Jump to content

DixonHur

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by DixonHur

  1. 3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

    This is political.  Take it somewhere else.

     

    2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    So are politics cool in here or not? Make up your minds.

    How can this topic be discussed without politics?  The whole thing is political.

    Are we just supposed to discuss tent styles, and fashion?

  2. 17 minutes ago, mantis toboggan said:

    Thursday morning update from Jabba:

    Pessimism is the word of the hour in UT's recruitment of TCU defensive tackle transfer Damonic Williams.

    Per a source late last night, there were conversations between Texas and Williams on Wednesday night. From what I can gather, Williams is looking for an incredible one-year NIL package that would make Walter Nolan blush.

    Will he get it?

    That remains to be seen, but it almost certainly won't come from the Longhorns. I've been told for more than a year that the Longhorns would be willing to go huge on a "Jordan Addison type" player if the coaches thought that the addition would be season-changing, but Williams is not viewed as that type of player and Texas isn't going to completely turn its entire NIL model on its head in an effort to get him.

    Perhaps the NIL package being sought after will flatten out because none of the four teams under consideration will go as high as the Williams camp is looking for one of them to go, but at the moment it feels like the Longhorns aren't going to be the team.

    I wasn't given the name of a projected leader, but it might be OU. The dark-horse might be Missouri, if only because maybe the Tigers will be willing to do anything to get Williams. 

    Regardless, it feels like an Texas and Williams are at an impasse as of Wednesday night.

    Fine. 

    Texas should offer him a slightly above market NIL deal, and if that doesn't get him to UT then let ou or lsu over pay him.

  3. 2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    i mean does a male t-rex even have a dick

    apparently birds don't... so probably not

    so t-rex didn't wank because t-rex couldn't reach and didn't even have a dick

    Interesting rabbit hole, but I think he was just quoting Jurassic Park when they tied the lamb, or whatever, to the stake but T-Rex wouldn't eat it.

    2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    nice work if you can get it

    It was the best job I ever had...only stopped to go back to grad school

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    I did, too, but at a pretty early stage, I realized that most guys were NOT as libidinous as I was.

    Slowed down a lot with age, to where I'm able to actually think with something other than my dick from time to time.

    In my mid-20's I met a Dermatologist at the gym who had, shall we say, a kink (not kink shaming) where he liked to watch other guys have sex with chicks in front of him.   For a couple of years, he would pay me to have sex with girls at his house while he watched.

    These chicks were hot too, so not sure how he convinced them, but I also didn't care at the time.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 10 minutes ago, seven said:

    I also don't understand how guys have sex with women they aren't attracted to just to get some pussy. I tried it once, knew it wasn't for me a few minutes in, faked a nut and peaced out. I'd rather just jerk off. 

    Hey just because we grew up in the 80's doesn't make us @Vic Mackey.  Some of us had standards.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  6. 6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    you say that like these are BAD things

    maybe is BECAUSE all the pussy is shaved, that's why they lost their drive. Ever think about that?

    This reminds me of a friend back in the day who claimed he didn't masturbate because "T-Rex needs to hunt"...dubious claim on the masturbation front, but maybe that's it...pussy is too easy to get now.

    • Haha 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    This is where I am and I don’t understand why it’s so hard for other people to let go. It shouldn’t fucking matter. It doesn’t affect me. Literally, my life is the exact fucking same whether there are trans people (or gay, black, white, green, whatever) or not. I don’t see why people are so concerned. 

    300,000 years of Schismogenesis will do that to ya.

  8. 2 minutes ago, seven said:

    Without judgment, a lot of you sound like old guys trying to prove how manly you are (were) because back in your day getting pussy was the most important measure. I'm an old millenial but I can somewhat identify with some gen-z characteristics, one of those is giving less of a shit about proving your manhood. I never really understood the crawl over glass obsession with sex. Yeah, it's a fun time but it seems older generations seem to put a lot more emphasis on it.

    You younguns, we had to wade through 6 inches of bush to attain pussy...you guys have it served up on a clean platter and still don't want it.  You don't know how good you have it...I haven't had a pube in my teeth since the 90's, and it's glorious.

    • Haha 1
  9. 4 hours ago, Pdawg88 said:

    Who would be your pick? 

     

    3 hours ago, closetojumping said:

    OU.

    Same.  Clearest path to significant playing time and Venables can coach defense.

    That said, I think he'll be a day 1 or 2 pick regardless of where he ends up.  There are literally no bad choices for him (think I just threw up in my mouth a bit), but obviously rooting for Texas.

  10. Just now, Sawbonz said:

    The bigger indicator for societal strife is not absolute poverty levels, it’s relative disparity between the haves, and have nots. It’s a really big problem in our country and it’s only getting bigger.

     

    i’m pretty sure I have. I’m not arguing that you are pro mass immigration, just pointing out that the Republican party is and why.
     

    I think by just about any objective measure it is clear that mass immigration is not only beneficial but necessary for our country to continue prospering. That’s obviously fodder for a different thread 

    Gotcha on both fronts, but I'll agree to disagree with the second part.  While I believe immigration is beneficial and is one of the few constants in history, I think mass immigration is bad because I believe cultural uniformity is key to a nation's success and cohesiveness.  Of course, paradoxically, I'm against nation states and governments....at least in the form that rules the world today.  Over time, additions from other cultures enhance the host nation's culture but too much too fast will cause problems.  

    I mean, now that I'm thinking about it, that's kind of my philosophy in general.  Everything in moderation.

     

  11. 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

    Both sides agree mass immigration is great. One side wants it to be legal and above board. The other side wants to keep it illegal for campaign scare tactics and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor

     

    you can fix illegal immigration tomorrow by making it a 10 year penitentiary crime for the CEO of any company caught employing undocumented labor. I wonder why that never gets proposed?

    Honestly, have you posted this before because I feel like I'm having deja vu.  Anyway, I agree with the second part 100%...but I think you misread my first part.  I'm against mass immigration, not for it.

  12. 8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Agree to disagree. What you’re describing in the rest of your post I would call “picking your battles.” But I don’t get the sense from the other posts of yours I have read that that is what you are doing here. 

    Yeah, not exactly, although there is a bit of that.  I just don't think rapid change is possible without mass casualties.  And I've become increasingly anti-war with age, so that goes against the grain for me.  That's not to say I won't fire back at the Nazis if the shit goes down (I've started acquiring guns of late...up to 10 now), but I prefer slow change and negotiated settlement.

    Yes, part of that is due to me being a straight, white (now), man in America, but let's not kid ourselves, the most disenfranchised American is still better off than 90+% of the world.  We have running water, paved roads, money (relative to other countries).  There is a reason so many minorities are still immigrating the US, despite the fact that they know they will face racism and xenophobia.  I actually just had a conversation similar to this my Uber driver yesterday.  He was a young man, maybe 25, who recently moved here from Rwanda, and I asked him if he'd thought he'd ever go back, to which he replied, that while he missed his family and friends, he loved it here and wanted to stay.

  13. 1 hour ago, Foosters said:

    Can you provide an example of a contemporary GOP principal that does NOT demonize or villify a group?

    It's not a road I want to go down, but I'm sure there are some.  To be clear, I am not a GOP supporter.  As posted before, I considered myself a conservative in my teens and early 20's...mostly because my parents were Reagan Rebulicans, but I didn't really understand what the GOP was about at the time. For me it was never about social issues.  In fact, I was a bit of a club kid, so I had lots of gay friends (very few who were fully out sadly) and it never bothered me.  Oh, and my best friend was a black kid who everyone thought was gay, and that we were an item, even though neither of us actually were gay.  Probably didn't help that I had an earring in the 80's.  I can't even count the number of times some random guy would scream "fag" as I walked by...which later morphed into my gay friends referring to me as a "Fag Stag" because I hung out with so many gay people...note to the straight crowd...if you haven't hung out with gay people I suggest you do...they are way more fun.  

    Anyway, the point is that I still have some conservative leanings, but racism and anti-LGBTQ aren't among them. 

    1 hour ago, Foosters said:

    -The media is the enemy of the people - To some extent I think this is true.  I think the 24-hour news channels really fucked this up...thanks CNN...because there wasn't enough actual news to fill 24-hours so it became opinion and tabloid news.  There are still a few I trust, like BBC, NPR, and oddly sometimes Al-Jazeera when they cover the US.

    -Immigrants "poison the blood of our country" - I think mass immigration is bad.  I've explained why before, but if asked I can rehash it.  But, it's not very salacious.  

    -Democrats are the party of pedophiles - Yep, totally stupid.

    -Gay people want to groom our kids. they are also pedophiles - also asinine.  If this were true, I would have "turned" gay long ago.

    -Trans people want to groom our kids. They are also pedophiles. - see above

    -Leftists want to indoctrinate children. They are also pedophiles. - leftists do want to indoctrinate...all political (and religious) entities want to indoctrinate, but that doesn't mean they are pedos.

    -College Professors are leftist agitators trying to indoctrinate students. - Yeah, don't agree, I had literal...IE my definition...fascist teachers.  My Italian professor was open about it.  

    -The 2020 election was stolen by Democrats! - Obviously false

    -Joe Biden is an illegal president. He should be imprisoned or executed. - Again, false

    -Women should be imprisoned or executed if they have an abortion. Even if its to save their own life. - Nor are we who support a woman's choice "pro-abortion"...nobody gets pregnant so they can have an abortion.  

    -Muslims should not be allowed to enter the country. - Broken record, but no, I don't agree with that position, although, in general, I am pretty anti-religion. 

    -Russia is a good, Christian nation and they are only defending themselves from Ukrainian Nazis. - Obviously weird considering when I was growing up conservatives hated Russia, so I still haven't wrapped my head around the change in attitude.

    -Vaccines are dangerous. - Vaccines save lives

    -Climate change is a hoax perpetuated by Democrats to push their green narrative. - I trust the scientists, but would be open to the possibility that the reason behind climate change isn't just human caused...because we have had climate changes before humans existed.  

    My responses in-line above...

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 1 hour ago, safe sex said:

    A quick skim of the last two pages reveals no negs given out to you, despite your opinions that don't conform to "the group." It's possible that I missed one because I'm essentially blind without my glasses, but regardless, I hardly think it would qualify as "negged to oblivion."

    Perhaps it's less opinions that are being negged in CR and more trolling, bigotry, and fascism (not your definition, clearly)

    Not on this thread.

    Until today, I hadn't posted on this thread.  I just happened to read it today, and @Captainant brought me into the discussion as a carry over from the UT protest thread where I was negged once by @Beau Vine and @Felix negged every one of my posts.

    Oh, and as a PS, I wasn't really talking about me being negged.  I've talked to others offline who have had a similar experience and have ceased posting in the CR.  I still try.

  15. 11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Problem is, I don't have enough money speech to compete with the Texas oil oligarchs that are trying to make my home state into a shit hole. The """pAtH oF LeAsT rEsIsTaNcE""" is you choosing to accept the framing and dance to the tune of those rich oligarchs that want to take away voting and civil rights. For fucks sake, I feel like you wouldn't anything short of Auschwitz "fascism". Do you need me to share Umberto Eco's helpful guide for identifying and characterizing them?

    Voting is the only actual recourse we have, that's why it's frustrating that people don't use it.  I'm headed to the gym now, so I can't look it up, but what % of eligible voters actually vote?

    You're also misunderstanding facsism, or at leat how I use it.  Again, I don't have a ton of time before I have to go, but I skimmed this and think this is a good primary on how I view fascism vs authoritarianism.

    Link

    And yes, I would love you to post "Umberto Eco's helpful guide for identifying and characterizing them?"

  16. 10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    You saying this to someone who's already doing those things is why you're getting the heat you are.

    Good for you...I'm legit glad you're doing something constructive.  But, I'm getting the "heat", as you call it, because my opinion on the Pro-Palestine protestors at UT diverged from the group, which is exactly what that Atlantic article quote was about.

    It is also exactly why the CR has the bad reputation it does.  Once upon a time differing opinions were welcome on the UT message boards (Hornfans, Shaggy, and early Surly), but now if you have an opinion that doesn't conform to "the group" you get negged into oblivion.

    I actually really enjoy honest debates on the issues, and am willing to move my opinions based on reasoned debate...but that shit isn't welcome here anymore.

    For example, if we met up, I'd bet you and I, and most other people here, would agree on 80+% of things, but in today's highly charged political climate that's not good enough, and that's a real shame IMO.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. On 4/27/2024 at 9:34 AM, Sawbonz said:

    This is the problem with @DixonHur’s philosophy of taking the path of least resistance. These people are zealots. They will never be satisfied until the have complete control. And then once the marginalized are eliminated they come after the appeasers (who will be shocked at this turn of events no doubt). Then when those are gone or have conformed they start in on each other 

     

    For someone who claims to be a student of history he really hasn’t learned much

    Do tell.  What have I not learned from history?  

    I'm currently rereading Cicero, and that shit was written 2,500 years ago, but, aside from attitudes towards homosexuality, it could have been written today.  

    History = Same shit different day.  

    Path of least resistance isn't about giving up.  It's about small changes and doing things that actually make a difference, as opposed to protesting, destroying property, and bitching on message boards.  Fucking VOTE and convince others to VOTE.  Volunteer for or donate to causes you care about.  Engage in local / grassroots politics. 

  18. On 4/27/2024 at 8:37 AM, Captainant said:

    Hey @DixonHur this is another step along the path of fascism. Just since you seem to be fuckin oblivious to it

    Lol, not sure what this has to do with me since I have a long history as an LGBTQ ally, but you do you.

    I do, however, look forward to the day you find out what Fascism is instead of throwing it against the wall hoping it will stick.  

    This is authoritarianism, which I am completely against...to be clear I'm against Fascism too, and while Abbott may indeed be a Fascist, this is just garden variety authoritarian behavior...which exists on (gasp) both sides.

    Maybe this article from The Atlantic will help you.  Spoilered below in case you don't have a subscription.

    Quote

    Intriguingly, the researchers found some common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.”

     

    Spoiler

    Donald trump’s rise to power generated a flood of media coverage and academic research on authoritarianism—or at least the kind of authoritarianism that exists on the political right. Over the past several years, some researchers have theorized that Trump couldn’t have won in 2016 without support from Americans who deplore political compromise and want leaders to rule with a strong hand. Although right-wing authoritarianism is well documented, social psychologists do not all agree that a leftist version even exists. In February 2020, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology held a symposium called “Is Left-Wing Authoritarianism Real? Evidence on Both Sides of the Debate.”

    An ambitious new study on the subject by the Emory University researcher Thomas H. Costello and five colleagues should settle the question. It proposes a rigorous new measure of antidemocratic attitudes on the left. And, by drawing on a survey of 7,258 adults, Costello’s team firmly establishes that such attitudes exist on both sides of the American electorate. (One co-author on the paper, I should note, was Costello’s adviser, the late Scott Lilienfeld—with whom I wrote a 2013 book and numerous articles.) Intriguingly, the researchers found some common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.”

    Published last month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Costello team’s paper is persuasive, to the point that you have to wonder: How could past researchers have overlooked left-wing authoritarianism for so long? “For 70 years, the lore in the social sciences has been that authoritarianism was to be found exclusively on the political right,” the Rutgers University social psychologist Lee Jussim, who wasn’t involved in the new study, told me in an email. In the 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality, an inquiry into the psychological makeup of people strongly drawn to autocratic rule and repressive politics, the German-born scholar Theodor W. Adorno and three other psychologists measured people along dimensions such as conformity to societal norms, rigid thinking, and sexual repression. And they concluded that “the authoritarian type of human”— the kind of person whose enthusiastic support allows someone like Hitler to exercise power—was found only among conservatives. In the mid-1990s, the influential Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer described left-wing authoritarianism as “the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology—an occasional shadow, but no monster. ” Subsequently, other psychologists reached the same conclusion.

    The Trump era likely deepened psychology’s conventional wisdom that authoritarians are almost always conservatives; the insurrection at the Capitol earlier this year showed the urgency of understanding the phenomenon. And yet calls to de-platform controversial speakers and online campaigns to get people fired for heterodox views suggest that a commitment to open democratic norms is eroding, at least in some quarters, on the left. Much further along the authoritarian continuum, people purporting to be antiracist or antifascist protesters have set fires and committed other acts of violence since the summer of 2020. These acts stop short of, say, the 1970s bombing campaign by the far-left Weather Underground, but surely call the prevailing wisdom into doubt. (Supporters of revolutionary regimes overseas have demonstrated even more clearly that some people on the left try to get their way through intimidation and force.)

    But one reason left-wing authoritarianism barely shows up in social-psychology research is that most academic experts in the field are based at institutions where prevailing attitudes are far to the left of society as a whole. Scholars who personally support the left’s social vision—such as redistributing income, countering racism, and more—may simply be slow to identify authoritarianism among people with similar goals.

    One doesn’t need to believe that left-wing authoritarians are as numerous or as threatening as their right-wing counterparts to grasp that both phenomena are a problem. While liberals—both inside and outside of academia—may derive some comfort from believing that left-wing authoritarianism doesn’t exist, that fiction ignores a significant source of instability and polarization in our politics and society.

    In the research that led to The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno and his colleagues developed an “F-scale” to measure fascist attitudes; Altemeyer later drew on that research to create a scale measuring right-wing authoritarianism by assessing certain personality traits—including feelings of aggression, willingness to submit to authority, and a quality that he called “conventionalism”—not strictly related to a subject’s political conservatism. Altemeyer’s right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale remains “the gold standard for conceptualizing and evaluating all kinds of authoritarianism,” Costello told me. But when Altemeyer later turned his attention to left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), he erroneously assumed it would be identical to the right-wing variety. His LWA scale barely identified any subjects. He either had set the threshold too high or was measuring the wrong attitudes.

    Costello and his colleagues started fresh. They developed what eventually became a list of 39 statements capturing sentiments such as “We need to replace the established order by any means necessary” and “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views.” Subjects were asked to score the statements on a scale of 1 to 7. They showed a trait that the researchers described as “anti-hierarchical aggression” by agreeing strongly that “If I could remake society, I would put people who currently have the most privilege at the bottom.” By agreeing with statements such as “Getting rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so-called ‘right’ to free speech,” they showed an attitude called “top-down censorship.” And they showed what the research team called “anti-conventionalism” by endorsing statements such as “I cannot imagine myself becoming friends with a political conservative.”

    Costello and his colleagues administered their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale. Some differences emerged between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians; the former were more open to new experiences and more receptive to science than the latter, for example. Yet the new research documents a large overlap in authoritarian structure—a “shared psychological core,” as the authors put it—between high scorers on their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale, which they also administered. The authoritarian mentality, whether on the far left or far right, the authors conclude, exerts “powerful pressures to maintain discipline among members, advocate aggressive and censorious means of stifling opposition, [and] believe in top-down absolutist leadership.”

    Perhaps the most compelling insight emerged from trying to separate subjects’ political ideology from authoritarianism. They found that your ideology—whether you’re a progressive or a Trumpist—is a secondary matter. Whether your values and beliefs are authoritarian or not is more fundamental. “Psychologically speaking, authoritarianism comes first,” Costello told me.

    I asked Costello whether left-wing and right-wing authoritarians exist in equal proportions. “It is hard to know the ratio,” he said, making clear that a subject’s receptivity to authoritarianism falls on a continuum, like other personality characteristics or even height, so using hard-and-fast categories (authoritarian versus nonauthoritarian) can be tricky. “Still, some preliminary work shows the ratio is about the same if you average across the globe,” he said. In the U.S., though, Costello hypothesizes that right-wing authoritarians outnumber left-wing ones by roughly three to one. Other researchers have concluded that the number of strident conservatives in the U.S. far exceeds the number of strident progressives and that American conservatives express more authoritarian attitudes than their counterparts in Britain, Australia, or Canada.

    That psychologists have been slow to acknowledge the existence of left-wing authoritarians at all is “puzzling,” Costello and his colleagues write. But here, I would argue, is where the pronounced leftward orientation of researchers in social psychology comes in. “Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years,” according to a comprehensive 2014 review. Universities have long tilted to the left, but that tendency has deepened as education has become ever more highly correlated with political ideology. Whatever its origin, this political imbalance makes truth-seeking harder. Studies have repeatedly shown that investigators’ sociopolitical views influence the questions they ask. What’s more, ideologically concordant reviewers are more likely to rate abstracts and papers highly if the findings comport with their own beliefs, all else being equal.

    Ideological blind spots can indeed affect researchers with a strongly conservative or merely right-of-center outlook, but there just aren’t enough of them to matter. If academic psychology had more viewpoint diversity, the political biases that distort researchers’ work would all counterbalance one another. In American universities today, those biases generally point in the same direction. In psychology, the belief that only conservatives can be authoritarians, and that therefore only conservative authoritarians warrant serious study, has proved self-reinforcing over the course of decades.

    As both left- and right-wing autocracies metastasize around the globe—a “pandemic of global authoritarianism” that has “persisted and deepened” over the past 15 years, in the words of the Stanford sociologist Larry Diamond—and as the speed of radicalization of recruits has hastened, the modest cadre of researchers interested in the subject will likely grow. By recasting left-wing authoritarianism in more specific terms—anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship, and anti-conventionalism—Costello and his colleagues offer other researchers and the general public a new vocabulary for discussing antidemocratic attitudes on that side of the political spectrum.

    The other virtue of the Costello team’s work is its status as a sobering demonstration of how social psychology’s dominant ideological orientation has constrained the scope of inquiry. “The dominant view of RWA as the ‘gold standard’ of authoritarianism writ large is not merely an influential theoretical framework or a historical quirk,” the authors write. “It limits the questions we ask as scientists [and] the types of theories we use to interpret our results.” For many years, what was perfectly obvious to many outside the field—that extremist mindsets exist on both ends of the political spectrum—was at best downplayed by the majority of social psychologists. An ideological monoculture within the discipline has damaged our collective understanding of political psychology—and, by extension, American politics.

    Sally Satel is a psychiatrist, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the co-author of Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience. She is a visiting professor at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 17 hours ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

    mainstream white nationalists LOVE Israel , part of the judeo-christian western identity. It's "us" vs "them" (Muslims/Arabs) who are threat to "us". 

    I think you're conflating White Nationalists with Chirstian Nationalists (who for the most part are white), which is understandable since the Venn Diagram of the two groups is almost a perfect circle. 

    But I think you're wrong about the Judeo-Christian kumbaya aspect.  Christian (white) Nationalists don't give a shit about the Jews as a people.  They need Israel to be a Jewish homeland for the rapture to occur.

    I mean the entire dogma is that Christianity is supreme and everyone else, including the Jews are going to Hell.

  20. 3 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

    Agreed.  I expect big things from Collins who if I recall correctly graded out pretty highly as the 3rd DT in the rotation.  The guy absolutely fucking obliterated more than few plays last year.

    I'm more concerned with Broughton if we're being honest.  I also didn't feel like the interior line was getting obliterated by our OL in the spring game.  The DB's were getting absolutely napalmed though.

    I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by Savea too.

×
×
  • Create New...