"On your deathbed, you won't wish that you spent more time working..."
Rewind the clock 12 hours from writing this, and I had just walked out of my office after bombing out in a business opportunity.
Feeling quite unpleasant, I made my way upstairs to refill my water bottle.
While filling the bottle, my second youngest boy blasts a song through the Bluetooth speakers.
In that moment, four of my five children sing loudly in unison a song by 21 Pilots as they all do their chores.
Three seconds later, with the biggest smile on my face, I joined in, and the thought crossed my mind...
"On your deathbed, you won't wish that you spent more time working...But I will think about moments like this."
I haven’t read the entirety of your reply but I want to respond to this:
“don't project, man. you say you have "little interest in sassy back and forths" but you literally replied to my post with "rage bait." lol. that's not disinterest. that's you taking a swing, missing, and then pretending you weren't trying.”
That wasn’t sass.
I replied “ragebait” for a few reasons.
1. The tone of your descriptions of Paul.
2. You saying I look like I bought the hype and was defending him to close your first reply.
3. Your choice to write/communicate as if you have inerrant knowledge of one’s motives, intentions, and thinking.(mine/Paul)
Speaking to them as you have in your replies with such confidence through this medium(text), is unwise, or at least makes it uncertain know whether you’re someone who sees a positive usefulness in back and forth with strangers or just want to spar and try to dunk on folks. Lol.
Based on all of this i leaned to the latter, as it’s common today and replied “ragebait.”
Nothing to do with swinging & missing, and trying to save face.
Swinging and missing is nothing to run from. I’d be fine with a stranger enlightening me on how I’ve done so.
I was the one who engaged first so that’s always a possibility.
I will now read the rest of your message.
quite the opposite. I just have little interest in sassy back and forths or irrelevant accusations.
you appear to have strong personal feeling towards what Paul does or how he does thing. I don’t. His opinions were not on the sport of MMA at large, but the ufc product, and him unwisely showing his cards in how he feels about Dana personally.
You are right that the ufc is not dying. He is wrong there. Their numbers refute that. That said his points on the White House are not invalid, regardless of how we might feel about his level of national pride, the promotional angle of Dana and UFC for the event is one of patriotism so a card that is weak in America representation or box office draws is a bad, or not smart idea.
The reach of the UFC has grown globally, but that does not mean the product has remained as strong in recent years, when Adesanya, Jones, Peiera, Islam, Khamzat aren’t fighting.
Again he’s wrong that it’s dying but he can have a critical position on the product, with his background being not one of MMA expert.
His opinion is valid because he is not talking about the sport; he is talking about the product/company that brings the sport to customers. His assessment is more on point than you may want to acknowledge, but he is not far off.
It's the same issue boxing still has, which allowed him to come in and find a strong position.
He does not have to be the MMA expert. He understands consumer behavior and market dynamics.
Just a thought to your point. The Christian faith has been the foundation of the western world as you and I more or less know it.
Law, Science, Education, Ethics, Philanthropy, Social Services, Art, Architecture, Music…even time keeping.
You and I exist in a Christian reality.