JJ Husker

What did they do to the picture that makes it a different portrayal than the hundreds of other publications that ran the same exact photo? Well, I've only seen this picture in the two publications shown in this thread. I guess it's not so much the specific picture as it is being presented in the context of Rolling Stone magazine. A lot of it probably has to do more with my thoughts and bias about RS than this actual deal. But the difference for me in these two presentations is, The New York Times pic ran with the headline "The Dark Side, Carefully Masked" whereas the RS cover is in the context of rock n roll (in my mind anyway) with one of the prominent headlines being "On the bus with Willie" and the large print, cool nickname "The Bomber". Look, RS can print anything they want. I'm not calling for any changes or sanctions and I'm really not upset at all. But, I do feel, in that context, it sort of glorifies his actions and is indirectly telling people that this guy isn't all that bad, he's just a rebel. IMO, not a good or desirable message. I'd probably just be happier if Rolling Stone got out of the non-music journalism business all together.

Is there any way of telling when/if they're good again? Just by touch? Yeah, you will definetley be able to tell by touch. They should also darken a bit in color. I figured I could put them in a box/can/bag with a wet sponge and they would naturally re-moisturize. (FYI it is very dry here in northern Colorado-sort of like desert dry) But, I was thinking that possibly too much moisture, too fast, might cause them to mold or mildew or sumthin yucky like that. I guess I'll just try it until they seem right and then, after that, if they taste bad or look funny I'll just toss em. They still smell good so I think there is hope.

I don't care if you're upset with Rolling Stone or not. I'm not particularly upset with them either because I couldn't give two sh#ts what RS thinks and I expect crap like this from them. But, this isn't about them running a "cover story" on him, it's about the way they are portraying him on the cover. Look at our cover; being a murderous terrorist is cool kids. There's no shame in what this guy did. Maybe if you do the same we'll run a cool pic of you on our cover too. Probably not the best message for them to be putting out.

I don't care who ya are, that's funny. (well as funny as graphing casualties can be anyway)

Without knapp, the dumpster fires around here would turn into tire mountain fires. Heck, this board would be a superfund cleanup site. *hopes that's enough to get extra rep points tacked on*

I've got a stupid cigar question. I'm not a cigar guy but about 15 years ago I brought back some Cubans that I got in Venezuela. I still have a couple Monte Cristo's in the original metal tube. They have not been humidity controlled or anything. They seem to be very very very dry, like if I lit the thing it would fry it in about 2 seconds. My question; did I let these go to waste or should they still be good? And, if still good, what should I do to re-moisturize them. I don't have a humidor or anything like that.

*_*

Tough one but I had to go with Rozier. Sure Sanders stats his Heisman year look better but what did he do against Nebraska, huh what, that's right, I don't think he gained a hun on us. Or maybe that was Thurman.. oh well, vote for Mikey.

I know these types of people are out there, in all walks of life, and you're liable to run into them anywhere so, yes racism does exist and still is a problem, probably still even more so in the deep south. But, I really believe it has gotten better. It seems you run into these dipshidiots (sorry-had to use the new word I heard yesterday) less and less as time goes by. I feel it is the same way with tolerance and acceptance of gay people. It sure seems like it's getting better to me. But, that thought got me into one hell of a discussion in another thread recently where, for some reason, I came off looking like the intolerant one. Oh well- all people, all the time or something like that.

10-2 regular season with losses to either UCLA or Meatchicken (not both) and some other headscratcher along the way (I'm thinking MSU or Iowa). A win in the CCG. Ohio St doesn't bother me. More than likely that puts us in the Rose Bowl so I'll predict a win there too. 12-2 and it didn't even require the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid. Although it took some for those last two games.

Do you know the place called Taps in Fort Collins? My buddy and I went there a couple weeks ago. I had two beers that I really liked but I can't remember the names. One was a blood orange IPA and the other was a dark IPA. I've heard of it but have not been there and have no idea where it is. Haha, so I'm in the same boat as you naming those two really good brews you had.

Thanks guys. +1's to everyone who was nice to me on this page lol.

Do you live in Nebraska or somewhere closeby? If so, you (and I) really have no idea what life is like in other regions of the country. Totally different, especially in the deep south. I've lived in northern Colorado for about the last 27 years. However my first 23 years were in Nebraska, 4-5 of those in Lincoln. I understand that I have not been subjected to extremely diverse conditions. Quick-funny story; in about the mid to late 70's a new bank branch on the highway in my town was robbed by a black guy with a gun. The description they got from the witnesses was that the guy looked like Sammy Davis Jr. or sort of like Johnny Rogers. Of course he did, those were the only black guys anyone in my hometown would recognize. Later on when they ran his picture in the newspaper, he didn't look anything at all them. Seriously, I cannot remember there being one (1),not exaggerating, not a single minority person that lived in my town for 18 years. However, we did have a gay guy that lived 2 doors away. I don't remember it ever being any type of issue. I knew he talked really feminine, my parents knew about him, in fact my mom thought he was the greatest. Well he was a pretty nice guy. I still find it somewhat odd that, in our little sheltered community, he was so openly received. When I was in college we road tripped to the Auburn game, 82 or 83, not sure which. We spent the first night at our fraternity at Mississippi State. I had my eyes opened that night. It was like I was transported back to a deep south plantation or something. We were sitting on the porch of this frat having a beer and shooting the breeze. Well these two black guys come walking down the street, didn't pique my interest at all but, one of these MSU frat guys says (really yells out) "Where you goin boy?" Those two poor guys just put their head down and picked up their pace. I was embarrassed and ashamed to be sitting there with them. Anyway, that was really my first experience with blatant racism and hate. I have since learned that it can and does happen anywhere and everywhere but, I truly believe it is getting better even if way too slowly. Still, every once in awhile you'll run across a person like that, that just doesn't get it.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ur-ground-laws/ Ya know, this is kind of off subject but I need to get this out there. I run into this problem, particularly in these forums, a lot. I do not feel I am racist in the least. I do not feel I am against gay people in the least. Find me any protected status category of person and I do not believe I am predisposed against them. I like to judge people based on my firsthand experiences with them. I have gay/straight friends, white/Hispanic/oriental and even a very small number of black friends (small only because I don't know many or live by many). My friends cover the gamut of religions from non-believers to those bordering on fundamentalist lunacy. BUT, when I get involved in these discussions in the P&R forum on HB, I can't get over the feeling that many people think I am most bigoted, racist, civil rights infringing SOB on the planet. I think a lot of that stems from my tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt and not think the absolute worst about my fellow man. I think it is somewhat natural to assume others look at things in the same fashion we do ourselves. So, since I really am not predisposed against __________(fill in the blank) I sort of assume that others are that way too. Of course I know better. I know racism exists. I know people exist that will claim anything is racist, etc. I just find it unnerving that somehow, whenever I am on the side that is saying people are better than we think, I end up looking like the most offensive SOB in the discussion. That's all- just had to vent.

As is often the case, we're not that far off in opinion here, although it would appear by the way we're going back and forth that we're streets apart. Presupposed innocence is a fair point well made, and I concede the issue. I guess what concerns me is that, knowing both gentleman's backgrounds like we do, the guy who lived is walking away free. The other guy is dead. It seems wrong to me, and I can't get over the fact that, while Zimmerman's actions leading up to the altercation are legal, they are not prudent, and they resulted in Martin's death. It's been said several times but it bears repeating - those of us displeased understand the legality of the decision, we just disagree with the morality of the situation. Those are two separate issues, and that's where the disconnect on a lot of this stems from, I believe. I am in total agreement with this. Great post. I now feel like I can walk away from this topic. *wipes sweat from forehead*

Why do you assume it was not investigated "seriously" to begin with? Maybe it's as simple as they didn't have enough evidence to charge or convict him (which would appear to exactly be the situation at this point in time). Where is your proof that they didn't look "seriously" into this originally? Just because they subsequently bowed to the pressure to proceed with charges does not indicate that they investigated it harder and figured out they had made a mistake. I would say the lack of any discernible case by the prosecution should be evidence of this. And, given that it is now obvious they did not have a case to make, I feel it is somewhat of a travesty that GZ had to be drug through this ordeal. His life is forever changed and for what? To satisfy the media and race baiting special interests, that is why. But, I can live with that because the other young man is dead and his life was worth exhaustingly getting to the bottom of things. I simply refuse to believe that my fellow man, at this point in time, would sweep a shooting death under the rug because the victim was a black youth. I refuse to go there because I would never consider doing that myself. I am perhaps amongst the most cynical of people but if I had that little confidence in my fellow man............I'm not sure how I would function on a daily basis. Maybe I would be decrying this verdict and insisting that of course GZ was guilty of something because, after all, a person is dead and, of course, it couldn't just be a situation that escalated out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again for the last time; just because TM is dead does not have to mean GZ did anything wrong. Sometimes that bumper sticker "sh#t happens" is all there is. Man do we need football season to start already. Talk about the dog days of summer.

And you are presupposing innocence. Knowing Zimmerman's background, his already-established pattern of doing just this kind of thing, it's no longer as simple as "presupposing innocence." It becomes a character trait, and it's not a good one in light of the fact that Martin is dead. I am presupposing innocence. I thought that was the foundation of our justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? That is why I find some of this discussion disturbing. I don't know GZ from a hole in the ground and personally I have no investment in either outcome. I would be just as satisfied if the evidence had proven him guilty. I'm not going to say I'm happy or upset about his guilt either way but, I am happy that, given the lack of proof and the prosecutions case as presented, he was found not guilty. In my book, you need to bring a lot more to the table if you want to convict someone of anothers death. Now, could it be all wrong? Could GZ be some out of control racist that was just itching to get his point across? Absolutely. Problem is, that needs to be proven and not guessed at, not even an educated guess. But beyond reasonable doubt. I have more than reasonable doubt.

Tried another really good stout recently. FCB Fort Collins Brewery Double Chocolate Stout. Pretty darned tasty. Not as good as Odells Lugene but still definitely worth it.

I have no answer other than it's not me buying the swill.

No, it's not like saying that. It's like saying if a rapist doesn't set his eyes on a girl and follow her out of the bar, she wouldn't have gotten raped. And here we touch on the problem I believe some of you are having. You are presupposing guilt. Of course a rapist is responsible for rape. Just like a murderer (GZ) is responsible for murder. Right? I notice you didn't answer my question in bold above. Why does this case have to be about anything more sinister than the simple question I asked? In fact, this very scenario has happened to me in my neighborhood, twice that I can recall. Event #1; I saw a young black kid (actually probably about 17 yrs old) leaning up against the light pole across the street from driveway. He appeared clean cut and not particularly threatening. Watched from my window for awhile and he didn't move. I walked up to him and asked him if he needed anything. He was just out selling magazines and was taking a break. But, I did approach him and basically asked what are you doing here. Event #2; I saw a white kid, prob about 16 yrs old, hanging around in much the same fashion except he was on a bike and was not going anywhere. He looked a little menacing (don't know how to describe it other than he looked out of place for my neighborhood) and kept circling in front of mine and a few adjacent houses. I went out, down to the end of my driveway, and asked him if he needed help finding something. He replied "nah dude" and rode off and didn't come back. There is more to this story that I discovered later (he was up to no good) but it doesn't apply to the point I am trying to make. My point is, if either one of these young fellas had reacted aggressively to my questioning (because, after all it is a free country and they are sure entitled to loiter on my street if they wish), possibly tried to get physical with me, and I end up killing one of them fighting back, why is it "my fault" for initiating contact? The answer is, it isn't. BTW, I live on a quiet cul de sac of about 14 houses. One family is Hispanic, the other 13 are white. However, we have more than a handful of Hispanics and one black family that I know of within a few block radius. Personally, I am a lot more tempted to be on the lookout for white kids that are up to no good but, the key is mid to late teenage kids and not their color. It seems too many people want to believe that GZ must have done something wrong simply because TM ended up dead. Some act like the mere fact that he was carrying a gun means he must be guilty of something. I don't get it. I understand he "may have" pushed the issue too hard and caused this but I'm sure not going to act like that is any kind of fact. He followed a kid. So what? Something else occurred that escalated this situation. It could have been either one or both of them that caused it to escalate to someone being dead. The things that annoy me; 1- The constant harping that TM just went out to pick up skittles and was returning home. GZ doesn't know that at the time. What if GZ follows him and initiates the discussion and TM simply says "look dude, I live right over there and just went to the store. Get off my ass, quit harassing me you crazy ass cracker." I'm guessing nothing else happens. 2- The cry that GZ did something wrong for following him. I would hope that people who witness something they feel is out of the ordinary in their neighborhood follow up on it. 3- The sentiment that just because a person is dead means the person who caused their death must somehow be at fault. "if he hadn't followed him", "if he wasn't carrying a gun", "if he wasn't a wannabe cop", if if if if if.

The difference being, and it is a key difference, that if TM ignores GZ, it's a reaction to GZ's actions, and not an action in and of itself. Cause still originates with GZ even in that scenario. This not "key" for anything. That's like saying if the rape victim hadn't gone to the bar, she wouldn't have got raped. Since she initiated the action of going somewhere, she was the "cause"? C'mon, you're better than that. Do you mean to imply that if I pay attention to strangers in my neighborhood, and if I ever go out on the street and inquire what that person might be doing in my neighborhood, that I am to blame for any and all actions that follow?

Because nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had gone on about his business. Zimmerman was going to Target, Martin was coming back from 7-11. Zimmerman didn't like the way Martin looked, started following him, and ends up killing Martin 200 feet from Martin's back door. How can it be "just" for Martin to be dead? What was wrong with walking to and from 7-11 for some skittles? You are right in that, if Zimmerman had not followed him, he wouldn't have ended up shooting him. But isn't that exactly the same as saying if I hadn't been driving my car last Thursday, I wouldn't have gotten in that car accident? GZ has just as much right to walk down that street and be suspicious as TM has to be walking there. Where we differ in opinion is that I feel Zimmerman could have been justified in following him if he really thought he was up to no good. See, I put the conjecture aside, I don't assume that GZ necessarily inappropriately "profiled" him or was necessarily the "aggressor". I think that probably he saw something he felt was not right and I think he was probably fairly confident he was safe considering he was carrying but, I do not jump to the conclusion that he had to do anything wrong for TM to end up being shot. How can it be "just" that TM is dead? I hate going into hypotheticals here but, GZ asks him what he's up to and TM becomes aggravated and attacks him. GZ feels the assault is getting out of hand, fears for his life and shoots him. That is just one possibility that I would consider "just". What's wrong with walking to and from the 7-11 for skittles? Nothing. What's your point, that GZ knew this was all that TM was up to? This is my problem with this whole issue. Some people want to scramble for somebody or something to blame just because a person is dead. Sure it's a tragedy but I guess I assume that GZ didn't simply gun him down because he looked suspicious or because he felt he could get away with it. Just because it could have been totally avoided doesn't have to mean GZ did anything wrong. My best guess; GZ followed him, asked him what he was up to, and felt confident doing that because he had a gun (having that gun does not mean he ever intended to need to use it). TM probably took offense to being followed and questioned and initiated a physical action that led to the situation escalating out of control. You want to say that if GZ didn't follow him, this never happens. Well how about, if TM ignores GZ and continues walking home, this never happens? I'm guessing the jury, who knows more about this case than any of us, seems to somewhat align with my thoughts otherwise they probably would have convicted him of something. Could it be more like your version? Yes, but where is the proof of that? Could the jury have gotten it all wrong? Yes, but where is the proof of that? Bad sh#t happens every day. It doesn't always have to mean someone is at fault.

So was OJ. Please, please tell me you are not implying that you feel Zimmerman was as obviously guilty as OJ. I can see drawing parallels between the two cases based on race being a primary consideration of the media but, are you also saying that GZ is no different than OJ as far as what was proven in court by the evidence? Please stop reading so much into my posts. You believe I say things that I don't say far too often. You're holding up our court system as something inerrant - "Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty." I'm simply pointing out that trying someone and finding them not guilty does not mean they're innocent. Nobody said OJ = George Zimmerman. Stand down. Sorry but I'm not the one that brought OJ into the discussion. I guess I make some basic assumptions, like I assume we both know our justice system is not perfect or inerrant. Therefore I thought possibly you were trying to make some other point. Give me a little more credit for not being so obtuse and we'll have fewer of these misunderstandings. I'm still curious though, if we strictly stick to what we know 100% about this case and avoid conjecture, how can it be said justice was not served? Sure, Zimmerman may have done many things that could've reduced the likelihood of the same outcome but I don't feel that makes him guilty of anything. It is unfortunate that we do not know more or have more witnesses but, it is what it is.

So was OJ. Please, please tell me you are not implying that you feel Zimmerman was as obviously guilty as OJ. I can see drawing parallels between the two cases based on race being a primary consideration of the media but, are you also saying that GZ is no different than OJ as far as what was proven in court by the evidence?