Shoney'sPonyBoy

All evidence points to your underlying theory. Look at Mike Bobo. Everyone complained about him for the entire time he was calling plays here. Now he's at Georgia and calls an entirely different type of game. And you're right, that's just one example...it happens like that over and over and over and over and over. The only thing that keeps me from going all in on that theory is that I can't figure out exactly what someone "higher up" would do that would dictate how our football OC did his job. Does Bobby Lowder meet the HC in a dark parking garage and whisper hoarsely, "Make sure everyone in the stadium knows what you're about to call...that's how we do things here at Auburn and it would be a shame if you didn't get with the program." How does the "meddling" theory look, exactly?

I can guarantee that they will realize that the books parents, preachers, and politicians want to ban are the ones they WANT to read, whether they need to or not. Those who read something other than texts, that is. Like when the PMRC finally prevailed and got their album lyric rating system and Frank Zappa was the first one to release a record with the warning label on it. It was a 100% instrumental album.

I understand. Frankly, I could get off the online grid and it wouldn't bother me much except that I cant for work reasons. I think people would be better off without the constant access to information and Andy Warhol "15 minutes of fame" social media presence (boy was that statement prophetic). I think 3 cable network channels with a relatively unbiased media, wall phones with answering machines, road atlases, physical copies of music and movies, etc...basically, the way I grew up in the 70s and 80s, was a better balance of real life and virtual life. Enough connection to communicate with each other effectively and share a common national experience, but not too connected like we are today. I think people were more reasonable with each other, more civil, communicated better, were less selfish and self-centered, emotionally healthier, had better social skills, were more outwardly focused than inwardly focused, etc.

I don't think either side is more righteous. I do think it's self evident that the one thing every one of the left's policies has in common is that they all oppose, undermine, and sometimes deliberately seek to weaken or destroy or replace traditional Judaeo-Christian values. Whether someone thinks that's more or less righteous is up for debate, I suppose, but I don't think it's really reasonably debatable that it's true. Practically/policy speaking, even if both parties are pushing us toward oblivion, which many populists on both sides like to argue these days, as with so many things in life it comes down to a matter of degree and speed. Republicans act like they want to take their time getting there. Make the trip last as long as they can, enjoy the sights along the way. Bottom line, I feel like at age 53 I can outrun the effects of the vast majority of Republican policies. The left, on the other hand, acts like they've got about a 10 year window to completely ruin the country and if they can't get it done in that time frame then they lose their chance and have to go home frustrated. I don't think anyone under about age 75 or so can outrun Democratic policies. Case in point, I heard on the radio that the money supply has increased 40% in the last two and a half years. Gee, I wonder why inflation is as bad as it is? I just can't figure it out...it can't be Bidenomics, because the media says that's doing us all a favor (as Biden prepares to print another 100+ Billion to split between Ukraine and Israel.)

I would think you'd get more responses if you could be more specific. What area of the law?

I read an article on using alternative search engines a while back that basically said that the search engine you use is just the tip of the iceberg. If you use a GPS app, if you use Uber, if you search anything online as far as a map (even if you're searching on DDG) if you use anything like that, you're using Google and they pretty much still got you. I'm not tech savvy and don't remember the details, but essentially they were saying that unless you totally disengage yourself from the internet you're still being monitored like crazy.

Yep. Life will never be the same for you again. In a mostly good way.

Congratulations! The way things are going in society, however, a future QB may be a lot to hope for. I might start by just hoping that he still considers himself male by the time he graduates high school and work up from there. According to Bill Mahr's trend analysis, I think around then is when everyone is supposed to be identifying as LGBTQ+. 😜

LOL. At this point I'll take signs and we can work up to actual improvement over a little more time.

Signs of improvement.

I absolutely think you're right.

12-10 Auburn.

1. The fans you are describing aren't superfans. Those are casual fans who don't pay attention. Superfans are the ones on here virtue signaling for the purpose of demonstrating to everyone else how wise, loyal, levelheaded, etc. they are. You're pretty close to that line yourself right now. 2. Very few people here are arguing that we have lots of talent. It's being claimed (by you and at least one other guy) as a strawman, but it's not really so. That's not the argument. The argument is that we've got what we've got and we don't seem to be using what we've got that wisely or well. Our offense this year is averaging fewer yards per play than it did last year. We're worse on offense this year. That's the argument. 3. I agree that it's going to take time to see what Freeze is capable of here and there's plenty of rebuilding that's going to have to be done. Not this year, not next year. 2025 is going to really be the first year we can tell what his ultimate potential here may be., and it may not even be by 2025 However—all that said—this was the most high profile hire for Auburn since probably Pat Dye due to the other available possibilities that we either rejected or that rejected us this time around...prospects that usually just aren't on the table for us. We could have hired Deon Sanders and had the biggest splash hire in the history of the program. And with him bringing his son with him at QB it's conceivable that we could have won both the UGA and Ole Miss games (and yes, it's also conceivable that we could have lost them as well...that variable would have changed the whole equation)...but speculation aside, for SURE bringing him to the SEC would have had the media hanging on everything we did, and putting him in those AFLAC commercials opposite Saban would have set up a natural dichotomy for recruits (go to uat if you want to ride the old white man's coattails out, come to Auburn if you want a fresh, modern experience). I believe if we had really wanted Lane Kiffin we could have had him, too. Might have cost us too much, but I think we could have had him. Also would have been a big media splash just by virtue of the fact that we would have stolen Ole Miss' coach twice. That's only two of the names I think we could have gone after that I don't believe we did (not hard, anyway). Instead, we hired a guy with significant baggage and a checkered past. And not even in the same mold as Bruce Pearl, although that's the comparison that is always made. Freeze's past reflects a lot more of a moral failure than Pearl's...Pearl colored outside NCAA rules, which pretty much every coach in every significant sport in college sports does. He just got caught. Freeze, on the other hand, morally betrayed his wife and his family in about the worst way he could have. So...the point is that IMO we stuck our neck out for this guy to hire him in the first place when we had (IMO) better options with more upside available (and before someone says something about being "a better fit," is Auburn really a natural fit for people with massive moral failings? Say it ain't so...) I think we went out on a limb for Freeze, and this one fan's perspective is that he better not make us look like boobs for doing it. And so far, he doesn't look very resourceful, imaginative, creative, or extraordinarily capable of working with the admittedly little bit of talent he has. Anybody can look impressive with talent, even Saban (if the talent gap is wide enough, anyway). It takes someone extraordinary to impress without much talent. And I assume Auburn choosing him over other possibilities was a statement that we think he's something more than ordinary. I'm not even talking about winning, necessarily. Not yet. I'm just talking about looking like we're improving. I think the defense is better than last year, but the offense is worse, and Freeze is supposed to be an offensive guy. So I get why people are complaining.

I suggest you say what you mean and mean what you say. i can't think of a way to communicate an absoluist position than i can to have someone type "always" and then bold it.

Touche!

You didn't read what I posted, I don't think.

Here's the quote I was responding to: "Religion is always passed along by indoctrinating children. That's exactly why countries/cultures are defined by particular religions - including ours." (Emphasis his). Almost any time you use the word "always" (and bold it, no less), you're going to be wrong. Because all it takes in that scenario is one example to prove you wrong. I wasn't indoctrinated as a child, was an atheist, and yet here I am now a Christian. Game over on that particular exchange. In general, sure, it takes exposure to an idea to have a chance of inculcating that idea. And the more you're exposed to it the more likely it is you'll have sufficient exposure to it for the logic of it to make sense to you. Sure. It's self evident that that goes for becoming an atheist, a Christian, a Mormon, a Jew, a Republican, a Democrat, someone who is certain that Van Halen was better with David Lee Roth vs Sammy Hagar, or an Auburn fan vs an Alabama fan. But that self-evident principle is very frequently used by atheists as proof (albeit usually tangentially implied, as in this case) that a theistic viewpoint is false and unsupported by evidence (which was the strong underlying implication in this conversation). I don't ever see it accepted as a reason that atheism is false or unsupported by evidence. You do? The logical truth of the matter is that it isn't really relevant in either case. There's either sufficient evidence to support the viewpoint or there's not, regardless of how popular the viewpoint is.

I am at work, so I will have to reply in small chunks, but I would start with this: The basic premises of the article are: 1. There are far more atheists in America than those who admit to being atheists. Plus, the number of atheists who will admit to being atheists continues to grow. I believe the author said that this year‘s poll included the lowest number of people polled, claiming that they believed in God. 2. Atheists are better citizens, because they vote more often, are more politically active, and basically more effective at shaping society. 3. American society is supposedly currently devolving into a theocracy. If you can’t see the inherent, self contradictions already, then I will point them out. Atheists are supposed to be the movers and shakers shaping society and causing change for “good.” And there are more of them than ever before. So why is society supposedly devolving, then? If it is true that atheists are better, more effective citizens and the number of them continues to grow, why wouldn’t more atheists necessarily equal more “progress” in society? How can we be going to wrong way if both of those premises are true? Speaking of which, all of the “evidence“ that atheists are better citizens is predicated upon the percentage of atheists who will admit they are atheist. What about that 26%, most of whom are atheists who will not admit they are atheists? In the context of the evidence links, those people are currently being counted among the religious, not among atheists. Even the author of the article says so. So how reliable is the evidence speaking to the supposedly superior behavior of atheists? A larger group of atheists than the ones considered to be engaging in the superior behavior are contributing to the statistical totals of the religious, who are supposedly engaging in less ideal behavior. There’s more, but that should get it started.

I would say probably a range of B- if he's on and a C- if he's off. But he threw for over 300 yards last year against LSU when we were less concerned about making mistakes and more concerned about trying to let players make plays. And when he's in the game the point wouldn't be for him to torch the defense with his arm. It would be to throw enough to hurt the defense enough that they can't afford to just lay their ears back and ignore that he could throw it. To loosen them up so that he could be successful with a mix of running and throwing. Because you're exactly right...there's no one in college football who is so elusive that he can elude an entire defense who knows exactly what's coming. I get it and I don't envy Freeze's decisions. He's trying to avoid putting us in a position in which we have to overcome multiple turnovers, because he's right—that could get real ugly for us real quick. But MAN...again, I ask, how many games do we think we can possibly win averaging 2 pass attempts per quarter? We threw the ball more often than that Pat Dye's first year when we were still running the wishbone! I think he's going to have to loosen up and not play it so safe.

Seriously? That's odd.

There are plenty of logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions in the article. Just how much discussion were you looking for?

Then you probably better let someone know when you're ready to discuss the issue seriously.

Why is it that atheists always ascribe belief to one's environment but atheism to something else? I didn't grow up going to church and my parents didn't talk much about spirituality at all. I used to be an atheist, now I am a Christian. Is that because of where I was born? If I had been born in a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) home in which religion was devoutly practiced and had ended up becoming an atheist, would that have been because of where I was born? You can't have it both ways.

That's racis.

I suppose so. The problem for a championship scenario is depth. The defense is eventually going to get worn down against any really good team we play.