JJ Husker

Because there does not appear to be any desire for this staff to change or adjust what they want to do on offense. We've seen Langsdorf's play calling.......it isn't going to change. It is always going to default to pass first. May as well learn to get used to it.

Is there a trick to being able to see the updated results? I still only see the results from round one and most people show 9 teams left....

I don't think this is accurate to say. At a certain point a baby is developed enough that it can be born, or close to it; few abortions happen at that point and I think the consensus for broad restrictions (with few exceptions) is relatively strong in late trimester cases. This is demonstrably not true in the early portion of a pregnancy. What would be required is for the woman to commit her body and herself to going through the full term of pregnancy. Most pregnancies are either desired or close enough. Some of them are strongly not desired, whether there are crushing constraints of circumstance or whether it's simply the desire to not become a parent. In those cases, I believe a woman should get to do what she wants with her body: go through with the whole process, or not. Does the man get to have input? Good question, and not one I've really explored. I would lean towards no. As gestation of a fertilized egg to a human baby ready to be born is carried out in a woman's body, I'd say it's up to her what to do with it. Men have plenty of input, though (clearly! ) -- they choose whether or not to get on the same page with their partner beforehand, given the clearly latent potential of an unintended pregnancy. So, yeah, a man who wants to have a child is going to need a partner willing to go through the process. Interesting that you chose to chop off the next 3 sentences of my quote and then act like they weren't there and never existed in your response. I would say it is highly accurate to say that most fetus' that aren't aborted will be born healthy. You are the one who mentioned when it is a "viable baby". I simply was trying to point out that some people have vastly different concepts of what they consider viable. I think going with the point in time that the baby can survive on it's own outside the mother is probably a bit aggressive in setting your "no kill" date. I'm going to leave this discussion (because I really am not enjoying it) with some parting thoughts. When does that babies right to live supersede the mother's desire to not complicate her life? Which one of those two is the most innocent and the most in need of an advocate? I guess since I believe in a higher power that maybe I naturally take more things into consideration than only if the mother may determine it is too much of a hardship. If you're going to put so much emphasis on it being her body and her choice, maybe you could put the same amount of emphasis in her choosing to be more responsible with not becoming pregnant. I understand there are some honest accidents. But I also know, by the disgustingly large numbers of abortions in this country and by the cavalier attitude of people like Martha Plimpton, that many many people just don't give a sh#t about ending a life and never giving it a chance. Those aren't the people I want to align myself with. They for sure aren't the people I would want as my mother.

The issue, as I see it, is; there is a huge overlap of it being a viable baby and still part of the woman's body, around nine months worth. The last time I checked, the vast majority of babies are born healthy if they are not aborted. For me, that makes virtually all fetus' viable babies. I mean if you keep the sharp tools and vacuum machines away, wouldn't most all of them be viable? Do you have some other criteria that you rely upon to determine when they are viable? Or, as long as it is still connected to the mother's body, does that make it not viable and therefore subject only to the whims of the mother? It also raises the question, when, if ever, are the desires of the father considered? It takes a man and a woman to conceive that other life, then for nine months, the mother can do as she wishes with no one else allowed any input but, once the baby is born, then the man can have input again? Something about that arrangement doesn't seem quite right.

...and then invoke 'God'. That's not God, that's you.@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\ You're right zoogs. That was not very Christian of me. I am a sinner, a flawed human being, and a hypocrite at times. I need to be better. However, I do find it a little amusing that my comments (mere words) about her cause you more concern than a person who would end a human life or prevent the most innocent among us from ever being born and having the opportunities that you and I take for granted. Killing another life is okay but using harsh language crosses the line. Is that how it works without God?

Yeah, that seems a lot easier to accomplish than having any expectation that people who don't want to get pregnant should make a reasonable attempt to not get pregnant. And we sure wouldn't want to point out that adoption is an alternative to killing a living fetus. We can just act like the whole problem stems from people who feel abortion is wrong and has nothing to do with other people not being proactive about not becoming pregnant. I guess we're just lucky our mothers didn't deem us too much of a hassle in their lives. Try imagining that for 5 seconds. How would you feel if you had been aborted? Oh wait, you can't answer what that would be like because you were never born. Ssshh. Zip it. Only the living people who weren't killed in the womb get to have input on this. Wonder where mankind would be if this great thing known as abortion were more widespread. If a little is so good, maybe a lot would be better. What? No rant about Martha? You're diversifying yourself. Bravo! : What? "killing a living fetus"? Don't you mean murdering a baby? You're becoming more rational. Bravo! : What about zygotes and embryos? Don't they have a voice? Who speaks for them? So you've gone from shaming certain women to objectifying all them. They are predetermined to be incubators. That's their job, right? That's what they were born to do. That's what they were bred to do. It's their destiny. Are you so naive to think pregnancy is just a matter of carrying the baby to term, then pop it out, and only then comes the real decision: keep it or give it away? You do know there are a multitude of additional health risks involved, physical and mental, that are associated with pregnancy, right? Even subtle ones like breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? You knew that, right? Oh well, it's not the man whose body is being disfigured and life put at risk, so who the hell cares, right? A woman's duty is to make babies. You've got some problems dude. Good luck with that thing you do.....run wild with your own thoughts without really considering what somebody else may be saying. If you got anything else for me, see me in the shed because I'm done being civil with you. There is nothing left that I can say to you in the regular forums.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

Pastrami. I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, but yeah, that's pretty close. Without the peppercorns anyway.

Zoogs, do you believe in God? Do you believe in an all powerful being that makes life possible? Just curious.

Yeah, that seems a lot easier to accomplish than having any expectation that people who don't want to get pregnant should make a reasonable attempt to not get pregnant. And we sure wouldn't want to point out that adoption is an alternative to killing a living fetus. We can just act like the whole problem stems from people who feel abortion is wrong and has nothing to do with other people not being proactive about not becoming pregnant. I guess we're just lucky our mothers didn't deem us too much of a hassle in their lives. Try imagining that for 5 seconds. How would you feel if you had been aborted? Oh wait, you can't answer what that would be like because you were never born. Ssshh. Zip it. Only the living people who weren't killed in the womb get to have input on this. Wonder where mankind would be if this great thing known as abortion were more widespread. If a little is so good, maybe a lot would be better.

A good way to prepare your corned beef brisket is to smoke it. Apparently not a lot of people do it that way but it is awesome.

That's why I went with Virginia. I really think KU or NC will go further but everybody picked them. Thought I'd try something different. It'll either pay off or it won't .......

IDK, I've seen a couple volleyball coaches take a team of very good players and absolutely make them suck by having the wrong players in the wrong positions, bad lineup rotation, stupid systems, etc. I guess I've just never seen a baseball coach screw stuff up as bad as I have in volleyball. But yeah, for high school sports, I'm thinking golf and CC has to be the easiest.

Lol, coaching volleyball is NOT harder to coach than baseball or wrestling.Uh, yes it is. I have coached baseball, softball, hockey, and basketball, and I have been extremely familiar with volleyball for 10 years of my daughter playing competitive club and school vball. Volleyball is definitely tougher to coach than baseball, and I would imagine tougher than wrestling also. It looks easy when a team is well coached and knows what they're doing but looks can be deceiving. Also, athletes can somewhat overcome bad coaching in baseball but not in volleyball.

I feel....old I guess. Not familiar with many of these. Actually only 2, Beer Pong and A$$hole (which I assume is the same as Presidents and a-holes). A$$hole is definitely my favorite and the only one I have played in the last 20 years.

#1 Virginia #2 Michigan State #4 Kentucky #5 Maryland #6 Texas #11 Wichita State #11 Michigan #13 Iona #14 S.F. Austin

Woah. A woman who has made a 'good faith' effort to prevent a pregnancy but had one anyway, since an abortion in those circumstances is OK in your books -- what degree of shame and self-loathing should she subject herself to in order to stem this tidal of hatred? Should her choice to not become a mother be affirmed and respected as a woman's agency over her own body and reproduction, or ought she live the rest of her joyless days as Arthur Dimmesdale, self-flagellating by night and a scarlet letter emblazoned upon her soul? Is it that wrong for her to protest the stigma (demonstrated so ably here) of a fairly regular women's health choice? My opinion of her and my comments on her particular situation stem solely from the article linked in the OP, the article you linked of her own words, and my personal feelings on the matter. It's quite possible that you are giving her much more benefit of the doubt than I am. I just really was not impressed with her attitude or rationale concerning abortions. She seems pretty cavalier and pretty much open to any reason under the sun being acceptable to terminate another life. I'm not convinced she made such good faith efforts....twice even. I believe the extent of what she is saying is, she wasn't ready to have children with her sex partners at the time soshe chose abortion. That really doesn't indicate what kind of effort she put into to avoiding the necessity of an abortion. Based on her overall views, I'm doubting she gave two sh#ts about ending those other lives. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Funny.....most of my comments were specifically about her and her abortions. Interesting that you apparently couldn't figure that out and now claim it is all about some bigger issue. Maybe try considering what it is exactly a person is saying before becoming argumentative and dillusional. BTW- I didn't do sh#t with the quote function. I know how it works. I simply responded, at the end, after all of the quotes, and that is how the HB system mangled it. So you can stick your condescending snicker up your ass. And, since I know you'll have trouble here again....I'm not mad or angry. Just being extremely blunt since you seem to have such trouble with comprehension. Good day.

We agree to disagree on this as well. I don't feel a million two week old fetuses are equal to a three month old but that is just my opinion. I don't have a problem with that. There is plenty of room for disagreement on some of the details.

No need to get angry, all you had to do was admit that you knew very little about the details of someone's situation before you passed judgement. Thank you for proving me right. So you didn't read the article. Gotcha. What makes you think I didn't read it, and how would that disprove that you freely admitted that you knew very little about someone's situation before you judged them? You are absolutely right. I mean how could I possibly begin to form an opinion about her feelings on abortion, women's reproductive rights, and specifically her reasons for getting an abortion unless I were to be privy to some of her very personal thoughts, words, and beliefs on such matters? Oh, wait a minute. Snap. If I recall correctly, I read about 20 some paragraphs of her personal writings on such things. And I believe I encouraged you to also read it but you were apparently dead red set on claiming I knew very little about her situation. Funny, but awkward, huh? Oh, wait a minute. Snap. If I recall correctly, it was zoogs that posted that article that detailed her advocacy, not you. You hadn't read that before your first post full of assumptions and shaming. It seems all your initial info was only from the OP which only said she'd had a couple abortions when she was younger. Even after zoog's article was posted you and others still implied and shamed her for being irresponsible, when neither article details what efforts she did or didn't take to not get pregnant. Funny, but awkward, huh? Again, you're assuming I didn't read the article that zoogs posted, and you seem to don't remember your posts BEFORE zoogs posted that article, thus your posts are once again terribly misinformed and misleading. You like to form opinions about people based on very little information? Maybe you should try that on yourself. In your very first post in this thread, you said, "I'm sure not going to get anybody's face and try to make them feel bad for some choices they have made but,"[/size] Yet that's exactly what you did when you shamed zoogs for his beliefs, by saying he condones "murder". And you do plenty of shaming in subsequent posts. What is somebody called when they say they won't do something, but then they go ahead and do it, multiple times even? You also referenced her "selfish" abortion dress. I"ll admit my reaction to the dress and her methods did not sit well with me, but if you had read and comprehended her blog and you would understand that her advocacy is not about being "selfish". She is speaking out for others. A little effort and knowledge can go a long ways. Try it next time. And try it without losing your temper and using profanities -- that is very telling about you as well. I have not lost my temper at all. However I do get frustrated with people who seem to read one thing yet comprehend only what they wish it all meant. Please show me where "I got in her face" or "tried to make her feel bad". You claim I have shamed her and others. Where? You are misconstruing my opinion with some outward actions that haven't taken place. If you don't want to know or understand my opinion on this issue, you probably should quit reading what I write. But, in the absence of that, the least you could do is to refrain from claiming I am doing things that just really aren't happening anywhere other than between your ears. A couple of her statements on the issue.... "One in three women in the United States has had or will have an abortion in her lifetime. It is one of the most common realities of women’s lives. Abortion is more than a choice, and it shouldn’t be a luxury. It is a critical and essential aspect of women’s lives and health care. And it is normal. It is a fact of female human life that will never, ever go away, not under any fantastical circumstances. There will always be, for all time, as there has always been, a need for abortion care." "I count myself among the millions of women throughout history and in this country and over the world who have had abortions. Me, I don’t feel one iota of shame in saying it and I’ve never been shy about it. My friends and family all know. My romantic partners have always known. I make absolutely no secret of it. We’re normal. We’re women. We have abortions sometimes. Get used to it." "For context alone I will say that in my case, as is true for many women, there was nothing tragic or depressing about the circumstances surrounding my decision, and there was no guilt or remorse afterward. (There is no “post-abortion syndrome.” That is a fake, made up thing that does not exist. My situation was pretty run of the mill. I didn’t want to have kids at the time or with the people I got pregnant with. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. Totally okay." My opinion- I don't like her position on the issue and I think her reasoning for having multiple abortions is unacceptable. Of course she doesn't give a rats ass about my opinion or what I find acceptable. She doesn't have to, that's her right. I'm not condemning her. I don't sit in judgment of her. But I do find her views, and her desire to flaunt her abortions with a special celebratory dress, disgusting and repulsive. And, this is just my opinion again but, I see no substantial difference between aborting a viable fetus, that will become a human baby if somebody doesn't go out of their way to kill it simply because it may be inconvenient in their life, or murdering a 3 month old baby because, hey, when were babies not inconvenient? Is inconvenience on a persons life the only hurdle to meet to make a life or death decision on another persons life? I sure don't think so.

No need to get angry, all you had to do was admit that you knew very little about the details of someone's situation before you passed judgement. Thank you for proving me right. So you didn't read the article. Gotcha. What makes you think I didn't read it, and how would that disprove that you freely admitted that you knew very little about someone's situation before you judged them? You are absolutely right. I mean how could I possibly begin to form an opinion about her feelings on abortion, women's reproductive rights, and specifically her reasons for getting an abortion unless I were to be privy to some of her very personal thoughts, words, and beliefs on such matters? Oh, wait a minute. Snap. If I recall correctly, I read about 20 some paragraphs of her personal writings on such things. And I believe I encouraged you to also read it but you were apparently dead red set on claiming I knew very little about her situation. Funny, but awkward, huh? I guess you can collect your PC style points for using the word "judged" even though I have done no such thing. Judging would involve pronouncing a sentence or stating how I think she should be punished for her actions. Please show me where I have done that if you wish to continue to use words that don't actually mean what you think they should mean. It is not my job to judge her. It is however my right to form an opinion about her, which I have done with much more information than you have apparently. In fact, I probably know more about her beliefs on abortion and acceptable motives for getting one than I do about any other person on this earth, with the possible exception of myself. Funny how a mere 15 minutes of reading could've prevented someone from looking like a complete asshat who didn't have a f'ing clue what they were talking about. A little effort and knowledge can go a long ways. Try it next time.

How do you know she was irresponsible? Wait. Is this one of those trick questions like; what color was George Washington's white horse?

So much judgement in this post ( and others that followed) I had no idea you were a very close friend of Martha. Apparently you know all the details of her situation, circumstances, thoughts, options and actions at the time of her conceptions and abortions, and the time in between. Could you please share them with us? Read the link zoogs posted in post #16, then you'll know as much about her as I do. If, after that, you still don't like what I had to say, tough sh#t. No need to get angry, all you had to do was admit that you knew very little about the details of someone's situation before you passed judgement. Thank you for proving me right. So you didn't read the article. Gotcha.

So much judgement in this post ( and others that followed) I had no idea you were a very close friend of Martha. Apparently you know all the details of her situation, circumstances, thoughts, options and actions at the time of her conceptions and abortions, and the time in between. Could you please share them with us? Read the link zoogs posted in post #16, then you'll know as much about her as I do. If, after that, you still don't like what I had to say, tough sh#t.