daquix

I said I had a point in page one. I guess you skipped over that. I didnt want to get into another discussion. I simply wanted the person I was debating with to see the article. Leave it up to the members of TBD to make every thread as ridiculous as possible. If you dont like a thread > dont reply to it.

I explained in page one why I posted it. I posted it due to a reference from a previous posts months ago, that I can not remember the title of and would be extremely hard to find. If I could find the post, I would have simply replied to that one with the article. Looking back, I should have put a disclaimer saying something along the lines of "This is an article that has to do with a previous thread, that I can not seem to find. The thread had a debate in it about whether science and religion can co-exist or whether they are completely seperate and can not be intertwined." The reason (at the time) I didn't start posting random stuff about the article is that I didn't want to get in the same debate that we had already had months ago. I simply wanted to post the article and hopefully whoever I was debating with (I cant remember who it was) would see it. That was all. I didn't forsee a bunch of mob posters going nuts over not have a point to the thread. You guys seem to have a problem with everything. If you don't like the thread, dont reply. How simple is that?

Or (and by that I mean the truth) I simply wanted to post an article, but not start an argument.

The word "crusader" is not defined as simply spreading your faith. Its basically spreading your faith/opinion with force. I would say most of evangelicals do not use force.

Part of the reason that it is the 5th definiton of being evangelistic person is because it is not common for all evangelical persons to be like what they are describing. The #1 definiton describes me best: "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels"

You did say "Here's the thing, duh. You have "history" here. History of posting about your "faith" and all the cool "homosexuality is a choice", etc. stuff. From that, the lucid can "infer"." Not all evangelicals "crusade" their faith.

Because according to ESPN, and others on this board, Peterson is among god status and Lynch is around spartan status. Most people would want the god.

Got it.

So now you're stereotyping all evangelical people? I guess you're referring to the only thing I have 'crusaded' on and that was Nate Clements. I didn't do it against a particular poster. As far as I know only one name has ever been suspended and that is the D_A_B account and to this day no one has told me why I was suspended. Anyway. My point to you was this. If another poster was known to have a preference towards JP Losman rather than Kelly Holcomb (say at the beginning of the season) and he posted an inspirational article he found on JP Losman, it most likely would'nt be a problem. Yet I make references in the past that I am a Godly person, and I post an article with Christianity it and I get bombarded with crap. When internet forums started to become popular there was a saying that many used "Attack the post. Not the poster." Many of you here are TBD, don't seem to very much like that model. But why would you? You would rather sit behind a computer screen and make fun of another person, rather than simply clicking the "back" button when you encounter a thread you don't like.

I did not want to get into an argument. I simply wanted to post it so the person I was arguing with, may possibly be able to see it. I do not feel as if I have to justify my posts to you or anyone else. I posted a link to an article. Many people have done it in the past with far less scrutiny than I have received. People on this board are so familiar with posters starting trouble with their threads, that they itch and wait to jump on anything that someone posts, as innocent as some of the threads may be. Alaska Darin is exceptionally good as this.

I'm sorry? Could you explain what you meant by that?

If you guys are through crusading, and patting each other on the back for who is giving a wittier post towards your perceived level of my intelligence, I did have a point. The point goes back to a post many months ago that included an arguement of whether science and religion can support each other ... I don't feel like getting into it. Side note to Alaska Darin: I never mentioned that this had anything to do with my religion. Furthermore I never said that my religion was the "right one" (as you put it). So I guess you pretty much just pulled your entire post from left field huh?

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” - Elbert Hubbard Of course not all reporters are going to know more than the fans do. I never said that. I inferred that most of the reporters probably know more of the individual player than the fans do. If we knew as much, then why do we watch ESPN? Think about it. Shows like PTI and others would not be on the air without an audience watching to see what they think about a certain subject. There was once an entire show where analysts would breakdown the game film of certain games on the NFL network. None-the-less, my main point about this topic is that fans of any particular team is going to be blinded to certain criticisms due to the fact that they are a hardcore fan.

RBBC?

That is an extremely scary thought. Our starting RB is going to be nearly 30 years old, with over 1300 carries.

True, but if Peterson is still on the board at #12, then you can trade with whatever team would have picked Lynch (probably Greenbay) would then take Peterson, we would acquire possibly 2 of their draft picks (even 1 more would be nice) and then the teams in need for a RB is highly diminished. The only team after us that would need a RB would be Carolina, and I don't see them picking a RB in the 1st round (in fact I havent seen a mock draft yet that has them taking a RB). To recap: If Peterson falls to #12, im sure Greenbay would LOVE to take him. We could take this chance to try and get Greenbay's 2nd rounder or even 2 picks for a swap of firsts. Im willing to take the chance that St. Louis (S. Jackson), Carolina, and Pitt (W. Parker) won't be picking a 1st round RB. Of course this is just my opinion that I would rather take Lynch and get another first day pick, meaning we have 4 first day picks plus Lynch.

That was a different time seq. That was about 12 years ago when that trio was here. Times have changed and players want to be where all of the famous clubs, cities ... etc are.

Thank you It seems to happen every year.

Yeah Im sorry, I would rather get those 11 players (going by your example) out of the draft than that 1 good RB.

If we pick AP at #12 and Lynch goes #16, then no big deal. But if we grab AP at #12 and Lynch goes #23, then I (personal opinion) would rather trade down from #12 to #23. Pick up a couple extra draft picks, and still draft a top notch RB. Therefore we got our RB situation handled, and have 5 more picks to go on the first day. Of course thats just my opinion of a good draft.

If Marshawn Lynch makes it to the mid 20's and we dont trade down, I will be steaming. Not backflipping.

Delete?

A buddy of mine paid about $400 if I remember right. What a shame. What did you get your degree in?

Just an article, my friend.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.c...tary/index.html