Jump to content

formermav43

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formermav43

  1. I’d put it closer to maybe 20 myself, but that’s not unreasonable.
  2. Predictable response on surly. But if you actually believe most churches are literally engaged in money laundering or are hoarding a bunch of money, you’re not as clever as you think you are.
  3. Megachurches (and especially Osteen) are not exactly representative of organized religion in general.
  4. You can’t “obviously begin” a slide without sliding. We’re never going to agree on this. What’s the point?
  5. McAulay argues that it violates the spirit of the rule, but even he admits it doesn’t violate the letter. They need to clarify the rule. He didn’t obviously begin a slide. But I’m sure the next regurgitation of breaking down the play will make it all somehow clear.
  6. That’s a political party doing the grifting, not a religion. Admittedly they are indistinguishable to many people.
  7. How can you have “obviously begun” a slide if you don’t actually slide? Doesn’t seem terribly obvious.
  8. No, not your comment. I think you and I are basically on the same page, down to the rule needing to be changed (you’ll see that if you keep reading the thread). And to your feelings on it in a championship game. I’ll take “bush league” 58 yard TD runs all day while the loser whines about sportsmanship.
  9. I get your point, but Rolen is not the best example. He’s very underrated (fWAR and bWAR both greater than for McGwire, for instance). He should be in in any case.
  10. There aren’t 32 better QBs than Minshew. He should be starting somewhere.
  11. You keep saying this like it automatically disproves my point (and like I haven’t read it multiple times). I know he said that. Even if he DIDN’T say that, it’s clear it was intentional. But is faking a slide “obviously beginning” one? That’s what’s in question. I don’t see any reason to necessarily interpret the rule that way.
  12. I don’t believe he began one. We’re not going to ever agree on this. And that’s precisely why it has to be clarified going forward (if not just removed like you propose, which I agree is cleaner).
  13. I still don’t believe the call was incorrect, but that suggested rule change is reasonable.
  14. I don’t think they missed it. Faking one is not obviously beginning one. At any rate, I think we can agree that this probably warrants amending the rules.
  15. Now this might make me change my opinion.
  16. Unless and until they amend the wording of the rules or give a specific interpretation in the future to cover this, they didn’t miss anything-given that he didn’t actually slide, it’s difficult to argue he “obviously began” one. His play was within the rules, and he knew what he was doing-that’s the definition of outsmarting them.
  17. Lashing out in frustration because you were outsmarted sounds pretty soft to me. And advocating hits that risk penalty or even ejection just to send some sort of message just doubles down on stupid. But I’m sure they’d appreciate the free yards. And it’s Michigan State.
  18. In the situation on this play, obviously not. If he’s actually sliding, I’d thank them for the extra 15 yards. The irony of so many crying internet tears and calling it “pussy, bitch, bush league” is pretty fantastic. Seems to me that those complaining about a heady play are the soft ones.
  19. It was awesome. Zero issue with it.
  20. In the last month, they beat a .500 LSU team by 6, outscored an Arkansas team they could not stop to win by a TD, and were an Auburn RB staying in bounds away from a loss. They’re hardly the “usual monster.”
  21. Nah. Pitt looks great now that they’ve gone back to their classic look. And I’d argue this looks better than anything Oregon has rolled out in the last 20 years.
  22. You know what’s not cute? The proliferation of using cute, adorable, etc. in a patronizing manner. I literally (not figuratively, I mean it) roll my eyes almost every time I encounter it now. It’s a plague on this board. (Nothing personal DDD, I guess I’m just in the Festivus spirit and airing grievances. Oh and in before the obligatory “it’s cute that you think that” responses.)
  23. Yeah, this line of thought stuck out from Justice Sotomayor’s questioning to me. You can argue this question on purely philosophical grounds, as the numerous books on the subject demonstrate. Whether someone finds those arguments compelling is a different matter, but it’s curious to act as if they simply don’t exist.
  24. No buts. They’re still bad.
×
×
  • Create New...