UNTstormchaser

What's there to question? Between numerous acts of vandalism lately, the Sikh tragedy, and the FRC shooting today, I felt it's an appropriate time to try to get a message of peace out. I figured I'd share it with my fellow Mean Green fans.

Very sad to hear this. My thoughts go out to his family and friends.

http://www.livescience.com/22387-greenland-melting-breaks-record.html That doesn't happen when the temperature goes down.

Let's just hope it is indeed a secondary violation and doesn't involve Benford and TJ.

I saw this earlier and it got me thinking about it. The thought actually hadn't ever crossed my mind. I think it's certainly possible, but unlikely. He'd need to average like 18/11 and the team would need to have a great season, and I think that would do it. But it will be tough.

Though I am sure some of you are going to view this as ironic, I started a facebook page today with a good friend of mine called Americans for Religious Tolerance. If you have a facebook and agree with the message, please do me a favor and like it and share it. I created it in response to the recent religiously motivated acts of violence and vandalism. All information can be found on the page. https://www.facebook.com/AmericansForReligiousTolerance Quick note: I'm an atheist and my friend Jake, who I decided to create the page with, is a very faithful Christian. I'm hoping that the page can catch on and grow to a mass audience, so that he and I can serve as an example of how people can not only tolerate others' beliefs, but be great friends with them as well.

The NCAA really needs to take these petty rules and shove them up their...honestly, if that's an NCAA infraction, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You're Thor, of course they're going to listen to you. You could strike them down if they disobey your wishes.

I will twat like a fiend if it means I get free crap.

Government involvement =/= radical policy

Douche....canoe. Douche canoe. That is what Lunardi is. I suggest we email him en mass and type profane things at him followed by an apology and reasoning for why MTSU is a terrible choice for the Sun Belt.

Re-read what you're responding to, and get back to me. You're arguing that government is involved when I said the government is involved.

I just ate mine.

Your constant negativity astounds me, given you're someone who lives and dies for this program. You remind me of Boston sports fans. "If the Patriots don't win by 35 and Tom Brady doesn't throw for 400 yards and 5 TD's every week, he's a bum and Brian Hoyer needs to be put in, and Belichick should be fired. For good measure, let's blow up Gillette Stadium and rebuild the old stadium to relive the glory days of going 3-13."-the thought process of Boston sports fans. That is what you remind me of.

Mine is a 72", 242 mhz, infinite dimension, Mild Cheddar.

Imagine if PV get Honey Badger now too! They'd be filthy haha.

Who said anything about radical policy? You're implying so many things about my beliefs that simply aren't true. In a perfect world, the government doesn't even have to touch this subject. But we live in a world where they do. I don't want radical policy change, I want the world to understand that ruining the environment is bad, and there is no alternative other than to try to BEGIN to changing our ways. It's a slow process. But the government has to get involved by backing alternative energy sources both publicly and financially, and get the hell out of the brothel full of the oil kings that they've been stroking for so long.

Agreed, he'll probably get put back at FB where he belongs. But, he's versatile enough and has enough potential to be kept around for a while.

The O-Line didn't do him too many favors last night, he was getting hit before or at the line of scrimmage on a lot of his runs. I was fairly impressed by what I saw, minus the drop and special teams gaff. But, he looked comfortable, considering this is the first time he has played running back in a live football game since at least high school (if he even did then). He's young and incredibly inexperienced. I don't think the coaches are going to be looking to him to make the perfect play all the time. He's a project player...if he makes the 53 it's because of injuries. But he will absolutely make the practice squad, and who knows what will happen once he gets some experience with the big boys? I'd like to point out that on the dropped pass play, he looked absolutely fantastic until...you know, the drop. Great burst off the snap, hit a defender with a hard block, then broke off and got wide open in the flat. He just failed to execute, unfortunately, otherwise that would have been an eye opening play.

Right, right. Because fundamental biology, basic chemistry of the atmosphere, basic knowledge of how much CO2 humans emit (among other pollutants), basic knowledge of the Earth's population history, etc., is not knowledge nor a basis for a belief. That's a purposely loaded question, based on the context in which you threw it in, but it's actually a legitimate question. I don't think that it's "biology" that failed, since, as with all basic sciences, the theories and laws that govern them are pretty damn concrete, and none of the laws or theories are violated when a species becomes extinct. But, all of the species of dinosaurs and of other animals, plants, etc., that became extinct due to the after effects of the impact of the meteor that hit, failed to adapt (through no fault of their own really...I imagine it was a rather dramatic change), and died off as a result. If anything failed, it was the species which died off (or Mr. Jupiter, since the person who said that isn't actually kidding, and that is actually true that Jupiter's gravity keeps asteroids in their place).

Of course there is a difference. But pollution isn't a micro problem. It's a macro problem, the biggest problem we have, because of what it may cause. You should look up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and tell me that it isn't harmful.

Twisting words and making accusations seems to be your forte. Congratulations. I've used nothing but legitimate science. If you disagree with fundamental biology's claim that the PRIMARY (NOT THE ONLY) purpose of life is to reproduce, then go get a doctorate degree in biology, find a university that will fund your research, and prove it wrong. That's my response to point 1. Point 2: That is true, but is not my argument. I don't even know how you can even assume that I am trying to link point 1 with point 2 here. That doesn't even make sense, given the direction of my arguments. Point 3: I never said that was the case, either. You really have been doing some skim reading, huh? I've said, multiple times in fact, that CO2 emissions may have little effect on climate change, or it may have a huge effect. We do not know, which is why we are researching it. However, regardless of it's impact on the climate, no good can come from changing the chemistry of the atmosphere. If you disagree with that, then you're not very bright. If you don't understand how adding CO2 and taking away trees changes the chemistry of the atmosphere, again, you're not very bright. It isn't like I am using complex science here man. This is basic stuff. I don't need a PhD in Environmental Science, Chemistry, Fluid Dynamics, Atmospheric Sciences, and Anal Fermenting to comprehend that messing with something as delicate as the atmosphere is not the best idea. Point 4: I never said that, or even remotely came close to saying that. I have stated that if man is effecting climate change in a negative way, and we continue doing so, the consequences probably aren't going to be good. But, I never even came close to saying what you claim I did. Point 5: Right, more illogical conclusions based upon things you think I said in the posts you hardly read. Want my actual thoughts in a point by point format? 1) The primary function of life is to reproduce and survive, this includes human beings. 2) Human beings are negatively effecting the atmosphere with their overly consumptive behaviors, and pollute the planet to an extreme amount. (Quick note, the highest point in RI is the Johnston Landfill...) 3) Humans pumping ridiculous amounts of unnecessary CO2 (non breathing CO2) into the atmosphere, along with their other forms of polluting, may or may not be a leading factor in the climate change we are seeing currently, and overpopulation does not help this issue. 4) Overpopulation will solve itself, as it always does in nature, but humans can help keep their planet livable and healthy by reducing the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that they release into the atmosphere, into the water, and over the land. 5) If humans do not change their ways, and pollution continues to grow at an exponential rate, the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable for human (and most other) life. Me, I think there is a big point. Just because we don't know how much of an impact we are having on climate change doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that we are ruining the Earth in more ways than one. If our CO2 issues aren't causing any problems now, how about in ten years when another 60 billion trees will have been cut down, the Earth's population is beyond 10 billion, and the number of automobiles has tripled due to the industrialization of mainland China, India, among others? If we start changing now, before there is no known problem, isn't that better than waiting until there is a problem?

I never argued against religion. I argued against using religion for legislation, which you know, is illegal under the Constitution. As for gay marriage, that also has zero to do with this. There have actually been studies done to see if homosexuality is a natural phenomenon designed to curb population growth, or more simply, to help prevent overpopulation. Regardless of that, homosexuality is not a choice, it is a natural thing that occurs in at least 1500 other animal species, and is completely irrelevant to this. The fact that you bring up my views on gay marriage just shows that you have nothing legitimate to refute anything I have said. I also never insinuated that people who either choose to not reproduce, or physically cannot reproduce due to their sexual orientation, because of a sexual deformity, or because of a medical issue, aren't living or aren't serving any life purpose. You're taking ridiculous leaps of faith on what I think based on simple things I said, once again because you can't refute a damn thing. All I stated was that the primary function of life is to reproduce. That is fact. Read up on basic biology if you disagree. Look around in nature, look at animals, plants, etc., their primary purpose is to reproduce and continue the life of the species. That is why fish lay thousands of eggs, because most eggs do not end up surviving until adulthood. This is why sea turtles lay hundreds of eggs every year, because it is lucky if even one of them survives until adulthood. That is why kangaroos have the most complex reproductive system, where a mother can support 3 young, each in a different stage of life, at all times, because hardly any of them survive. That is also why the human population has skyrocketed so dramatically, because our reproductive habits and abilities were designed for a time when the percentage of babies that reached adulthood was much lower. That, coupled with the fact that people are living longer as well, has caused the population to jump unbelievably quickly. This is obviously due to the advances in technology, sanitation, medical science, living conditions, etc. No, I am not suggesting that this is bad, before you throw that down my throat, too. But I want to show you something. My point in showing you this, is to make the point that the Earth cannot handle this amount of people, especially given the amount of crap we put into the air and water. CO2 is the main issue in this thread, but there are so many other things as well. 7 billion people create a lot of garbage, and we don't recycle even half of what we could. Plastics are terrible for the environment. Chemicals are released into the atmosphere all over the world, leading to acid rain. We are cutting down 3-6 billion trees per year. There is so much, there is ZERO chance that we don't effect the environment negatively in some way. It's just downright dumb to think that billions of tons of extra CO2 (non breathing related CO2) being released into the atmosphere each year, coupled with extreme deforestation, plus chemical issues, garbage issues, etc., aren't doing harm in some way. Whether or not that harm is global warming related is unknown, though it's likely that it is influencing it at least a little bit. Even if it's not though, there is going to come a point where we have no trees, no fertile land, no naturally occurring animals, etc., if we continue the pace we're on. These things aren't unlimited, and if the population growth continues to be so rapid, and our consumption continues to grow exponentially, we're screwed.

That's the league minimum. So yes, it is correct, though he has to actually make the team in order for it to be valid. His payments end the minute he is cut.

That's such a retarded way to look at things. The whole idea behind trying to reduce our carbon footprint is to leave our ancestors a better planet to live on. If there are no children, there is no point. It isn't like the Earth is going to blow up in 5 years, odds are it will still be livable throughout our lifetime. But to suggest that having children while changing your lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly is hypocrisy, is absurd. Continuing our life as a species is not a bad thing for the environment, in fact that is what happens in nature. Life forms reproduce. We are a life form. That is what the point of life is. I understand that the US lifestyle is ridiculously consumptive. That's the whole point in changing one's lifestyle, to go against that. I don't understand how that can be difficult to comprehend. Change starts with a single person. If the US is going to change, people are going to have to change before it's the popular thing to do. Now, changing your life to be more environmentally friendly may not make as much of an impact as not having children, but in the long run, having the normal amount of children (you know, 1-4, not like 19 like the idiots who have that TV show), and teaching them to be environmentally conscious and to care about the planet they live on leads to a pretty damn positive impact. Making the world more environmentally friendly should be the single biggest concern humanity has, regardless of the validity of man-made climate change. How, in any way, is cleaning up our planet ever a bad idea? Only bad can come of ignoring our impact, and only good can come from changing it.