KurtGodel77
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KurtGodel77
-
-
It seems to me that a lot of the Patriots' WRs are in the Chandler mold: guys without breakaway speed, with hands as soft as freshly fallen snow. That's why the Patriots are so good at going on those 15 play, clock-killing drives. I agree with the original post: we could use as WR like that.
-
You are aware that the original version of Genesis wasn't written in English, right? Now, maybe you're a Hebrew scholar who has strong opinions about whether the Hebrew word for day can be used to mean a period of 24 hours.
But even if you are; Schroeder addressed your concerns by pointing out that old writings interpreting the Genesis text stated that the 6 days of Creation were different from other days. Schroeder was careful to find old writings to support this, so that he could not be accused of reinventing Biblical interpretation to suit the needs of science.
-
-
You left out McGahee.
He hasn't proven enough to be on the list yet, but give him a few years . . . -
The woman seems psychotic.
-
Kurt's QB rating is ten points higher than Drew's. Kurt didn't have an offensive line down in NY; while Drew's line came together to provide good pass protection for all but the first six games or so. It's safe to say that Kurt did a lot more with a lot less. He seems to be well on his way back to being the player who'd cut up opposing defenses like a man among boys.
-
Like I said, when the Bills can field an O-line that doesn't put Willis in the top-3 in rushes for losses, when they can find a reliable 3rd WR, and when they can get a decent TE and/or incorporate him into the gameplan, THEN we can start talking about how much Bledsoe held back this offense.
You make some good points, and I agree that the line ought to have done a much better job run-blocking. As you say, upgrading the offensive line should be a major priority for this off-season. In addition, the Bills should upgrade the QB position by replacing Bledsoe with Warner.
-
-
As far as the problem of evil: God could have given us free will, or he could have given us a perfect world. He started by giving us both. But because of Adam and Eve's sin, the world itself became a messed-up place, and human nature became deeply flawed. We still have free will though; and in the case of the Dollars they chose to use their free will to make the world a much worse place for the children under their care.
-
Gerald Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor, and currently teaches at the Hebrew University. He wrote a book called The Science of God, in which he reconciles the Book of Genesis with established science. Based on the Big Bang theory and on measurements of things like red shift, the universe is 15 billion years old. According to the Book of Genesis, God used six days to create everything. Schroeder pointed out that the word "day" cannot refer to the length of time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis; because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of Creation. So he interpreted the word "day" to mean "a period of time 24 hours long."
Schroeder explained that the universe is explanding at nearly the speed of light. As Einstein's relativity theory points out, time is relative. If you are in a space ship traveling at nearly the speed of light, a clock on board the ship might indicate your journey has lasted just 20 minutes. A clock back on Earth might indicate the journey took 20 million years. Because time is relative, neither clock is more correct than the other--they are both right in the relative sense.
From the perspective of someone on Earth looking back into the past, the universe has been around for 15 billion years. But because of the relativistic time effects of the universe's expansion, the perspective of someone physically present at the Big Bang would be somewhat different. According to Schroeder's calculations, from the perspective of an observer physically present at the Big Bang, the universe has been around for about six periods of twenty-four hours each.
-
It seems to me that Denny Green bases his decisions on his gut and on emotion. From a supply and demand standpoint you are right: there will be more qualified RBs than left tackles this offseason. But from a gut standpoint--if Green decides that Henry is a winner and that Shelton isn't--then Green will do the deal straight up.
-
My offseason moves would be:
1. Cut or trade Drew Bledsoe before his roster bonus comes due.
2. Sign Kurt Warner
3. Cut Eric Moulds to free up cap space.
4. Sign Isaac Bruce if available; if not sign the best possession WR I can.
5. Use Moulds cap space to re-sign Jennings, or to bring in OL free agents.
6. Extend Clements and re-sign Pat Williams.
7. Use the draft to shore up whatever needs I missed in free agency--TE, interior OL, K, etc.
Once these changes were finished, I'd have a significantly upgraded passing game; the offensive line would be improved, the defense solidified, and the cap situation would be taken care of.
-
There was enough talent on that team that even a monkey could have coached it to a Super Bowl win. Jerry Jones proved this by firing Johnson and bringing in Switzer.
-
Three Super Bowl wins in four years--which is what the Patriots will have after Sunday--counts as a dynasty; tuck rule or not.
-
Can't argue with most of the top 12 but where's Thurman???? Where's eight consecutive 1,000 yard seasons? Where's four seasons straight leading the nfl in combined yards from scrimmage? Where's one of the best pass catching receivers AND one of the best at picking up blitzers on this list? Thurman was Marshall Faulk before Marshall joined the greatest show on turf.
The Thurmanator does not get the props he deserves. He was the real mvp of SB25. Had the Bills pulled that one out there is no doubt that his name would be on lists like this. Instead, most football fans outside of Buffalo remember him more for the missing helmet episode in SB26.
The Greatest Show on Turf produced significantly more points than the Bills did even when the K-Gun was at its peak. Some of it might be Marshall being better than Thurman; and Thurman didn't look very good at all in those Cowboys Super Bowls. Some of it might be the Rams having better receivers than the Bills had. But some of it is because Kurt Warner at his peak was better than Jim Kelly at his peak. In fact, it seems clear that Warner will make a comeback somewhere; much like Rich Gannon. Warner took the first step in NYC; now it's time for him to play for a REAL NYS team.
-
I could give a flying :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: if anyone jumps on my bandwagon, and I don't owe you or anyone else a meaningful defense for my opinion. You don't sleep in my bed, depend on my for sustinence, nor sign my paycheck. If you need that spelled out further, YOU don't matter to me (feel free to come back with the standard and lame "then why are you responding" take).
I'm sorry, but unsupported opinions are a dime a dozen; especially on boards like these.
While Bin Laden's group may not be large, the overwhelming silence from the Muslim community against him is the result of being cowed by the religious leaders. You can disagree - I don't care at all - it's also one example.Well, if your complaint is about the overwhelming silence rather than the attacks themselves; let me do you one better. Back in the early 1930s when Joseph Stalin murdered 7 million Ukrainians, there was overwhelming silence in this country; as well as in France and Britain. Overwhelming silence in the face of 7 million deaths is clearly worse than overwhelming silence in the face of 3,000; yet the medias in the Western democracies were peopled by secularly-minded reporters and editors.
Specific objection to war with another group of people over religion? Oh, I can't think of any.
One of the reasons I've heard for the Afghanistan war is that we liberated tens of millions of people from a religiously intolerant regime. In other words, we went to war in part because we didn't like their religion; and that seemed just fine with most of the secular crowd.
The irony of that statement coming from someone defending organized religion is off the charts.
There was actually more groupthink at the secular public school than there was at the Catholic school. In the case of the latter; there was a clear definition for right and wrong; and nobody questioned it. But outside that circle, there was latitude for independent thinking. At the public school there was less of a distinction between core values and mere beliefs. That blurring did not lead to critical debates about everything, but rather a general uncritical acceptance of the status quo.
You're absolutely right and generally, Catholic Schools are pretty good and run with mostly local control. They also have to face the parents of those they teach on a VERY regular basis and rarely try and point at some faceless bureaucrat as the reason they can't educate people.I sense that you have made the effort to look at the Catholic education system honestly, and from a well-informed perspective.
I'm sure you would never tell anyone how to say anything. In this case you WERE hiding behind the whole humor angle, and I make no apology for calling you on it.
-
Here's an alternative:
Do the right thing simply because it's the right thing.
Not because some book tells you to......
Not because you'll burn in hell if you don't....
Not because of any exterior influence whatsoever.....
Just do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
How do you know what the right thing is? In the absence of religion, most people base their ideas of right and wrong on what everyone else around them thinks about these ideas. That gives enormous power to whoever happens to control the media. The mass media can make it seem as though the consensus is this, or the consensus is that. People move in a mass; and the mass thinks of right and wrong in different ways. Several examples:
- Modern America (People are taught there is no such thing as right or wrong, except the wrong of racism.)
- Nazi Germany
- Muslim nations
- Imperial Japan
Each of these four examples had different ideas as to what was right, and what was wrong. "Doing the right thing" means something very different to a Nazi than it means to a Muslim or a modern American or to someone from Africa. Many in the Muslim world see the U.S. as being more evil than Nazi Germany. How can you know if they are right if you don't look to a higher truth than the opinions of the people around you? The Muslims, after all, look to the opinions of the people around them.
-
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to teach basic history to make a simple point to another adult. The Crusades. September 11th. There you go.
My point was that if you take a controversial position without bothering to meaningfully defend it, don't expect everyone else to jump on board your bandwagon. Sept 11 may not be the best example of the point you are trying to make; because there was no overwhelmingly large religious intitution that initiated the attacks. Bin Laden's group; though larger than it should be, is not terribly big. As for the Crusades; I'm curious to know what specific objection you have to them.
As to living my life surrounded by "yes men", you're gleening an awful lot from a message board and you're entitled to your opinion based on that. There are few successful people in life who haven't surrounded themselves with like-minded and similiarly driven individuals. If you want to call that "yes men" than so be it. That's pretty simplistic.I'm just saying that if you attack people's intelligence every time they disagree with you; many people will voice agreement just to avoid being attacked. I've seen this kind of risk-adverse groupthink a lot, and it bugs me.
I could care less if you like organized religion and feel free to post some feel good stories about it.
Invitation accepted. I spent grades N - 4 at a Catholic school; and the teachers at the school really seemed to care about what they did. Others who attended the school really liked it as well. In contrast, the public school was more institutional, less challenging, more sterile, and more apathetic.
Your original post used humor as a vehicle for attacking organized religion. If you want to attack organized religion that's your right, but don't hide behind the whole humor angle.
-
Except my opinion isn't based on one story about one religion. It's based on history. Wars, terrorist attacks, killing of innocents, molestation, etc.
As I have stated many times here: A person is smart, people are stupid. You get enough people together with enough venom and you end up with a Frankenstien mob. Add ALOT of money to that equation and you have a recipe for disaster.
Your analogy is stupid.
His analogy is NOT stupid. You didn't mention a single piece of history when you made your original attack on organized religion. You failed to mention a single war that religion had inspired, to reference a single terror attack, a single case where innocents were killed, or a single instance where religion had inspired someone to molest someone else. You have to admit that the molestation bit is a stretch even for you.
The sole shred of an excuse for your attack on organized religion was a single article about a single practice from a single sect. Now let's say you liked organized religion. Let's also say that you'd come across a post attacking organized religion, with as little supporting evidence as you provided. Can you honestly convince me--or anyone else on these boards--that you would not instantly have attacked the intelligence of the poster? Attacking the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you seems to be a reflexive response for you; much like batting your eyes or scratching an itch. That's fine if you want to live your life surrounded by yes-men.
-
My statement was "I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe." I don't care what you believe - you have the right to be an idiot and we've witnessed you exercise that almost daily right here at the corral.
I guess you missed the: "I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence." That pretty much covers your two examples of "Godlessness" - even though F.D.R. was an Episcopalian (though he didn't practice publically when he was President).
If you were less quick to call people idiots for disagreeing with you, maybe you'd have a few more intelligent conversations, and a few fewer flame wars. So let's just go with the assumption that your itch to call people idiots is either a) a reflection of some inner need that flame wars obviously fulfill, or b) rote imitation of what everyone else on these boards seems to do. Either way, you've done nothing to impress me.
As for organized religion; you basically bashed it while providing no real alternative. It's easy to be a critic, to point out why what someone else is doing has flaws. You seem to enjoy that role. The hard part is explaining how you would do things; a task which you've consistently neglected. If I were half so quick to jump to conclusions about you as you've been about me, I'd say the only debating tactic you know is argumentum ad hominum.
As for FDR; he cheated on his wife repeatedly and shamelessly. Having discarded religious principles in his personal life, it seems reasonable to believe he ignored them in public life as well. Anyone who closely studies FDR will likely find that belief confirmed.
-
Where did I advocate "getting rid of" organized religion? Your conclusions are based on some defense mechanism that probably have something to do with your intellectual inadequacy.
I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence. Most organized religions are now about money and power at the highest level and seem to care little about their original missions.
That said, I don't care if everyone else belongs to one. That's your right as an individual. Just as it's my right to think you're an idiot for doing so.
I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe.
In the beginning of this post you call me an idiot for disagreeing with you, and at the end you complain about me being the one passing judgement. Suit yourself.
The problem with your method of analysis of religion is that you're not comparing it to the alternative. Have groups of people guided by organized religion made mistakes? Sure. But those pale in comparison with the 61 million people murdered by the government of the Soviet Union; a nation that officially rejected religion of any kind. If you want an example of someone who took a milder approach to the rejection of religion, check out the FDR administration and his bombing of Dresden. In just two nights 60,000 - 500,000 innocent people were burned to death. People complain about witch burnings, and that's fine, so long as they also remember this!
-
I wasn't complaining about the joke. But alaska seemed to be saying that this is an example of why we need to get rid of organized religion. If he believes in organized religion it's a different story; but it doesn't sound to me like he does.
-
Canbuffan made some valid points about why it might not be time to put in Losman. Keep in mind that Losman had less than half a year of practice time. Without him being out there physically thowing the ball in practice, it will be hard for him to complete those passes in actual games.
But Bledsoe is not the answer. If you want a veteran starter--which is not a bad thing to want--there are other QBs to whom you can turn. QBs who have higher ratings than Bledsoe, and who can be signed for lower salaries. QBs like Kurt Warner!
-
I guess that anyone who doesn't agree with your condemnation of organized religion must not have an "open mind." Fine. I don't agree with you, so I guess that makes me a close-minded bigot. Have it your way.
Bills Offseason
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Noodle arm? When Bledsoe throws a screen pass like a fastball, people complain--correctly--that he has no touch. But when Warner slows the short stuff down a little, people complain about his noodle arm! There is no winning with the fans on these boards! Or maybe you were saying that Warner didn't put enough on the deep passes. That would imply his offensive line gave him the time to throw the ball deep in the first place . . .