Excel

7. I assume that means Ohio St, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Michigan. So no way on Ohio St, I would say Wisconsin is debatable, Nebraska definitely is down as well as Michigan.

I think they meant Penn State. Wisconsin is in that solid second tier with Michigan State.

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, It’s Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren’t Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

Lame. I want Soldier Field.

I think that tattwoing a sin. Polluting the temple and whatnot.

I said I would never comment in Husker Football again but I'm going to break that so I can share this:

List Deslided.

Just take a slideshow's URL, put it in this page http://deslide.clusterfake.net/ and it will spit out a single easy to read page.

 

 

 

 

fyi, every quoted post has a link to the original thread. just click the little swoosh arrow in the top right of the arrow and it will take you to the original content.

 

Very cool, I obviously never knew that. :

 

Arent there a lot of things you dont know?

 

#boomroasted

#majorburn

#quotethis

 

 

Dang you got me.

 

Sorry i was so harsh....

 

You're perfect just the way you are.

 

 

fyi, every quoted post has a link to the original thread. just click the little swoosh arrow in the top right of the arrow and it will take you to the original content.

 

Very cool, I obviously never knew that. :

 

Arent there a lot of things you dont know?

 

#boomroasted

#majorburn

#quotethis

 

Dang you got me.

Not by choice really, I just occasionally turn him on to see what he's spouting off about. Only really get three non-music stations where I live. A KC sports station, an NPR station that plays classical music for all but five hours a day and a right-wing talk station that carries Rush. When NPR and the sports station have nothing I turn the talk station on.

I have not paid as much attention to this as I probably. I'm just got annoyed by the story after I heard Rush Limbaugh digging into General Shinseki...I mean really digging into him and talking crap about him past the just the VA scandal bit.

Rush digging into Shinseki when he himself got out of Vietnam for ingrown hairs on his butt really tweaked me.

 

I used to believe in God (the Christian God) for a long time. I doubted for a long time, and finally I stopped ignoring those doubts in a knee-jerk fashion and explored them - really explored what I believed and why. It became clear that the reason I was Christian was that my parents were Christian, I was taken to Christian church my whole life, and I'd never had any real experiences with any other religions. I had never spent a year in a mosque, or a temple, or giving any other religion more than a cursory glance (reading their texts, talking to a few believers, etc).

 

When I stopped simply believing what I was told and truly thought about these stories, I couldn't believe them anymore. Funny thing - the clincher was a two-year cover-to-cover study of the Bible. I'd read this or that book, chapters and verses galore, but never the whole thing in an exhaustive study. Once I did, it was over for me.

 

 

 

I've talked about the House & the Shed analogy before here. My epiphany came to me as I stood on my deck, looking at my shed. It was dirty and needed to be cleaned out, mostly from mouse debris but I had some spilt bags of sand, tons of dirt, the usual stuff. It was a nasty, smelly mess. So bad that I never wanted to go in there.

 

As I stood there looking at that stupid shed, it occurred to me that I wouldn't even let a child of mine go in there in that condition. And then it dawned on me that the Bible story, as we're told it, teaches that God, who has the power to do anything, makes me live in that shed. He could very easily pull me out of it, give me a room in the house and let me live there instead of living in squalor, but he doesn't.

 

If I wouldn't let my own children go into that shed, why would the all-powerful God of the Universe let his? I decided to stop ignoring my doubts right there. It was clearly a story made up by the church to control people. No actual factual God as described in the Bible would allow children he loves to suffer this way.

 

The stories the Bible tells us, the stories the church tells us, are very clearly made up after the fact to explain what already is, to try and put some kind of explanation on things. There are 1,000 reasons why this would happen - control, power, influence, all the basic human character flaws, ignorance, fear of the reality of life, bap bap bap. The list is as long as man's journey through time.

 

The process took years. I was taught that God was real and that the Bible was true, I even taught that myself as a church leader. But it's clear to me that it's not true, and I feel much happier now, like a weight has lifted off my shoulders.

Ok Knapp,

 

Here is a question that has always perplexed me. Since it is so clear to you that these stories are made up etc.

 

Why do devout Athiests convert to a belief in God after exploring scientific explanation of things etc.

 

Clearly there are conversions that go both ways. Why? (Please excuse any perceived "negative" tone, it was just a question)

 

Not to be a jerk or anything but I don't think "devout" and "atheist" go together all that well.

I was raised as a Lutheran and grew up believing in a christian God and all that comes with him.

Then I started reading about the history of religion - both Christianity and religious belief in general - took a few courses in comparitive religious studies, got out of my box a little bit and read a few sites on the internet, rationalwiki being the biggest one, and started to really assess my beliefs. Today I would probably describe myself as a Deist because I believe that there is a creator but certainly not an involved or benevolent one. I have experienced nothing in my life that would lead me to believe that the creator is currently active or cares at all about me, you or anyone.

My clinging to a belief in a creator is probably a bit out of nostalgia and also because there are two gaps that I can't explain (origin of life & origin of the universe), I know that religion and science have their own competing answers or theories for those things but I remain undecided.

My views on Jesus are pretty similar to Thomas Jefferson's. I think he existed, I think he was a great teacher and a wise man who lived a life worthy of some emulation but I do not believe that he performed miracles, was divine or is worthy of worship. Study? Definitely. Worship? No.

I agree with Walks as usual.

 

 

I supported the Iraq war

 

 

It would be interesting to see how Iraq would have been different without outside influences like Iran.

 

 

 

Is there a reason you chopped up my post to leave out what I said?

 

Obviously so I could post that smiley.

I supported the Iraq war

 

 

It would be interesting to see how Iraq would have been different without outside influences like Iran.

 

 

 

For me personally, one country had people in it that attacked us...the other one didn't. At least that's a good start.

 

As of today, and as the article states, the majority of Afghan people want us there helping them. I don't think that is the case with Iraq.

 

"Majority of Afghan people?" meh. That's tricky, so so tricky. Josh Shahryar, an American based journalist, is claiming this based on election results. An election that one in six Afghans showed up for and his interpretation of those results. Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik with stronger ties to the West and a history with the Northern Alliance recieved the most votes (45%) in the first round so I guess Shahryar is taking that as popular support for "us there helping them."

 

So Abdullah won 45% of the votes in an election in which roughly 16% of Afghans voted...and we're even going out on a limb assuming that a vote for Abdullah = support for continued US presence but making that assumption and running some crappy math we get just under 8% of Afghans supporting "us there helping them".

 

The things is, the south eastern provinces where the Taliban has its base, Kandahar, Helmand and the like - had very very low turnout. 5% of Kandahar. 3% of Helmand, 3% of Zabul, 3% of Urozgan.

 

Compare those numbers to the north with Balkh province (Mazar-e-Sharif) and Takhar province at around 30% and Kondoz at 59% turnout.

 

So really, what Shahryar means to say is that some literate and cosmopolitan Afghans, especially non-Pashtuns and those from northern Afghanistan seem to support a candidate who may be receptive to a deal that may provide for a limited American presence in the future. Well no sh#t Sherlock. Those people have always liked us...ok...liked us more than their southern Pashtun neighbors. They were never the "bad guys".

 

The election was by no means a strong endorsement of OEF-as usual.

 

 

Those are all good points. But the places that have a strong taliban presence. Probably didn't vote because of the taliban presence. So unless we go in and get rid of the taliban presence. No way to really say if they are in support of us or not. But the current evidence shows they either don't support us or are afraid to.

 

They probably didn't vote for the same reason they don't join the ANA/ANP and for the same reason many of them support the Taliban and similar groups. They're Pashtuns who see the Kabul government as a bunch of religiously lost and morally/economically corrupt Northern non-Pashtuns propped up by an army of Westerners. They don't view the elections or the government as legitimate. Couple that with illiteracy and their unfamiliarity with the democractic process and you get low turnout.

I think that the Taliban is as much a Pashtun-nationalist group as it is a religious "insurgent" group and that the chance of a bunch of Americans and Brits rolling into Kandahar and "ridding" the local Pashtuns of the Taliban is right around 0% and an Army of Tajiks doing it is only slightly better.

For me personally, one country had people in it that attacked us...the other one didn't. At least that's a good start.

 

As of today, and as the article states, the majority of Afghan people want us there helping them. I don't think that is the case with Iraq.

"Majority of Afghan people?" meh. That's tricky, so so tricky. Josh Shahryar, an American based journalist, is claiming this based on election results. An election that one in six Afghans showed up for and his interpretation of those results. Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik with stronger ties to the West and a history with the Northern Alliance recieved the most votes (45%) in the first round so I guess Shahryar is taking that as popular support for "us there helping them."

So Abdullah won 45% of the votes in an election in which roughly 16% of Afghans voted...and we're even going out on a limb assuming that a vote for Abdullah = support for continued US presence but making that assumption and running some crappy math we get just under 8% of Afghans supporting "us there helping them".

The things is, the south eastern provinces where the Taliban has its base, Kandahar, Helmand and the like - had very very low turnout. 5% of Kandahar. 3% of Helmand, 3% of Zabul, 3% of Urozgan.

Compare those numbers to the north with Balkh province (Mazar-e-Sharif) and Takhar province at around 30% and Kondoz at 59% turnout.

So really, what Shahryar means to say is that some literate and cosmopolitan Afghans, especially non-Pashtuns and those from northern Afghanistan seem to support a candidate who may be receptive to a deal that may provide for a limited American presence in the future. Well no sh#t Sherlock. Those people have always liked us...ok...liked us more than their southern Pashtun neighbors. They were never the "bad guys".

The election was by no means a strong endorsement of OEF-as usual.

The categorical imperative drives my morality. It's the golden rule on steroids.

What the heck has Michigan shown to warrant an eighteen? Maryland and Indiana above Northwestern and Nebraska?

This list is confusing.

Did you try them?

fyi, every quoted post has a link to the original thread. just click the little swoosh arrow in the top right of the arrow and it will take you to the original content.

Very cool, I obviously never knew that. :

This is why we can't have nice things.

In this thread let's share links to great posts we see on Huskerboard, preferably to original high-effort content from less frequent posters to give them some love.

Example of what to do:

1. Find a post you like

2. Click the number (red circle in picture) in the upper right corner of the post, the page should reload.

3. Copy the URL of the reloaded page. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/70232-possible-wr-transfer/&do=findComment&comment=1366823

4. Quote the post and paste the quote and URL in this thread.

LINK

Just an idea but I think this could be a good thing and might improve the board. Spread some positivity and whatnot.

Speaking of exclusivity, when do we get our members only HB jackets?

They mailed them out to everyone last month, said anyone who didn't recieve one would eventually be perma-banned. Did you not get yours?

 

I can only talk about what I have seen in various places, especially in the South, that I have lived. They are my own experiences and my own interpretation of them so I don't want to hear a bunch of s$*t...but what I'm talking about are the super-restrictive dress codes at bars, the members-only clubs and billiards lounges, the massive networks of private schools founded post-brown v. board, the public transportation systems that end just outside of white neighborhoods, white neighborhoods that are kept white with gates and housing authorities and even some things I've seen with police. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal but the de facto segregation and discrimination that exists in this country, at least in the South, is very real.

 

 

Was just going to comment about the south. I worked in Mobile for the last year, and they have "members only" bars. There is no way to become a member, you just walk in, if your the right person you are in.

 

Yep same with me, I learned that "members-only" was a code word for White when I lived in SC. Same thing with schools there. There are the public schools where black families send their kids and then tons of moderately priced private schools founded in the 1960's where the white families that can afford it send their kids. It's not like the Midwest where almost if not all of the private schools are Catholic, nah these are I-don't-want-my-kids-to-be-in-school-with-black-people type private schools.

I can remember a year or two ago on CNN they were discussing that someone started a college scholarship for poor white men. Some people in the black community were upset that a scholarship like this was being accepted. I don't know what the big deal about it is but they were pretty upset.

That scholarship has existed for years, it's called the GI bill. baaazing.

and I'm banned.