MadtownTiger

Elijah would disagree. WDE!

They say there's a little bit of God in all of us, even if we don't recognize Him. Well, I hope He likes chimichangas, because that's what He's getting. WDE!

Leviticus 20 is difficult to reconcile. I don't know anyone that has ever gone through with such activity, thankfully, but I know a ton of people who consider themselves love-thy-neighbor Christians that will drop verse 13 without batting an eye. WDE!

Yes and no. The Supreme Court has interpreted Jefferson's words as "gospel" (pun intended) in some rulings, and ignored them absolutely in others. So SCOTUS is really no help at all on this topic. The phrase seemingly relates to the Legislative branch, because it dovetails with the first amendment, but I sincerely don't think that's what Jefferson meant. I believe his comments were directed at the Executive branch. The phrase is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, so the proverbial wall is more of an assumption than a right. And you know what they say about assumptions and rights, everybody's got them and they all stink. Maybe that's supposed to be opinions and.....digressions. The phrase "separation of church and state" came from an open letter Jefferson wrote to a group of Quakers in New York or Pennsylvania (I think, might have been Baptists) regarding the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution wasn't the most popular document, and the vote to ratify was razor thin in about a third of the colonies/states. When Jefferson was elected the Constitution was only about ten years old, and state charters adopted before the Revolution were often regarded as the prevailing authorities. The group had written to the new president to weigh in on the issue of state charters that didn't specifically adopt the language of the First Amendment. But here's the thing, it's counter-intuitive to our thinking now, but they were petitioning for a greater separation. As protestants they believed that while a legislator (a king or a pope or a president) had the right to be religious, they lacked the authority to dictate any religious edicts one way or the other. Further, they argued the prime role of government is simply to to administer justice among citizens. In his letter Jefferson agreed with everything they proposed---including the government's recognition of a sovereign God---and reaffirmed his support by introducing an allusion to something written 150 years earlier about a cultivated religion being the wall between civility and the chaotic world. Simply put, the context of Jefferson's words to the Quakers(?) was not about keeping religion out of government as much as keeping government out of religion. WDE!

I agree with you that it's interesting. I also agree with CCT it's in the wrong forum. WDE!

Well, I would counter that the problem with nutshells is they're almost always an oversimplification. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (arguably even Buddhists) all worship the same God, they just have different prophets. The Koran acknowledges Jesus was a prophet of God, but Mohammed was a more recent prophet. Mormons and Satanists believe in that same God, they just have different takes on how to proceed. Until we look at Asiatic, pagan, or aboriginal/archaic religions, they pretty much all worship the same deity, and an argument can be made even they have the Big Guy at the very top of their hierarchy. WDE!

Does Rule #5 apply here, or is it superseded by #8? Also wondering if #4 applies to the personal lives of players, of it's strictly gameday performance. WDE!

I know we were/are hoping for the best, but to be frank, I'm not sure we should have expected much more. With our OG commits already signed and no OT prospects committed, we replaced the position coach three weeks before NSD. The fact that we brought in a guy with a reputation for being an average recruiter only made the situation more difficult. Just our bad luck it happened at a position of need. This is by no means an argument for fighting tooth and nail to keep Hand, just an observation about how such moves don't happen in a vacuum. As I understand it, when Hand left it cost us a ton of momentum with OTs Gouraige and Barnes. I believe it was H.P. Lovecraft that said, "From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent." Might have been Alanis Morissette, I get them mixed up sometimes. WDE!

Anyone know if JC sees a dentist or maybe a CPA in Phenix City? I know I want to file my tax returns before the government shuts down. WDE!

Same here. I only have so much hate in my heart, and I feel like UGA is causing me to lose perspective on what's really important in life. WDE!

Let's be real, Auburn isn't a place where you learn on the job how to not get it done. I mean, it's in the freaking alma mater, somewhere in the middle. "Hear the student voices swelling, echoes strong and clear, Don't add too many WRs to the roster, we'll be screwed until next year." WDE!

If we sign so many WRs it negatively impacts our ability to meet other, greater needs I'll start trashing Kodi for being too good at the job. WDE!

Was that Joe Whitt? If memory serves, that LB group also included a very undersized LB named Travis Williams. WDE! Edit: Wasn't Will Herring also at AU around that time? Antarrious Williams? Somebody call Brodie Croyle, I'll bet he knows.

For 2017, the official athletic department website lists six athletes at the TE position, five if we don't include Canella. There were only two if we also don't include the two walk-ons and redshirt freshman. And if we also don't count the converted lineman, there was only one TE on the roster. You and I disagree on the nature of the discussion. It seems like you're more fixated on the lack of production from a particular formation rather than the ineffectiveness of our utility players (TE, HB type guys). In the interest of clarity, let me analogize and rephrase: It's like you're discussing how to get the most fantasy points out of the TE position. I'm much more interested in discussing why certain players aren't as effective as we all want them to be and how to best realize their potential production. I don't care where the producers line up, so long as the produce. If that's how you want to approach it, that's fine. I like crunching numbers too. I just have a preference on how to frame it all. Leff occasionally wore #98 and lined up as a traditional, hand on the ground TE, but unlike Uzomah or Lutz, wasn't a receiving threat. Point being, the player matters as much if not more than the position. For his career Leff probably had more tackles than catches. WDE!

But isn't the point of the discussion less about literal stats by a specifically-aligned position, and more about target distribution and utilization of available (or in our case, tragically, unavailable) athletes? I mean, guys like Kelce and Gronkowski, Jimmy Graham in his heyday, are technically TEs, but they are decidedly more dangerous when they line up away from the formation, which is almost half the time. In regards to DCs having to plan for a TE, sure, you want them to have to account for certain alignments, but I think they're just as if not more concerned with personnel. As potential receiving threats, who brought on more consternation when they lined up as a traditional TE, Uzomah or Leff? WDE!