JJ Husker

Exactly, I couldn't see it last year and I can't see it this year. But, since it happened, logic indicates it could, and maybe even likely would, happen again. I'd feel better about our chances if the top 3 or 5 priorities weren't such a question mark. 1-QB play. Which Tommy will we see? 2-Defense. Have lost some key personnel and will Banker make some adjustments? 3- Line play. I think there are legitimate questions if our OL and DL's will be up to the task. If we don't control the LOS better, 7 wins may be the ceiling. 4- Establishing a run game and offensive play calling. Langs and Riley are saying the right things but I need to see them not constantly revert to being air happy, especially if it's the same old TA. 5- Clock management and logic defying bad luck. If they can address the 4 prior issues then this concern gets greatly mitigated. I hate to sound so pessimistic but it is reality until they prove otherwise on the field. However, I am very hopeful at least 2 of these issue see vast improvement and that may be all it takes to put a few more in the win column this year.

I don't feel like I can make an objective guess as to how we might do this year. My gut is saying probably 9-3 but I find myself arriving at that record in a very strange way. I think we win 1 of our 2 toughest games, Oregon or tOSU, but I also think we drop at least 1 we shouldn't. The optimist in me says we could go 10-2, the realist says 9-3 or 8-4, and the pessimist says we keep inventing ways to lose and it's once again 7-5 or worse. I've never been more disconnected from being confident in any feeling about how the Huskers might fare. Guess I'll just hope for the best and try to enjoy it.

I think things would have gone better. Frank knew and understood a tested system for success in Lincoln. Yes, he struggled recruiting and yes he failed to make staff adjustments in a timely manner but, I think he probably would've come around albeit a little slowly. Expectations at that time were much higher than they are now. We were fresh off that dominate 90's run. Heck, I was for getting rid of him the year before they did. I was not for getting rid of him when or how they did though. There would've been great benefit for the program to not experience the culture change and dismantling it experienced under Callahan and Pederson. Huge really. So I do believe things would've been better. Just not sure if better would've been enough though. Anything less than natty's and conference championships wouldn't have been enough in that time period. Unfortunately now they seem like a pipe dream. I forgot to mention, Frank was not nearly the offensive mastermind TO was. That may have been his biggest deficiency IMO. But that too I think he would've come around and fixed....eventually.

Pfffft fantasy. Everyone knows girls don't fart. Physical imposssibility.

This has been addressed before and may not fair well for the university. Here is an article that shared this picture with the caption below. Link Somebody tell me if I'm wrong but that ballon does not appear to be the same as the ones they typically sell at the stadium. It has a rather large, raised, puffy 'N' on it. Aren't the typical balloons a smaller, flat, smooth 'N'? Not that it matters for my opinion but it seems somebody is playing fast and loose with the facts. I'm glad the balloon release is impressive enough for somebody to think it could damage the environment but it clearly isn't, as TTRR has shown. It's not even a drop in the bucket on this planet compared to thousands of other things. A handful of typical kids birthday partys likely have more of an impact. This is just the creation of some over the top whackadoo.

Once it is.

Ahhh shucks, stop it, you guys had me at "more conservative". ;-) Seriously though, it is nice to see a discussion like this that doesn't devolve into personal attacks and a burning dumpster.

I don't believe a word of this without his actual name attached. Wait, wait a minute......actually I do believe every word of it. Problem is, it's not news to anyone who has been paying attention. Whether or not it was written by an actual congressman, we all know it's true.

....it was even remotely entertaining.

Well, I defaulted to the recipe I was more familiar with (the OP) this last go round but I am going to try Saunders version soon. Ended up giving away one of the butts and half the Carolina Gold sauce to a friend of ours whose wife just began chemo. Figured that would give them plenty of needed, easy meals for awhile. And I really enjoy smoking stuff anyway so that will just give me an opportunity to do it again sooner. Hope everyone that tries it likes it. I put in a bit more of everything except the mustard. Don't know if it was just my taste buds this time but it seemed a bit too mustardy. That's the good thing, you can easily adjust it to what you like. It also seems to get better as time passes.

You're ridiculous. That very well might be (at least the litter box comment) but I very seriously would like it explained to me how gender identity issues are significantly different than species identity issues. Truly and seriously, I'm not trolling this subject. You've called one ridiculous and you think the other needs special accommodations made for it. I personally don't think a person with species confusion thinks they are ridiculous. It is a very real thing, I actually knew a girl my daughter attended elementary school with who thought and claimed and at times acted like she was a fox (no, not the hot babe type of fox). It was awkward for the other kids and caused her to be somewhat of an outcast, subjected to ridicule, etc. A very real situation. On the otherhand, I do not know personally one transgender or person with a gender identity issue.So I really do want to know what is the difference between accommodating for this girls identity issues as opposed to someone with a gender identity issue? If you think it is really that ridiculous, then simply don't reply. I can't speak to species identity issues, as it's not something that I've heard about or am familiar with, my reaction was to the dramatic way you commented (which I think was your goal). If I had to wager I'm fairly sure that would fall into a mental diagnosis and I can imagine that to be a difficult situation for all involved. As far as accommodating, I'm sure that they didn't send this child outside to go to the bathroom or etc, but just like when any handicapped person (mental or physical) is in a school every effort is made to insure that that child is respected, given the resources they need and the teachers' difficult job is to make sure they are treated fairly - tough with school children I'm sure. The difference is that transgenderism is not a handicap. Just like being gay is not a handicap or being tall is not a handicap, or being from Iowa is not (or is it?) a handicap. I think if you read some of the articles by parents of children who are transgendered or watch documentaries or meet families who are involved you'd be surprised to hear how easily kids adapt to each other, and that the bigger problem with acceptance comes with the parents. Kids are not born biased or prejudiced or afraid of someone who is different. A 5 year old tells the other kid at the table he's a boy and that's that. (I'd be happy to recommend some reading/viewing material if you're interested.) I am not debating your philosophy on bathroom risk and etc. I think several days ago we agreed to disagree on that. Also I think (very rationally) you said a week or so ago and you mention here that exposure to different sorts of people is often a factor in ones opinion on issues such as this. I moved from Nebraska to the east coast more than 20 years ago, and I don't know that back then I would have been so open minded, or that I'd be spending time defending the normalcy of something that doesn't directly impact me in any way. But now I know, live and work with all sorts -the founder of my company is a transgender woman who transitioned very late in life, and I live near another transgender woman. I'm sure that the opportunity to get to know people, and to realize they're no different than me (or you) has allowed me to make a quicker move toward acceptance. I'm a firm believe that history repeats itself, and I see many parallels between race relations in the 60's and the gay rights struggles of the 90's. I also see similarities between transgender issues of today and both of those (as well as prejudice against jews in WW2 but that's another thread) ... and we should be learning from our past. People are people. Everybody deserves to be comfortable in their own skin - and should be respected and treated fairly. It's frustrating to me that we're not adapting more quickly to treating folks as they deserve to be treated. When it comes down to it people have made a mountain out of a mole hill with this issue (5 pages of debate here!). It's simply not something that is going to be a noticed problem - as you made mention above, transgendered women will use the women's room without issue regardless of how far they've gone surgically in their transition and it will be fine. People may notice if they don't wash their hands but they won't notice if they used to be a man. Thank you for the well thought out response. I think we may be back to where we left off earlier. It is clear that I have not had some of the exposure that you or some others in this thread have. To be completely honest, I feel that there is something a little "off" with both TG or TS people. I sure don't want them to be made uncomfortable or to be discriminated against and I would never do that myself. It may be my lack of familiarity with TG persons or my lack of understanding of what really causes some to really feel so out of place in their own skin. I guess I really do view at as more of a treatable disease or brain inbalance type situation than anything else. That may offend some people or expose some lack of knowledge on my part. I'm sorry if anyone finds it offensive, that is not my intent. I just can't get past the thought that these people are probably going to feel a little out of place no matter what society does to try a accomodate them. I really do think that most TG's who desire to use the opposite sex restrooms are for the most part the same ones who could do it today without anyone raising a stink. I may be completely wrong. I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around a TG person person that would not basically "look the part" feeling more comfortable in the room intended for those who look opposite of them. I'm sure they exist but believe that would be a very miniscule number of them. It sure isn't my job to dictate to anyone what does or doesn't make them most comfortable. But I also think, since some people are going to feel uncomfortable about it either way, that society should strive to make the largest number of people comfortable as possible, considering everyone is equally worthy of that. I guess that is why I default to the status quo and catering to the clear lopsided majority on an issue like this. It's not that I want any one group to feel put out but rather I feel it does the least amount of damage for the most possible. Maybe that's a bassackward way to approach it, IDK. And I do think much of the support for these types of "acceptance" issues is driven more by a popular trend (PC if you will) type of thinking than what I feel is a more logical, straightforward common sense approach. In a couple more years when my daughter is out of high school, I really won't have a dog in the fight and it likely won't seem like near as big of an issue to me personally. Anyway, that's how I feel about it, right or wrong. Thanks for remaining cordial.

You're ridiculous. I think that is the point Sorry, but that is not the point. See my reply to NM. I truly don't get that there is much difference except that the species thing would seem to be even rarer than the gender thing, even though my personal experience is opposite of that.

You're ridiculous. That very well might be (at least the litter box comment) but I very seriously would like it explained to me how gender identity issues are significantly different than species identity issues. Truly and seriously, I'm not trolling this subject. You've called one ridiculous and you think the other needs special accommodations made for it. I personally don't think a person with species confusion thinks they are ridiculous. It is a very real thing, I actually knew a girl my daughter attended elementary school with who thought and claimed and at times acted like she was a fox (no, not the hot babe type of fox). It was awkward for the other kids and caused her to be somewhat of an outcast, subjected to ridicule, etc. A very real situation. On the otherhand, I do not know personally one transgender or person with a gender identity issue. So I really do want to know what is the difference between accommodating for this girls identity issues as opposed to someone with a gender identity issue? If you think it is really that ridiculous, then simply don't reply. Edit- I wanted to add that I really did feel sorry for this little girl. She was cute as a button. She was in the same class as my daughter 2 or 3 times over the course of K thru Grade 5, but she did attend the same school for all 6 years I believe. They had 3 to 4 classrooms for every age. So, I did see her often and heard many stories of some of her fox like actions. Like I said, my reaction was that I felt sorry for her. We lost track of her when she and my daughter went separate ways to different middle schools.

I don't think these two sentences honestly match up, and it seems like you're trying to catch me in some kind of inconsistency or "gotcha" moment. It makes sense to me why it's not the same thing, and it seems to make sense to you as well. The only "gotcha" to it is in previous posts you were not concerned in the least about any possible additional dangers of the Target issue but, when schools were mentioned, you logically called it "overreaching and dangerous". I have merely said it was "more" of a problem in schools and showed that the exact same people would be free to use facilities in both locations. So, I guess I'll ask the question; Do you feel it is or isn't dangerous and I'll advised in Target stores as well as schools?It really isn't meant as a "gotcha" so much as it is intended to figure out why you seem to be applying a dual standard to the same issue. We both know hormone laden teen boys will abuse it in schools. As far as "danger" of actual sexual assaults etc., I'm not sure there is any difference between the 2 locations. I do know my daughter sure was a lot more concerned about what it means for schools than she was about Target. Age being the issue is just a copout. BTW, her school would seem to have a way above average number of trans, gays, and generally "odd" kids and parents. This WILL affect her, if for no other reason, I am sure she will never use the facilities at her school because of it. Is that how we address things in this country now? Put out the 99% for the 1%. Doesn't seem right to me. It seems that you are recognizing an inconsistency in your positions. So yeah, I'm a little curious if you'll squirm like those college students in the 2 videos or if you'll acknowledge that maybe it isn't the best of an idea anywhere. What are you going on about? There is a double standard in my positions, yes. Because the entire public vs. specifically high school students demand different standards. You understand this, because you have said it is more of a problem in schools. I agree with you. But then you say there's no difference between the two locations. Which one is it? Do I feel it is dangerous in Target? No. At least not any more dangerous than previously. Do I feel it is dangerous in high schools, knowing what high school boys are like, and understanding that pubescent brains are not fully developed and have a lot of really intense experiences floating through them that adults don't have, hence the "double standard"? Yes. At least more dangerous than at Target. For the record I don't think it's dangerous to the extent of increases in rape and assault. I think it's dangerous to the extent of high school boys having just that much more loophole leeway to be perverts and demean women. Fair enough, we just seem to disagree on the opportunity hazard present in both locations. We both know it will be a problem in schools and I think it will present increased risk also in the general public while you do not. Considering all persons can and do use the facilities in both locations, I simply feel my position is a little more consistent than yours is. No biggie.

Is anyone going to address the trans species issue? I know why it is being avoided but I want someone who supports this lunacy to explain to me how it is really any different. How many years before Target installs litter boxes in the facilities for their customer's identity comfort?

Zoogs- You're not addressing the real issues. You are pretending the problem is forcing trans to use facilities they may feel uncomfortable in. This helps direct the issue away from the real problems of A) middle school and teenage boys abusing the ability to gain access to girls restrrooms and locker rooms (which we both know will happen) and B) sexual perverts and peepers abusing the now easier ability to gain access to women's facilities. Yes, sexual assaults etc. are a crime now and they still would be. Non-issue. The problem is opportunity. Now people who are so inclined will not be out of place in the opposite sex restrooms. Officials hands will be somewhat tied as to dealing with any complaints that may arise before a serious problem occurs. Joe Pervert can simply claim he is transgender and claim harassment if his actions or motives are questioned in the least. Jimmy Schoolboy can claim he is transgender or that he just didn't fully understand the new rules. Not to mention that it will make the vast majority of women (based on those I've talked to that could be all women) uncomfortable and cause them to alter what is "comfortable" for them. There are likely some people that are concerned about what actual trans people may do with this but I'm not one of them. I figure if a transgender male (male biologically but female by identity choice) is really concerned about which toilet facilities they use, there is a very high probability that they are also dressing and acting like a woman. So go ahead and use the ladies room. Same for the opposite situation. I can't see where anyone would harass them or raise a stink with the unwritten rules that have historically been in place. However, if a man, who looks, dresses and acts like a man wants to claim he is actually trans and wants to use the women's room, I don't think it's out of line for society to expect him to commit more to his chosen identity before an open invitation is issued for him to do whatever makes him comfortable. Basically, my position is leave it alone and it probably works out for the best with very low incidence of problems. Don't ban trans from certain restrooms and don't invite everyone to do as they please. Let it remain out of place for a man (with an outwardly manly appearance) or a woman (with an outwardly female appearance) to be in the wrong restroom. Really, how put out could they be if they won't even commit to the outward appearance identity. I would truly wonder about a man who says he feels more comfortable in the ladies room but we're also supposed to believe it is just too uncomfortable for him to act/look like a woman. Could there still be a few problems or issues? Sure, there always will be, but the number would pale in comparison to what is currently being proposed. I sure wouldn't say a word to someone I thought to really be female but who looked and acted like a man. I really do not see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water, or maybe better...... throwing common sense out the window.

Whatever YOU'RE comfortable with would seem to be the answer du jour. It sure doesn't matter what society as a whole is comfortable with anymore. Oh, and welcome to the club.

I don't think these two sentences honestly match up, and it seems like you're trying to catch me in some kind of inconsistency or "gotcha" moment. It makes sense to me why it's not the same thing, and it seems to make sense to you as well. The only "gotcha" to it is in previous posts you were not concerned in the least about any possible additional dangers of the Target issue but, when schools were mentioned, you logically called it "overreaching and dangerous". I have merely said it was "more" of a problem in schools and showed that the exact same people would be free to use facilities in both locations. So, I guess I'll ask the question; Do you feel it is or isn't dangerous and I'll advised in Target stores as well as schools? It really isn't meant as a "gotcha" so much as it is intended to figure out why you seem to be applying a dual standard to the same issue. We both know hormone laden teen boys will abuse it in schools. As far as "danger" of actual sexual assaults etc., I'm not sure there is any difference between the 2 locations. I do know my daughter sure was a lot more concerned about what it means for schools than she was about Target. Age being the issue is just a copout. BTW, her school would seem to have a way above average number of trans, gays, and generally "odd" kids and parents. This WILL affect her, if for no other reason, I am sure she will never use the facilities at her school because of it. Is that how we address things in this country now? Put out the 99% for the 1%. Doesn't seem right to me. It seems that you are recognizing an inconsistency in your positions. So yeah, I'm a little curious if you'll squirm like those college students in the 2 videos or if you'll acknowledge that maybe it isn't the best of an idea anywhere.

I'm not too concerned if PC is the correct name for stuff like this but the first part of this sentence piqued my interest. If a policy like this is good and acceptable for the general public, how does it become overreaching and dangerous in our schools? Surely it's either good or bad for all restroom and locker room locations? Please explain why it was good enough for a Target restroom but a dangerous thing in a high school restroom or locker room. Why is there a drinking age? Age of consent? Is there an age limit or age requirement to use restrooms at Target or in schools? I'm 53 and have used the facilities in both places numerous times, as has my daughter who is 16. Any age can use either facility. I'm not following the logic on age being an issue. However, I will agree that it is a more dangerous and idiotic proposition in our schools than it is at a place like Target.

I know you are trying to be funny, and it actually was a successful attempt. However, this is legitimately the dumbest most profound "decree" I've ever heard. I was actually starting to think it'd be a good thing if Obama was elected for a third term. After this, he's back in the dumpster, never to be revisited again.I couldn't remotely tell you the year, I want to say it was in the early 90s, before the Championship run, that this very situation happened. The women's bathrooms used to be about the same size or smaller than the men's, and since they use stalls (and not troughs), the number of potties available was much smaller. North stadium, a bunch of women got fed up with their line and took over a men's bathroom before a game. If I recall, nobody complained, the guys understood, and it was part of the reason that they greatly expanded the women's restrooms during all the remodeling of the Stadium in subsequent years. In that situation and under those conditions, that is completely understandable. I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. The stadium is/was notorious for not having enough facilities. That wouldn't bother me anyplace that it's obvious people need to take care of their business. But, as you know, that is a much different situation than an open invitation under normal conditions or the special concerns inherent in a middle school or high school. I'm not directing this at you but rather just being proactive for those that would use this common sense example to support a more far reaching policy. Unfortunately, I felt this disclaimer was necessary.

I'm not too concerned if PC is the correct name for stuff like this but the first part of this sentence piqued my interest. If a policy like this is good and acceptable for the general public, how does it become overreaching and dangerous in our schools? Surely it's either good or bad for all restroom and locker room locations? Please explain why it was good enough for a Target restroom but a dangerous thing in a high school restroom or locker room.

Why does it have to be left vs right? Why can't simple common sense win anymore?

Holy sh#t Batman. I am laughing my ass off at some of those responses to the simplest of questions. Who was responsible for teaching these kids? They failed miserably. My daughter is strongly considering college in Seattle....might have to put my foot down if any of that is a possible result of the education they are offering in the state of Washington. Where did we go wrong? There has to be clear point of demarcation from reality in our past that can be pinpointed. Or has it really just been a gentle slide away from sanity?

Wow! Just wow. Look what we have to look forward to when those "educated" students start running things. They can't even tell a 5'-9" white guy that he is not a 6'-5" Chinese woman. I found it funny how they basically didn't blink an eye when he told them he was a woman but then noticeably began to squirm when he said he was Chinese and then they wanted to draw the line at the height claim but wouldn't because it would expose the idiocy of their prior "accepting" behavior. I attempted to make this same point earlier in the thread but the video did a much better job of it.

I pretty much agree with this but, what I don't understand is how or why a boy who likes pink and dolls or a girl who likes blue and trucks needs to be allowed and accepted, based on their feelings, in public restrooms that are segregated according to biological sex. The more I think about it, I am really struggling with why a person's self proclaimed "gender feeling" is a protected status while their biological sex is ignored. A couple examples; The most obvious example we have in this country would be the discrimination black people have suffered. But they ARE black. It is a fact and objectively true. It is not based on how they feel about it today or tomorrow or yesterday. It can be proven. It's reasonable that race can be protected class status. Another protected status, handicapped. That has nothing to do with how the person "feels". It is simply a scientific fact of their being. Shouldn't protected class status be based on biological or scientifically provable conditions and not on opinions and feelings and currently popular ideas? Seems like that just opens the door for any crazy claim. If a boy claims he is really a girl and society has to adjust for it, where does it stop? With the girl who claims she is really a cat? With the 70 year old man who claims he is a rock? Why is the claim of a human being a rock any less deserving of consideration?