Moiraine

I'm cornfused. He played as a true freshman. This is his 5th year.

1/4 of UNL's faculty does agricultural research, which the AAU doesn't consider. Maybe that's a mark against the AAU.

Do you really think UM and NU are that different right now? Yep.

I've never heard a good reason for anyone disliking Perlman. It's kind of like people not liking Eichorst. He's a lawyer, so he must be a "slimeball."

Suspected? He proved it over and over again, e.g. by throwing into double/triple coverage to the 1st receiver.

This would be an idiotic decision.

I'm talking about this garbage right here. Your reading comprehension is poor when it comes to these quotes. I don't see anything you quoted where someone seems to be taking things personally or accuses Pelini of attacking the fan base, and in most/all of the statements where Nebraska is mentioned, it's implied that they're talking about the University of Nebraska, not the state. Leadership is also implied. e.g. in the mentions of what Pelini is getting paid.

The receiver is at the same spot coming off the shadow. Follow the hash marks because that's the direction of the pass. Now look at the lead foot for both QBs in comparison. Tommy's front foot is to the side, planted, and pointing at the receiver. Even though he is throwing it in front of receiver (the route). Bush has his front foot in front of him, and pointing to a spot in front of the receiver. Don't know if it's natural or something worked on, but just off of that, AJ will be on target more often than Tommy. It definitely looks proper. I think you mixed the two Qbs up. Armstrong's front foot is pointing about 45 degrees to the right. Bush's front foot is pointed leftward, straight at the receiver.

A Riley coached team playing a lower division opponent......no thanks.....Riley doesn't have the best track record at that. Once again, another gem of a post, nice agenda you're pushing here. This thread has nothing to do about Mike Riley does it? So stay on topic because the game is getting old. How dare he bring things like 'facts' into a post. There's nothing wrong to reply with a semi-sarcastic post in response to another semi-sarcastic post. The funniest part is that they're both right. Nebraska would likely pummel Youngstown State, but Mike Riley has often struggled against FCS teams in recent years. The problem is this guy brings this kind of sh*t into every single topic in this forum.

Then you're not a very good GM. As long as it's against NFL rules it's a risk to take someone who keeps doing it. It matters not one bit how stupid the rule is or if it's legal in all 50 states. All that matter is that the rule exists. If I'm a GM I have to think of the possibility that he'll test positive on more tests. I doubt many are concerned about the actual weed itself as much as he is now in the League's substance abuse program. Another positive test would mean a suspension (four games, I think) and now that he's admitted that he's tested positive before, he's obviously not learning the lesson so it's a question of will he be able to keep himself out of trouble and on the field. Exactly...

Then you're not a very good GM. As long as it's against NFL rules it's a risk to take someone who keeps doing it. It matters not one bit how stupid the rule is or if it's legal in all 50 states. All that matter is that the rule exists. If I'm a GM I have to think of the possibility that he'll test positive on more tests.

Not really. If they're interested in an increase or decrease, then a paired test makes sense. If it's not paired you might see that someone's smoking 3 cigarettes a day at 29 years old and it seems small, but maybe when they were 18 they were only smoking 1 a day. You have no reference. They can also use this same type of study to find out which types of people change or forget their original answers so they can improve how they do surveys. I'm guessing part of the reason they do it this way is because people who answer a question at age 29 about their smoking habits at age 18 are likely to remember things wrong. So it's probably better to do it this way. well, for every study conducted on people, there will always exist at least one way to dismiss the findings whether correct or semi-correct. this here won't be different. but that doesn't defeat the general premise. the fact that the initial apparent evidence based on what appears in front of us daily will point to one thing does not mean that that thing will be true. more often than not, it isn't. especially when it comes to stereotypes and race/ethnicity. specifically for weed and other drugs, it shouldn't be a hidden fact that the highest percentage of end-users of weed and other drugs is not black people. it just so happens that black people get in trouble far more for it than others. lol i'd say this thread has officially been derailed. This doesn't seem to be in any way shape or form a reply to anything I said, so I'm not sure why you quoted me. Also, I love when people announce that threads are derailed.

Things are way more advanced now than that. Maybe I'm missing something but what I know of Deep Blue is it did its thing in 1996 (ancient history) and has since been retired. We're now using machine learning in every day applications (Facebook's facial recognition). The military can feed photos of what they want computers to look for, e.g. bomb shelters/enemy hideouts, and then those computers "learn" how to find them among millions of photos. They can go through those images way faster than any human could to find potential targets. I'm sure there are loads of military applications that we're not even aware of.

I don't see how you could be a competent employee if you're stupid enough to say that stuff to your potential future boss.

Not really. If they're interested in an increase or decrease, then a paired test makes sense. If it's not paired you might see that someone's smoking 3 cigarettes a day at 29 years old and it seems small, but maybe when they were 18 they were only smoking 1 a day. You have no reference. They can also use this same type of study to find out which types of people change or forget their original answers so they can improve how they do surveys. I'm guessing part of the reason they do it this way is because people who answer a question at age 29 about their smoking habits at age 18 are likely to remember things wrong. So it's probably better to do it this way.

It's a stupid rule. That being said, it is a rule, and he's an idiot for doing it.

#CoreValues Carl the coke head and philanderer. Marvin the philanderer, etc. Ron the homophobe. Kaz the wife beater. Quite the collection. I won't get into it to much, but it isn't correct to call Ron Brown a homophobe. Disagreeing with something doesn't automatically equal fear and hate. This is true. But Ron Brown's statements make him homophobic. They just do. Which statements? Where have you been the last few years? He said gays and lesbians do not deserve the same protections as groups that historically have been discriminated against, such as blacks and women. "The scriptures teach that blacks were created by God, that women were created by God, but that homosexuals ... that is not what God had in mind at all," Brown said. Brown said his words should not be interpreted as an attack on homosexuals. "I have simply said that based on the Bible, homosexuality, the lifestyle of homosexuality, is a sin," he said. These statements are based on his faith, not on fear, which is what homophobia is, a fear of homosexuals. lol

no

I'm thinking of starting a gofundme to send this guy on a paid vacation away from Huskerboard until September.

If hearing Bob Odenkirk say "go Cornhuskers" would titillate you, then watch it.

So if any coach gets angry at male players or other male coaches on the field and has an outburst we should speculate they have tendencies, hidden or otherwise, to hit their wife? Or they get pissed at a diner 1 time after finding out their boss was fired and themselves possibly out of a job indicates those same tendencies? i think its safe that in hindsight, with all the other incidents, that this surprises nobody, and the most likely scenario in this case is that this person has anger issues. not sure what the point of the lengthy debate on this is. The judgement isn't being made solely on the other criteria, nobody thought we was a wife beater before he acted as such. Exactly. This conversation is weird.

I don't think calloused hands would feel good on manparts but I haven't thought to ask.

Do we know that Kaz thought it was fine for Bo to say these things? And let's not forget that it was the Reverend Ron Brown that followed Bo to Youngstown St. Suppose he beats his wife too? Kaz was the only coach with Bo at the meeting where those things were said. And Bo constantly asked him "right Kaz? Right? I told you this didnt I." and so on. it's a pretty easy to come to such a conlcusion. Well then I guess we can conclude that Tom Osborne, Jim Tressel, all of Bo's current assistants and players and any former players that said Bo made them men support Bo's opinions of Eichorst and beat their wives and/or girlfriends. They all support him so it's easy to come to that conclusion. Not beat wives/girlfriends. That wasnt the comment. It was about supporting Bo's opinions of Eichorst and calling him a c**t and pu&&y. No, I dont come to that conclusion. All I did was show pretty compelling evidence as to why someone would. He was the only coach at that meeting. Bo constantly turned to him during such meeting for reaffirment on his comments, so thats why I said it's easy to come to a conclusion that Kaz supported Bo's feelings on the matter. This little topic had really nothing to do with the wife beater part. Ok. So lets forget the wife beater part of Moiraine's comment. Jim Tressel must support Bo's views since he kept him employed after hearing the audio. TO must support Bo's views since he never came out publicly and said anything to the contrary. All of the coaches that work for Bo including the "honorable" Ron Brown must support his views since they continue to work for him. My point is just because someone is in the room doesn't mean they support what is being said. Bo did say "Eichorst is a c**t and a pu&&y, right Kaz?" And no where in the audio do you hear Kaz utter one single syllable. Now, I think Kaz is a cowardly piece of sh#t but some of these statements about how we can draw conclusions about this behavior are ridiculous. I didn't say people who call people those names or are okay with it beat women. I merely said it didn't surprise me. If you show lack of respect for women by using names for their genitalia to diss people, then it's not going to surprise me to find out that you show lack of respect for women in other ways. I'm sure you've never called someone a dick. Only my boyfriend. Also, I beat men.

Do we know that Kaz thought it was fine for Bo to say these things? And let's not forget that it was the Reverend Ron Brown that followed Bo to Youngstown St. Suppose he beats his wife too? Kaz was the only coach with Bo at the meeting where those things were said. And Bo constantly asked him "right Kaz? Right? I told you this didnt I." and so on. it's a pretty easy to come to such a conlcusion. Well then I guess we can conclude that Tom Osborne, Jim Tressel, all of Bo's current assistants and players and any former players that said Bo made them men support Bo's opinions of Eichorst and beat their wives and/or girlfriends. They all support him so it's easy to come to that conclusion. Not beat wives/girlfriends. That wasnt the comment. It was about supporting Bo's opinions of Eichorst and calling him a c**t and pu&&y. No, I dont come to that conclusion. All I did was show pretty compelling evidence as to why someone would. He was the only coach at that meeting. Bo constantly turned to him during such meeting for reaffirment on his comments, so thats why I said it's easy to come to a conclusion that Kaz supported Bo's feelings on the matter. This little topic had really nothing to do with the wife beater part. Ok. So lets forget the wife beater part of Moiraine's comment. Jim Tressel must support Bo's views since he kept him employed after hearing the audio. TO must support Bo's views since he never came out publicly and said anything to the contrary. All of the coaches that work for Bo including the "honorable" Ron Brown must support his views since they continue to work for him. My point is just because someone is in the room doesn't mean they support what is being said. Bo did say "Eichorst is a c**t and a pu&&y, right Kaz?" And no where in the audio do you hear Kaz utter one single syllable. Now, I think Kaz is a cowardly piece of sh#t but some of these statements about how we can draw conclusions about this behavior are ridiculous. I didn't say people who call people those names or are okay with it beat women. I merely said it didn't surprise me. If you show lack of respect for women by using names for their genitalia to diss people, then it's not going to surprise me to find out that you show lack of respect for women in other ways.

6 or 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1