually, it's fair to assume a 14-teamer, with two extra first-round games, could be worth something like $1.5 billion, about $900 million of which would be new and uncommitted funds. If divided equally among all 363 Division I programs, that would average out to $4.1 million per school, $3.4 million of which would be from uncommitted funds. If distributed to only the 261 D-I schools with football programs, that's $5.7 million per school ($3.4 million uncommitted). FBS schools only? $11.1 million per school ($6.7 million uncommitted). Come up with a blend of the options there, and you could cover the vast majority, if not all, of the potential costs from a $30,000-per-athlete plan.
Greg Sankey has used CFP leverage to try and get his league guaranteed playoff byes and more money. George Walker IV/AP
Put another way, this expanded playoff could pay for the future of college sports. And if the money doesn't quite work, then let's be honest: 14 teams is a really silly number for a tournament -- proposed by the SEC and Big Ten to assure that there are two extra at-large bids for them to nab, plus only two byes (that their champions would frequently earn) -- when 16 is right there. So let's make it 16. That likely adds another $100 million to $200 million to the overall annual pool. Hell, make it an FCS-style 24 teams if you want. And go ahead and sign off on that NCAA basketball tournament expansion, too -- we've got noble intentions here! (Or at least, whatever the "college sports making lots of money" version of "noble" is.)
Every current conversation about the future of college sports hints at some foreboding universe in which paying athletes forces universities to drop sports and maybe accidentally destroys college athletics altogether. Those conversations are almost certainly overwrought -- and the way administrators continue to threaten the health of women's sports in particular as a sort of "listen to us, or else!" threat in the compensation conversation continues to be particularly gross -- but here's a glorious, billion-dollar workaround. It could pave the way toward a bright future.
This, of course, is not what's going to happen. The commissioners of the expanded SEC and Big Ten, Greg Sankey and Tony Pettiti, are using this conversation as an occasion to extort concessions from the rest of FBS.
In the current CFP deal, each power conference gets 16% of the set CFP revenue distribution, while the five other conferences and independents split the remaining 20% between them. There is also a pool of money distributed directly to schools that qualify for the playoff. Even if every FBS program made the same share of the guaranteed distribution money moving forward, the SEC and Big Ten would be positioned to make far more annual revenue than the rest of the pack because of their lucrative media rights deals and the fact that, with their powerful lineups, they will claim a large percentage of CFP bids.
That's not enough for them, however. They're also demanding a much higher percentage of set revenue -- recent reporting suggests the SEC and Big Ten will now combine for about 57% of the guaranteed purse, while the ACC and Big 12 (and Notre Dame) combine for about 34% and the Group of 5 teams and remaining independent will now split 9%. Basically, G5s will get a slight increase in overall revenue, while the Big Ten and SEC increase their take by about 280% when, again, they had a baked-in advantage to begin with.
A good business brain would tell you that the new Power 2 had massive leverage, the Big 12 and ACC had little, and the Group of 5 had none, so this was just how a proper negotiation should go. Zero-sum gains and all. But this is a brand-new revenue stream, one that everyone could benefit significantly from, and this doesn't have to be zero-sum -- why is anyone applying leverage at all? And how much money do you actually need, anyway? Even bad SEC and Big Ten teams will now make about $21 million annually from the CFP while good G5 teams will make $1.8 million. It probably goes without saying that an Ohio needs $21 million a lot more than an Ohio State, but hey, the Buckeyes have the "leverage." Infuriating, isn't it?

Top stories of the week from

​

Get exclusive access to thousands of premium articles a year from top writers.
• Lowe: Dangerous West team on the rise »
• Ranking NFL's top 100 free agents »
• Top 10 NHL rivalries: How about FLA-TB? »
More ESPN+ content »​

We talk a big game about how [insert topic of the day that we don't like] is going to destroy college football. Conference realignment ... a small playoff ... a big playoff ... head injuries ... targeting penalties designed to cut down head injuries ... players making money. If you don't like some change, you declare it the death of the sport. These declarations have been right 0% of the time. Maybe I'm wrong this time, too. But to me, the biggest current threat to college football's future is the richest programs starving the rest of the ecosystem and, in effect, relegating the rest of major college football by ensuring they don't have the revenue to properly pay their athletes.
Want to actually do long-term damage to college football? Shrink the number of programs that aspire to big-time ball, force some others to maybe drop a subdivision (or drop football altogether) and shrink the number of overall scholarships available to play the sport (or any of the sports that might see teams dropped in droves). The SEC and Big Ten already have all the advantages. They already boast most of the programs capable of winning the national title, and if or when Florida State and Clemson (and maybe Miami) fight their way out of the ACC, they'll pretty much have them all. But right now, there are 134 universities willing to shell out 85 scholarships per year, plus plenty of other benefits, and invest millions of dollars just to be part of the FBS club, make a little more money for their other programs, and hopefully go .500 and play in a minor bowl game.
Inequality has always ruled this sport, but there has always been room for anyone who wants to invest. Iowa State averaged more than 60,000 in home attendance last season. NC State, its fans having never witnessed a top-10 finish, averaged nearly 57,000. East Carolina averaged over 35,000 while going 2-10. UConn hasn't had a winning season since 2010 and averaged nearly 25,000. New Mexico State has finished over .500 in just seven of its past 56 seasons in top-division college football and drew nearly 15,000 per game. None of these schools are long-term threats to LSU or Michigan. Maybe those attendance levels wouldn't drop in a world where NMSU or UConn or ECU -- or even NC State or Iowa State -- are forced to play ball in a different subdivision because they can't afford to pay what the SEC or Big Ten is paying (though it probably bears mentioning that over the past four seasons that weren't impacted by COVID, when an English Premier League team was relegated, its attendance fell by 9% on average, according to TruMedia). But why the hell would we want to find out?
Is there anything that could stop this ongoing power grab? And do we care? Last year, a survey administered by Sportico and the Harris Poll found that 68% of respondents agreed conference realignment was "a problem in college sports," but only 18% said realignment had actually diminished their enjoyment of it. Television ratings are going to be great for all the new conference pairings the Power 2 conferences will break out this fall -- Georgia at Texas, Ohio State at Oregon, Alabama at Oklahoma, USC at Michigan, Oklahoma at LSU, Oregon at Michigan, Michigan at Washington, Washington at Penn State and, of course, Texas at Texas A&M. We don't tend to turn "I don't like this" into "I'm not going to watch this," and we don't exactly have German soccer fans' flair for sticking up for themselves. (Those German protests worked, by the way.) Would protests and game interruptions at FBS schools outside the SEC and Big Ten have any effect? Would anyone even think to try to stick up for themselves?
In the ongoing debate about whether college football needs a commissioner figure -- well, it's not so much a debate as everyone seemingly agreeing that one is needed and nothing ever happening -- Greg Sankey's name almost inevitably comes up. But his and Tony Pettiti's decision-making seems to be the biggest current threat to the college football ecosystem. (College basketball, too.) If such a position were to ever exist, I'd prefer someone who actually cares about all of college football and college sports.

Login to view embedded media

(Language warning)

Since many on this site may be buying or selling a home at any given time, own investment properties, or commercial real estate I'm posting this weekly update to stay current.

The data is well researched from my employer New American Funding's Research/Analytics Department.

Thus, it is fact based and only analyzing the data/trends without regard to government policy.

As I stated previously let's keep the thread informational for those that might be in the market and leave policy discussions in "The Corral".

I'll be posting the highlights here - for you data and chart geeks at the end is a link to the full report.

The Highlights -

1. The median number of days for a home to change from for-sale to pending status in the U.S. fell to 17 days in February, matching last year’s tally.
2. Inventory levels have declined to 2.59 homes per 1,000 people in the U.S. or just 66.3% of pre-Covid levels -using February 2020 a baseline - making it easy to see why the housing market remains hot despite the decline in transactions.
3. Looking across the U.S., the vast majority of homebuyers will face housing market conditions where homes are selling faster and nearly all homebuyers will encounter a smaller selection of homes to choose from.
4. For homebuyers in the Northeast and Midwest homebuyers face a double whammy of faster home sales and less inventory in all the top 100 most populous markets -except for Indianapolis which has homes selling slightly slower.
5. 8 of top 10 metros that lost the most housing inventory between February 2020 and February 2024 were in the Northeast and 2 were in the Midwest. In these markets inventory per capita levels declined by -52.9% or more.
6. 8 of top 10 metros that gained the most housing inventory were in the South and 2 were in the West. In these markets inventory per capita levels increased by -1.0% or more and include the only 8 markets with positive inventory growth.
7. 8 of top 15 fastest selling metros were in the Midwest. In these markets homes went from for-sale to pending in under 1 week and 6 were tied for the 10th spot.
8. The top 16 slowest selling metros were all in the South. In these markets homes went from for-sale to pending in 27 days or more.
9. The typical U.S. homeowner has spent 11.9 years in their home, up from 6.5 years two decades ago.

As we all know by now the route cause for the accelerated speed in homes flying off the market is the mismatch between supply and demand caused by more than a decade of under-building relative to population growth (a shortage of 6.5 million single-family homes or 2.3 million if you include multi-family (per Realtor.com), existing homeowners refusing to list their homes due to the lock-in effect (89% of people with mortgages have an interest rate below 6% (per Redfin), and more than enough demand for housing from buyers despite just 35.9 million of the 132.5 million U.S. households (27.1%) that can afford to buy the new median priced home at $425,786 in 2023 (per NAHB).

Those three factors have contributed to inventory levels holding at 901 million homes for-sale in the U.S. in February 2024 (the count of unique listings that were active at any time in a given month). To put things into perspective, relative to population, that puts inventory levels at just 2.59 homes per 1,000 people in the U.S. or just 66.3% of pre-Covid levels (using February 2020 a baseline) making it easy to see why the housing market remains hot despite the decline in transactions.

Analyzing housing market conditions today with respect to pre-Covid or “normal” housing market conditions by metro reveals how drastically things have changed for homebuyers entering the market this spring. Looking across the U.S., the vast majority of homebuyers will face housing market conditions where homes are selling faster and nearly all homebuyers will encounter a smaller selection of homes to choose from. For homebuyers in the Northeast and Midwest homebuyers face a double whammy of faster home sales and less inventory in all the top 100 most populous markets (except for Indianapolis which has homes selling slightly slower).

8 of top 10 metros that gained the most housing inventory were in the South and 2 were in the West. In these markets inventory per capita levels increased by -1.0% or more and include the only 8 markets with positive inventory growth, they were:

1. New Orleans, LA (66.9%)
2. Cape Coral, FL (41.8%)
3. Austin, TX (27.7%)
4. McAllen, TX (25.4%)
5. Lakeland, FL (9.3%)
6. Memphis, TN (7.6%)
7. San Antonio, TX (1.3%)
8. Ogden, UT (0.4%)
9. Tampa, FL (-0.5%)
10. Provo, UT (-1.0%)

These markets are worth monitoring for weakness in home price growth on a relative basis to other housing markets.

The top 16 slowest selling metros were all in the South. In these markets homes went from for-sale to pending in 27 days or more, they were:

1. McAllen, TX (58 days)
2. San Antonio, TX (44 days)
3. New Orleans, LA (42 days)
4. Austin, TX (40 days)
5. Deltona, FL (40 days)
6. Cape Coral, FL (38 days)
7. North Port, FL (37 days)
8. Miami, FL (35 days)
9. Jacksonville, FL (34 days)
10. Baton Rouge, LA (32 days)
11. Lakeland, FL (31 days)
12. Memphis, TN (31 days)
13. Palm Bay, FL (29 days)
14. Houston, TX (28 days)
15. El Paso, TX (27 days)
16. Little Rock, AR (27 days)

Homebuyers in these markets may have the luxury of being a little more patient and selective in their homebuying search.

My Thoughts -
People living in their homes longer comes from rates falling for almost a decade until the last year or so. Refinancing made it easier to stay in the home with continuous lower rates, remote working, and now people don't want to give up their rate.

That leaves the market only to first-time home buyers, death, divorce, and relocation - the move-up buying is on life support and barely above a flat-line.

A resurgence in inflation see today's CPI numbers 2X estimates will keep rates higher for longer. Like they say "marry the house & date the rate." Things could get worse before they get better.

I was surprised to see the slowest selling metros all in the South with Texas holding 4 of the top 16 spots. Perhaps because more homes are being built in the South vs Midwest and East?

While they say these are slow-markets historically 27-58 days to close a home is not unusual pre COVID buying craziness.

Love to hear your thoughts/comments!

Have an Amazing Week & Hook 'Em!

MH

Full Report Hyperlink -

Click Here For Full Report

Tradarian Ball is credited with a 10.51, Tanook Hines 10.55 and Riley Pettijohn 10.98: I don't know how they left out Ridge Point who has the fastest time in the state this year - 40.37. https://tx.milesplit.com/teamscores...leagues=&returning=0&scorers=5&rankBy=average

A whole lot of angst in this country right now. Particularly on the right, but the left is plenty busy crying and moaning about how bad things are also. But...how about a little perspective?

The people of the United States in 2024 live better than any humans have in the history of the planet. We really do...and we don't see it. We make more money, have more things that make our lives easier and better, and we live healthier lives. We don't have to worry about being attacked militarily. Pretty much anyone in the country that wants a job, has one. We have freedoms that most humans in history would be astonished that we have.

We even live better than most Americans ever did.

In 1960, per capita income in the US was $2,300 a year. In today's dollars that's about $24,000.
In 1980, per capita income in the US was just over $10,000. In today's dollars that's about $38,000.
In 2000, per capita income in the US was $30,500. In today's dollars that's about $54,000.

Per capita income in 2023 was $66,000.

I could go on. We live long and we live better. We have everything you ever could want in terms of entertainment in a little device we all carry. Traveling is actually cheaper than it was in 1980 also. Crime is far less than it was in 1980, and similar to 2000.

So why the hell are we so angry?

If you don't realize how good we have it, just go travel outside the country.

A-10 F-22 F-35 F-15 F-16

Despite having a place in Wimberly for nearly 20 years, we finally made it out to Hays City Store. I totally get why the place is always packed. CFS was amazing, a notch above Bluebonnet Cafe. The staff was incredibly efficient, very professional, and friendly, which is very difficult to find these days. @travieso (Travis) and his wife were very gracious and their hospitality was absolutely great. If you're ever in the area, it's a must.

It's that time of year when appliances go on sale for President's Day sales. We have been in our home for 16 years and it's time to replace our kitchen appliances. I wanted to get input from anyone who has recently upgraded. We are looking for stainless steel appliances. We are currently looking at Costco since they offer free delivery, free installation, free haul-off, and discounts for bundling appliances in addition to extending the warranties.

We currently have GE appliances and have had no issues. I have heard that GE's quality isn't what it used to be. The refrigerator we like is a Samsung, but I am concerned as we know so many people who have had issues with them the past few years. We also like the GE Profile stainless steel appliances, but reading the reviews has me on the fence.

I know Frigidaire and Whirlpool have always been super reliable.

Here are some kitchen photos to say thank you in advance!

Met a guy at party night who seemed like a bit of a douche at first butt ended up being pretty cool. I am just naturally repelled by dudes who have barbed wire bicep tats and wear tank tops. He scored with a 7 so I won’t judge too harsh bro.

The best thing about this guy was his zest for life. Dude was extremely passionate about the subjects that interest him. After a few short hours I now know way more about IPAs and midget porn than I ever thought possible.

Anywho, he really went off on the subject of rectal thermometers. Said it is the only way to accurately learn your body temp, which is supposedly key for nutrition and daily workout requirements. Said he adjusts his WOD based on his temperature following his morning butt thermometer reading. Added that if your taking temp any other way then your not serious about accurate info or self-improvement in general.

Do any of you guys follow this approach? Know a lot of you are into putting things in the butt. I just don’t think it matters and have not experienced since I was a little kid. No desire to do so ever again—same goes with suppositories. The fact that the practice even exists terrifies me and I refuse to use anyone else’s thermometer for this reason.

Everyday on my way home from work this guy gets in my face. He’s just a sad bully who likes to taunt people, so whatever. But, I’m tired of it and need to put him in his place. I’ve been studying martial arts for years now online. By my calculations I’m a third degree black belt. My specialty is touchless knockouts. Here are some examples of martial artists who use this technique:

Login to view embedded media
The problem is this particular guy seems immune. He doesn’t react at all, no matter how much chi I direct his way.

OB’s is a great resource so I figure we have to have some martial arts experts in here. Has anyone else had this problem? Any suggestions for what may be the issue? And no, I’m not going to use the death touch. I just want him to learn a lesson, not kill him.