I don't disagree that they'll be tough. I thought Samuel was so important because of his productivity with interceptions. Still, it's just a prediction--I might look foolish at the end of it all but it's fun to predict at least a bit. As for the hangover, I don't see how that plus Spygate won't have some impact. Tough as those guys are mentally (and who in the NFL isn't at least to some extent) that is a lot to carry.

-Drew

Assuming for a moment that Tony Romo can place a football for a chip shot FG I would have to agree that the Cowboys stand a very good chance. I'll root for my Seahawks (and by the way, Dallas, thanks for Julius Jones) but I don't think they'll make it all the way in that they still have some OL and defensive issues to address.

On the AFC side of the coin I think the Pats are on the decline. They lost some good players after the season including their best defensive player in Samuel. So, the Colts seem like the logical choice.

I have been experimenting with a number of new browsers of late and thought that others might share experiences regarding their own preferences, hang-ups, etc....

I have started using Flock recently and I like it save for one function with YouTube that drives me nuts. Firefox still appears to be the standard and I use that as well.

I also like Safari (I own a Mac) and one called Camino. Just thought I would put the question out there.

-Later

Drew

I'm located up here in Seahawk country and while Brett has sent us home a few times I have a great deal of respect for what he has accomplished on the field. To that end, this entire thing just got ugly. First (and I'm sure any GBP fans will set me straight if I'm wrong) it appears that Favre might have made a hasty decision when he first told the Pack that he was going to retire. Sorry if that is stating the obvious but I think it is what happened and what set the rest of the events in motion. Once he thought it over, realized how close he had come to a Super Bowl birth he changed his mind. The aches and pains of the previous season faded, it is easy to understand the why and how of his decision.

But, at what point do the Packers move forward with Rogers? Were they to let Favre have on more year, two more, wait for him to get hurt (as indestructible as the guy has been, everyone has a limit) and then throw Rogers in with little prep?

It seems clear that the Packers were ready to move on. As great as number 4 has been for as many years there does come a time for a new era. That is tough for die-hard fans like me though because even if you are not a Favre fan, the guy is such a icon--no matter what else was going on, Favre was throwing touchdowns and that, no matter what, will be missed.

As a Seahawk I have watched two incredible players end stellar careers in Seattle. Franco Harris played for the Hawks for a short time as did the greatest WR ever--Jerry Rice. But it was not the same and it never will be. Favre in a Jets uniform just won't seem any more right than did Joe Montana in a Chiefs uniform.

I think Brett should have given the Pac one more year. They were close last year to a Super Bowl and who knows, this could have been the year. But because of this dance, because of indecision and ego (one for Favre, one for the Packer Org.) it now appears that Favre will end his career in NY and the Packers will go with Aaron Rogers. That it is highly improbable tht either team will make it far in the playoffs (let alone a Super Bowl appearance) might be the saddest part of the entire story.

-Drew

The original post here was sent with good and heartfelt intentions but it was pure proselytizing. It seems then when people disagree or create arguments to the contrary of the original post there is a charge of simply creating an argument. I have read through all of the posts on this thread. Most of them are well thought out, and most of them ask serious questions about the contradictions and logical inconsistencies that surround the Christian faith.

But it seems that most of those questions and disagreements are simply met (by some) with childish charges of "just wanting to argue." Talk about ignoring the point. Arguments in this room are a good thing. No one is out torching clinics or hurting people over their faith--or lack thereof. But if people are going to post faith-based threads in a public community and then get worked up over the fact that some people are going to disagree, then perhaps the posts should not be made.

The OP had to do with why we need a Savior? Who here thought that wasn't going to create some banter and some debate? It seems to me that at times, posts are created that take the side of the Christian faith and then anyone who dares to disagree is accused of being egotistical, argumentative, or even downright insulting.

Any faith that cannot be laid open and seriously considered and debated is not only unworthy of a God but is unworthy of anything that looks like serious belief. Shouldn't people of faith welcome such critiques?

It really makes me wonder about the level of understanding of a faith when even the most elementary arguments are discounted as nothing more than mean spirited arguments.

Sad.

-Drew

Feral,

Why should Abra not comment on posts written (in this case by MorningSong?) From what motivation do you find that request appropriate? If it is true, and I believe it is, that MorningSong knows Abra's beliefs and Abra knows hers, then why make the case that her post is above critique.

In this forum I've asked a number of questions that have never been answered. I accept that as part of the "way it goes" but any faith which claims to have all of the answers (i.e., be the only way to heaven) should be able to defend itself not against attack but against simple and fairly logical questions.

That many born again Christians have no answer for so many of the things that have repeatedly been raised here should a bit of a concern.

Or not--because when dogma runs out of answers it generally runs to hide under a blanket of faith.

-Drew

I thought there were some much deeper moral questions being asked in the film? Dent stating near the beginning that you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain was perfect foreshadowing. Joker forced Batman to make some decisions and Gotham's citizens had to do the same. They had to ask themselves to what extent they wanted vigilante justice.

I think Nolan wanted the message to hit and the questions to be asked.

But whatever--I really liked it.

OK, as I type this at 2:02 AM PST it is having just returned home from having seen the movie. It was everything I had hoped but they left something special--more! Oh, **NO SPOILERS** so feel free to read on if you'd like.

First, the movie itself, as a whole, was tremendous. There is not question that it was long. The last half-hour of the film seemed to push the limit of the crowd I shared the theater with but as a movie, it was a fast 2.5 hours.

Of things Ledger. In a word--amazing. He found the part, found the voice, the posture, the laugh and then he became the part. He had not an ounce of empathy for anything or anyone and he really set the standard for film criminals.

It was a bit strange watching the film knowing he never got to see the final release. He left everything on the screen.

The rest of the cast was equally good with a special nod to Gary Oldman for his role.

I'll leave it at this: The movie was excellent. It paced out nicely and gave me every cent of my ticket price. Ledger owned but all of the performances were good (save for one) and I'll let you figure that out on your own.

Go see this movie.

-Drew

I think there are some semantics being employed in this discussion, not on purpose but because the subject is replete with emotion regardless and because it is the nature of words to mean different things to different people. To suggest that there are never children who are born unwanted by the mother who gave birth is a ridiculous argument. Biological parents have absolutely had children that "they" did not want. If you doubt that e-mail me and I'll share with you my own story of having been adopted and the circumstances surrounding my being born. But, I was wanted. I was wanted by the parents who adopted me. They were and are the only parents I've ever known.

So, to some extent, I believe that both arguments here are correct. I don't think children are born unwanted by everyone but that is not the same argument as to suggest that a child cannot be born unwanted by someone.

-Drew

Again, this question (which I believe was asked with sincerity) is an example of just how far Christians have to reach to come up with something that looks and feels like an answer.

First, it makes no sense at all, in any faith, to believe or hold as truth a doctrine that punishes babies for original sin. In fact, to hold a baby responsible for anything at all is morally reprehensible and void of logic and reason. Anyone who believes that a baby would go anywhere but to a place of eternal peace would immediately have to divorce themselves of that faith--for to believe in something less than heaven for a baby would mean faith in a cruel and murderous God. So, that question as a stand alone is fairly easy in that despite the lack of empirical evidence for such a belief, it is the only one that allows a person to sleep at night without a terrible fear that they are worshipping the worst type of monster.

As far as the tribe in Africa that has never heard the message of Christ, it is not suppositious to believe that such a tribe exists--for you know that throughout history many such tribes have existed. Many never heard the Word and as a result many died not knowing or believing in something anathema to Christian teachings. The idea that if no missionary paid them a visit that an angel of some sort would visit is a nice thought--but again, such a belief has to be in place in order to make their fate justifiable in the reflection of a religion of Peace.

This of course does nothing at all to deal with the Muslim, born in Jordan who has, from the time of her birth been taught that Islam is "The way, the truth, and the light." She is taught to hold a disdain for Christianity in the same way that many Christians contemptuously hold Islam. In her world she believes that every one of you here who professes Christianity is going to hell. But it all works out in the end because you believe the same about her and all of the followers of Islam. And on and on the circle spins.

It's pretty easy when one is born in the 20th or 21st century in middle America to flippantly scoff about the many obvious ways in which Christ has revealed Himself to "the world". An actual look around the actual world tells a very different story.

Still, it seems rather impossible to me everyone has heard and it seems grotesquely unlikely that any child would be damned for not accepting God when they haven't yet mastered eating without half of it winding up on their face and floor.

-Drew

I DO. But where were they when Meg Ryan, arms outstretched enjoying the rays of the sun and the company of her non-angel boyfriend took on a logging truck--and lost.

Watching over us my a**.

-Drew

First, I am not sure where God states that if the "bushman" never heard the name of Christ or of God that he would be spared the fate of hell, nor do I remember hearing about how those who were taught a false religion but who truly believed it would likewise be spared. If that is the case then what if one does not believe in God at all or what if one believes that God is bigger than any one religion? If I believe that sincerely then am I spared damnation?

Furthermore, if God is going to grant a pardon to the students of those false teachers then isn't it a problem when we consider that at some point even the teachers were taught? How many generations or ages back are we allowed to travel?

I like your post and your question so please don't read my response wrong. I just wonder how pardons are acceptable for some and yet not for others. Teachers taught me why I believe what I believe and I believe in sincerely. Does that grant me the same reprieve?

Though I do not believe any such reprieve is necessary and while I do not believe that all men are born guilty, it is hard for me to wrap my mind and heart around the arguments that lend foundational support to damnation and hell.

Still, I will forever remain a student, will forever be open to ideas not my own, and will forever look deeper than 2000 year old text for the answers, the questions, and the issues that capture our minds as we continue to try to sort it all out and make the most of this life we live.

-Drew

Protective is one thing--it tends to be healthier and can be explained by simply stating that I take care of those people close to me--that I look out for people and especially someone I'm dating. But jealousy is, for the most part, simple insecurity.

I have a buddy who while a good guy tends to track where his wife is--calls her a lot--in short, he's a pretty jealous guy. He's not an abusive guy nor is he a bad father--it is just that he seems to have something built in that tells him that jealousy is going to keep his marriage. A. It won't and B. If it's what did keep his marriage, it would not be a marriage worth keeping.

If someone comes home at the end of the night and is with me because they want to be--and if I'm with them for the same reason then there is a confidence and comfort in that. If someone wants to leave--is no longer happy, no need to get upset and pi**ed off--let them find what they need.

A post above said that playful jealousy is oe thing--psycho "Fatal Attraction--bunny boiling on the stove" is completely different. Totally right and well put.

-Drew

Affliction does have card strength but I think it would be premature to suggest that they are in the UFC echelon just yet. Let's see if they have some staying power and more importantly, if they can land more than a few big name fighters.

What I do like about the competition between organizers is that with competition it might start to drive up the purse of some of the fighters. The UFC, to no one whose watched the sport, is not known for overpaying their fighters. If a show like Affliction can catch on and start to get traction, and start to pay fighters more (not to mention start things like medical, retirement--seriously) it might force the UFC to improve their pay or risk losing some of their stars to another organization.

The UFC has the stable right now. They could not get Fedor but in truth that might not be the worst thing. Who is Fedor going to fight in the UFC heavyweight division now that Randy is gone? Arlovski? Sylvia? Herring? He's already fighting Sylvia so we'll see.

OK, enough ranting from me. And please don't read the above paragraph as my being happy with Fedor not coming to the UFC--only that he's being paid more where he is now and that will, if the trend continues, begin to create some decisions for President White.

-Drew

It's tough though, with Griffen I mean because he's a solid fighter. Rampage is VERY good right now, best he's ever been in his career, and that is why I think he wins this one. If Griffen gets it, look for Liddell to access Dana White on speed dial and ask for a title shot. Jardine would also be in line. It would really shake things up at 205.

-Drew

OK guys (and more than a few girls) it's UFC time again. Tonight it's UFC 86 and the card (minus a few off-card bouts) looks like this:

1. Forrest Griffin (205) VS Quinton Jackson (205)

2. Ricardo Almeida (185) VS Patrick Cote (185)

3. Chris Lytle (170) VS Josh Koscheck (170)

4. Marcus Aurelio (155) VS Tyson Griffin (155)

5. Gleison Tibau (156) VS Joe Stevenson (155)

6. Justin McCully (236) VS Gabriel Gonzaga (249)

7. Cole Miller (155) VS Jorge Gurgel (155)

PREDICTIONS:

1. Jackson over Griffin--second round KO (I realize I might look stupid tomorrow but right now, based on Jackson's last two fights against Dan Henderson and Chuck Liddell I just can't pick against Jackson. I think Forrest is more than a game opponent (and he did beat Shogun Rua) but I'm with Jackson on this one.

2. I am going with Cote on this one despite his opponent being a great BJJ fighter.

3. Koscheck should beat Lytle. I don't like picking for Kos but I think in this matchup he'll win.

4. I pick Tyson Griffin on this one but won't say more as I don't really know enough about his opponent to sound remotely intelligent.

5. Joe Stevenson--he needs a win badly right now and this fight might as well be a championship fight--at least it better be in his mind.

6. Gonzaga is a mean dude--he should win this one.

7. Cole Miller is actually a tough guy--but Gurgel is my pick.

Easy--When you see that red light flashing in the corner of your vision, it might be the relationship dissipation light going off--even though it generally starts as a faint blinking--it soon blinds. Act on it when it is dull--it's no fun looking in to the sun.

-Drew

TLW:

Interesting analogy but why not take it all the way to the logical (or in the case of the bible; illogical) conclusion. The rebellious child who does not listen to his parents may in fact be asked to leave, will perhaps be scorned to some extent and might even lose contact with the parents who loved, cared for, and raised him.

What those parents would not do however (unless they are wired as sadistic monsters) is send their rebellious child to a place of eternal damnation. It would never happen. Find me any parent that is sane, anywhere in the world and ask them this question:

"Is there anything your son or daughter could do to you that would make sending them to an eternal and painful hell a just punishment?"

I know of no parents who would do this, none that would or could become so unhinged with their son or daughter's behavior that they would impose this type of punishment. Now, here we are talking about imperfect parents, parents who, according to your beliefs, are sinful by nature. If anyone would be able to conjure up a justification for such a punishment, surely it would be the human parents, right?

Nope, not according to Christianity. According to the good book God sent his only begotten that whosoever shall believe shall have everlasting life. And if you don't believe, eternal damnation. This is from the perfect god, the perfect being of the universe. A child misbehaves on a cosmic scale so grand that an eternity in hell is the best answer?

I'm not denying that people rebel. All of us do. We rebel against workplace productivity, posted speed limits, and sometimes against vows and rules that are taken with solemn oath. But that rebellion is part of being human and that we were born human and then can fail so miserably in the eyes of "he" who created us that the only resort, the only fit justice is one of eternal agony---no, that just won't do.

You just didn't take the analogy far enough, but it was still a worthwhile read.

-Drew

Hmmm, who's not being nice? Oh, yes, I spotted it now--(GASP) for shame, for shame, for shame, Ms. M. Wait, that!! was sarcastic--it appears to be spreading. Let's just hope everyone recognizes.

Hey everyone:

Dana White: Well first, and this should be fairly self-evident, I don't think I can really comment too harshly on all things Dana in that I don't know the guy and have never met him. I will concede however that he does, at times, come across as a rather arrogant individual, the best example (in my opinion) being TUF's opening credits where he is credited as one of the stars of the show. I don't know, something about that seems self-important and though he is in every episode, so are a host of referees and yet I don't see them being given opening credit kudos.

That all stated, I imagine that in order to run the UFC you would have to be a bit cocky. You are dealing with some really good guys but also a handful of very arrogant guys who think that the entire sport of MMA was created to cater to their every waking wish. I imagine that to deal with personalities like Shamrock, Sylvia, Ortiz, and a host of others, that you probably have to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

I could be wrong about that but it seems to me that it would probably help--at least to some extent.

I do think that Dana has a love of MMA and I think that he very much wants the UFC to continue to be a great organization. I think in order for that to happen however, he is going to have to start paying some of the guys who work for him a bit more money. That is a different discussion thread but it is linked to the overall question.

Bottom line--I think that Dana has done good things for the UFC but I also think that he will have to keep doing good things in order to make it the elite org. out there. If he starts believing his own BS press and begins to think that other organizations are simply bad knock-offs, the sport may hit him a lot harder than a well thrown punch. That, as it turns out, is also good for ego deflation.

-Drew