knapplc

What we have here is a massive abilty ro read with comprihension on a large god-damned scale. What I said was... I did not say they deserved what they f'ing got, I said that based on the history of their employer it was feasible that they may have acted in such a manner. How familiar are you with the demographics and the culture of the Pashtun people? It is a tribal society, and most men in the countrside are armed. We have classified them as "militants" on their own land, doing what they have always done. And because they are classified as militants, are you saying that they and anyoneone near them deserves to be killed? If that is what you are saying, then that would be OKaying the genosidal approach to peace. I don't think anyone is having trouble comprehending your statement. It seems as if you intended to say something other than what you said. The phrase "they deserved what they got" is not ambiguous. It's not a reading comprehension problem, but it probably is a miscommunication in some way. I'm somewhat familiar with the Pashtun people - probably decently so, considering I've never gone over there and never met any of them. I am well aware that they are all armed. But that's irrelevant to why the bombs fall on the dwellings. We're not simply bombing everyone we see with a gun, indiscriminately from the sky. We're using eyes and ears on the ground to guide drones to particular areas. We're using information from locals and our own intelligence folks to identify specific targets. We're only launching missiles when the intelligence we receive gives us a very high probability of hitting a very specific target. What we are NOT doing is engaging in genocide. That term belongs nowhere in this conversation. Hyperbole is one thing, but the word you chose is about the antithesis of what's going on over there.

If your point with this thread is to poke holes in Christianity, there are far better ways to do so than with this line of thinking. The very easy explanation is that an All-Knowing God would know about the future inventions of iPods, but didn't put Thou Shalt Not Pirate MP3s in the Bible because his audience at the time it was written would have had no clue what he was talking about. Give the God of All Creation more credit for knowing His audience than that. Cute reply. However stealing clearly covers piracy and really no one denys that. Back in that day he could have said it in a way that still covers abortion today. Like...Thou shall not attempt to end the life of a baby inside a woman as it is the same as killing the woman. OK, so try this on for size: Exodus 20:13 - "Thou shalt not kill." Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." God knew you before you were born. Therefore you were a person before you were born.

The PC logo is just some fun nonsense some guys are doing in the Woodshed. Go check it out.

I don't think you can see it. I know the Mods can't see who gives rep. Maybe the Admins can. I do know that the Mods/Admins can give out more than five per day, which is what the members can give. I tend to give them out liberally. They're like timeouts - you can't save them for the next game. Might as well use them.

For those of you wondering how bad it really is....

Hey, Donny. Welcome to HuskerBoard. May your stay be long and fun.

Surely you're not implying that Israel has no legal foundation for their treatment of Palestine/Palestinians, yes? Do you believe that Israel has zero reason to hold Palestine under their thumbs? It's not a straw man. I directly responded to cactus' assertion. I didn't misrepresent his statement in any way.

I find it interesting that you are OK with the deaths of Americans because they worked for a company that has done bad things. The implication being that they are guilty by association. Yet in the Drone thread you are decrying the deaths of "innocent" civilians, despite knowing that those drones do not target civilians, meaning they are either enemy combatants or hanging with enemy combatants, yet the guilt-by-association idea doesn't surface in that conversation.

I think one of the scholarships being held out right now is for Charles Jackson. It's my understanding that we never intended to sign up to 85 in this class, but as has been mentioned in numerous threads we've got three guys in this class for whom grades are a concern.

Punt Returner: 1) Fair Catch ability - If the PR knows he's going to get drilled if he tries a runback, he needs to wave the arm, concentrate on the ball, and make the fair catch. This poster should always think about the best way to approach a question and to give the best answer as to not bring on extra attack from others (and a spear tackle from a gunner)! 2) Makes the first guy miss - The most important move for the PR is making that quick sidestep to the left or right to get the first man in to commit to a poor tackle (like Niles Paul's return against Colorado this year). Once this is accomplished, the PR can follow his blocks and use his cutting ability to score the TD. To me, this guy is really a sneaky member! He'll give you enough of a comment to reel you into arguing with him, and then, BAM! You've just missed the point completely, and the poster looks like a football genius with his reply to your opposing viewpoint! 3) Shifty - Can change directions on a dime, makes people miss. Look no further than Johnny Rodgers' electrifying return in the Game of the Century for the ideal of this trait. Rodgers dipped, dived and dashed his way through the heart of the Sooner coverage team en route to maybe the most important TD in Nebraska history. 4) Lightning-quick speed and reaction time, young, smart, able to make an opening for himself where one doesn't exist.

Kick Returner: 1) RB wanna-be - When no opening is created, a Kick Returner normally tries to plow through the opposing special team members head on to try to gain some extra yards. Therefore, the ideal HuskerBoard KR has Running Back capabilities. You might want to consult the description of RB (not afraid to take hits, consistent, competitive, reliable) in order to best make a nomination/vote. 2) High top speed – Josh Davis was the prototypical KR. He could run straight from his own goal line and reach a very high speed by the time he got to the 20. By this time, the defense has hit the wedge and he could either find the seam to take it to the house or blast through the best hole he could find to get some yardage. A poster who really gets on a roll with their posts and can find that bit of extra info that someone opened up for him would be a great KR. 3) Dangerous - He may not be on the field a lot, but when he is, look out! A threat to take it all the way.

Kicker: 1) Consistency - This is a mentally draining position. The kicker has to be able to keep his head down, keep his eyes on the ball, and concentrate. This will lead to repeated precision in kicking field goals. This poster should contribute constantly and be focused intently on the main idea of any question or comment. 2) Clutch - Since he's not on the field all the time, when the kicker is called upon to do his job, it needs to be done expertly. The entire game can ride on the leg of this (normally) little guy. Maybe this position shouldn't be filled by a "shock and awe" poster, but more by someone who only posts when he feels it necessary and when his idea will put the point "through the uprights!" Real Alex Henery type material! 3) Strong Leg - Most times the placekicker will also be the kickoff kicker. He has to try to boot that ball off a 1-inch tee 70+ yards in the air and give sufficient hang time as to let his team get down to tackle the returner. Of course, he also has to be able to boot 50+ yard field goals into the wind/rain/snow to give his team those valuable 3 points! So, this guy needs to have powerful opinions backed up with hard facts. Also, if this poster's getting driven into the ground with his opinion, he has to trudge through and explain himself well in order to score!

Punter: 1) Big Leg - This guy booms the ball down the field (usually 60 yards - 45 yard punts plus their 15 yard dropback!) to give the other team bad field position for their offensive series. Following through the ball and a high leg finish are their trademarks! This member's posts go "a long way" to making his side of the argument better. 2) Unsung Hero - The punter has a specific job, and he does it to the best of his ability. He doesn't normally get a chance to put points on the board, so some fans and players might forget about him. But when he pins the other team by their goal line, it's a big positive for the club! Maybe this guy doesn't get a whole lot of kudos around HuskerBoard, but he can be just as important as an offensive player or a regular poster. 3) Limited appearance - The punter is only needed on 4th downs, so they normally only play 5 - 10 downs a game. I would therefore assume the best choice for HuskerBoard punter is one who isn't a super-prolific poster and is only used when it's necessary!

Voting is closed. Congratulations to BIGREDIOWAN and epocSon, our new Safeties.

Voting is closed. Congratluations to Minnesota_husker and huskerjock, our new Cornerbacks!

It's still raining here. It's about 36 degrees, give or take. The rain is intermittent, very light. They're still predicting 6-9 inches here, so we'll have to see what happens tonight/tomorrow morning.

+

That is total horsesh!t, Chris. Now that we've gotten that out of the way I think you're right - we give out too few scholarships due to recruiting "misses." This staff is still figuring things out on the recruiting front. Bo's rap was that he "wasn't a recruiter." He's shown that he can recruit, but he hasn't shown that he can do it consistently. There are a few guys we've missed out on (Peat, Owa) that we shouldn't have, and that's keeping us from getting over the recruiting hump. As far as walk-ons, we all love them. But they're the least-molded clay available. They are great guys to develop the ethos of the team, but we cannot rely on finding diamonds among all that rough, and that's what we're settling for too often. However, just listened to Sean Callahan on 93.7 an hour or so ago and he was pretty high on this class, including the walk-ons. We'll likely survive on this class, and as Sean mentioned, last year's class was outstanding, so over the next couple of years we'll be OK. But things need to get better. Work still has to get done.

That substantial proportion would drop dramatically if the question is not "Should the U.S. go to war?" but "Will YOU go to war?" Vaguely I'm sure there are a sizable percentage for whom the concept of war is OK. But put them in the foxhole and they're suddenly pacifists.

I didn't know you were still in High School.

Surely you're not implying that Israel has no legal foundation for their treatment of Palestine/Palestinians, yes? Do you believe that Israel has zero reason to hold Palestine under their thumbs?

If your point with this thread is to poke holes in Christianity, there are far better ways to do so than with this line of thinking. The very easy explanation is that an All-Knowing God would know about the future inventions of iPods, but didn't put Thou Shalt Not Pirate MP3s in the Bible because his audience at the time it was written would have had no clue what he was talking about. Give the God of All Creation more credit for knowing His audience than that.

I absolutely agree with the bold. However, I strongly disagree with the middle statement. I know a lot of people who want wars. In fact . . . that might be a neo-con plank. I was implying the Average Joe with "nobody." There are always going to be the tiny minority for whom war is profitable. Almost always those are not the people in the front lines. Alexander the Great being the exception that most readily comes to mind.