| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | new york city |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3183 |
| Registered on: | 3/11/2005 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Question for the people that eat at tourist trap restaurants in Europe
Posted by epbart on 11/14/25 at 8:40 pm to LuckySo-n-So
quote:
The next day, we stopped in Verona and two Aussies ]and I stopped at Il Ippopatamo, a European chain, and had a great bottle of wine and a great margherita pizza.
"Two Aussies" is an important detail. If they were Aussies, it's almost certain they were not Two Gentlemen of Verona.
1
quote:
In 2003, Thiel tapped him to co-found Palantir. He used Habermas's goofy critical theory ideology and backdoored his theory by turning his abstract theory into a billion dollar company. He lives in New Hampshire and hates woke technology which is why he refused to move to the Silicon Valley.
He is as smart as Elon Musk and busted his arse to get where he is. I've known him for 15 years and he is the real deal.
I know very little about Alex Karp, except what I've read in an article or two a couple years ago, but like Chicken (who posted just after you), I understood Karp to be a socialist.
Your post intrigued me enough to scan his Wiki page:
Alex Karp - wikipedia
and it confirms most of my superficial understanding:
- Born in NYC to a Jewish doctor dad and African American artist mom, both of whom were noted for social justice / civil rights activism... a trait that they passed on to Alex.
and...
quote:
In 2018, Karp said he is a socialist and a progressive ("but not woke"). In addition he said he voted for Hillary Clinton. In 2024, the Financial Times identified Karp as "a major Biden donor". Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson wrote in 2024 that Karp "seems to have some idiosyncratic personal definition in mind that has nothing in common with the socialist tradition".[
I can appreciate someone who can balance seemingly paradoxical opinions and reconcile them through higher principles. And I suspect there is an ethical basis to his guiding principles that helped him befriend the more conservative Thiel. So, while I don't like that Karp is a socialist, I feel some relief at hearing his anti-woke sentiments which have come out in a few "based" sound clips like that in the OP. I guess these make him seem pragmatic... perhaps not too different than Musk, who also considered himself more than left than right, but noted the Left moved away from him more than he did from the Left.
That being said, what do you mean by saying Karp is the real deal (aside from smart)? I sincerely do not mean this as a gotcha. I am honestly ambivalent about Palantir and their mission, about Karp... and about Thiel for that matter. I can read things like the following quoted excerpt from wiki and agree with him on the idea of the need to project strength (even if I don't like the sound of techno-nationalist):
quote:
In 2025 Time magazine listed Karp as one of the world's 100 most influential people, calling him "the embodiment of a new kind of Silicon Valley billionaire: an unashamed techno-nationalist who evangelizes Western power."[53] In naming him to the Time 100 list, the magazine noted that in a letter to investors Karp quoted Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, "the rise of the West was not made possible 'by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion ... but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.'" Karp wrote that "Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."[53] During a New York Times interview, Karp said "you scare the crap out of your adversaries" and "are we tough enough to scare our adversaries so we don’t go to war? Do the Chinese, Russians and Persians think we’re strong?" Maureen Dowd, a journalist, said the interview was "brim[ming] with American chauvinism".[8]
... and yet find it concerning / confusing he was a Clinton and possibly Biden supporter (though understand he may have donated to simply not draw the ire of the Biden regime). I mean, how can he reconcile wanting the US to convey power while supporting the Left, who has actively worked at eroding US power in favor of globo interests (using progressive and woke ideology and methods)?
re: Pope: “You ain’t pro life”.
Posted by epbart on 10/3/25 at 12:55 pm to HurricaneTiger
quote:
My main problem isn’t an argument for or against the death penalty. It’s the statement of saying that being for the death penalty is not pro-life. He’s attributing that our creator is not pro-life, whether he meant to or not.
Ahh, I see. I wasn't quite sure, but in truth, your post just sort of sent me on a philosophical tangent, which I felt compelled to chase in my reply.
quote:
He’s the pope. It’s important that he provides clarity.
Fully agree. As I said before, as well, I suspect him of intentionally straddling the fence with that statement... trying to not overtly criticize Trump/ICE while giving a soundbite to the Left to do exactly that. And, if so, that's wrong.
re: Pope: “You ain’t pro life”.
Posted by epbart on 10/3/25 at 12:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Now, and question should ask themself a simple question. Would Jesus flip the switch on someone strapped into and electrical chair? And real Christian knows that answer.
-----
Jesus will return in judgement of the entire world from all ages, which will include the eternal death penalty of everlasting judgement (Rev. 21:8).
In a sense, when Jesus returns, He will "flip the switch" on a lot of people.
Sort of... but I think the second coming will not be like Jesus flipping a switch to actively kill the damned (which would be against his loving nature).
It would be more likely that his return will bring a revelation of truth and the damned will have an epiphany, like... ohh shite, I suicided my soul and I'm not moving forward (akin to how a drug user might realize they destroyed their earthly life... but more permanent).
re: Pope: “You ain’t pro life”.
Posted by epbart on 10/3/25 at 12:22 pm to HurricaneTiger
quote:
Leviticus 24:16. God’s own law practices the death penalty. To say that someone who supports the death penalty is not pro-life, is then attributing that same characteristic to God.
The wage for sin IS DEATH. Christ was sentenced to death because of our sin.
I do find this philosophically interesting. And as someone (Jrv2damac) added on pg 4:
quote:
Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed
Exodus 21:12
Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death
Here is my opinion. I honestly don't know how well it lines up to Catholic, Orthodox, or other schools of thought, but it is how I see it...
There is a tendency for some people to look at OT scripture like your post and what I quoted above from pg4 and dismiss it as the old covenant, which is no longer valid under the new covenant of Jesus... True in a way, but not exactly in a "that was then, this is now" way.
It seems to me to that these covenants (old = eye for an eye; new = love thy neighbor) exist side by side in contemporaneous fashion and describe ontological levels of being.
Without getting into the whole Chain of Being, suffice to say there is a progression of lower to higher faculties by which a man can guide his life. On the lower end, we can recognize a man who only lives by lower instincts (hunger, lust, etc) to be in some ways inferior and animal-like in comparison to a man who is perhaps a more devout, conscious follower of laws. And we can perceive that there are even fewer men who are not just passively good, but there is something of an active, conscious quality that makes them not just follow rules like sheep, but actively strive to live more morally pure than the mere laws of men dictate. Christ is the archetype of this more deeply spiritual, active, conscious principle of soul and spirit being stronger than the lower instincts and drives that lead other men.
If one steps back, one can see that what Christ did on the cross was to not slip into a lower state of consciousness. He did not retaliate against his a-hole oppressors. Nor did he passively turn the other cheek. In a moment of pain, he did not ask God to forgive them. His soul was fully actively and he stated from a place of authority for God to forgive them. It was a command. (Note the change in tone from the night before. When he was praying for his own skin the night before it, it lacked the authority he prayed with on the cross and was more passive, roughly: Lord, if this isnt really necessary then please take this cup (my ordeal) away.
It was his ability to be live in a place of spiritual activity without falling into a lower state on the cross that made his sacrifice successful and reconnected the soul of man to God. It was thus act of courage and spiritual strength that repaired the stain in Adam's soul when he sinned and hid from God. We, of course (imho), have to aspire to follow Jesus in example, not just say with hollow words that we believe in him. Jesus himself addresses that sort of person when he says some in the afterlife who use his name and think they'll have it made will be surprised to find their fate is not so rosy because they did not really know him.
As this pertains to the OP...
- The laws of man are valid enough as long as they don't lead men to sin, though any such laws are ontologically inferior to the spiritual laws that Jesus lived up to. As I see it, ICE can deport every illegal in the country and I don't think there is a risk of damnation of any ICE agents for doing so.
- There is a higher level which Jesus reached. Killing someone else is generally bad, though we can certainly quibble about some examples (law enforcement, soldiers, etc). The Pope's statements on abortion and the death penalty are consistent enough with this. But the Pope's attempt to put deportations in the same category appears to be a tacit criticism of US policy, and it misses the mark. He is either poorly informed and being reactive or is being disingenuous, though slippery enough to avoid being pinned for stanning for Marxism.
quote:
I don't believe the U.S. is doing any inhumane deportations. We probably do the most humane deportations in the world.
I read this with Trump's voice in my head, though inserted the word best in place of most.
re: Pope: “You ain’t pro life”.
Posted by epbart on 10/3/25 at 10:36 am to Tony The Tiger
quote:
The pope is not for open borders, he is against inhuman treatment of people.
I would like to think it's as simple as that, and I largely agree with your take on page 1, as well as with many posters who say the US isn't treating immigrants inhumanely. Shelter, food, and medical treatment is sufficient... detention centers should not be a posh resort.
What the Pope says though appears to be semantically imprecise in a way that is tacit criticism of the US policy:
quote:
“Someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
He gives himself wiggle room with his "I don't know". At best, his "I dont know" is an admission that immigration is a complex problem with many facets: immigrants should follow the law and the govt/ICE should do what they have to do to enforce it, but shouldn't take TOO much pleasure in terrorizing immigrants (a fair warning from a moral perspective).
But I can't help but read between the lines a little and think the Pope knows that his intentionally imprecise language is an appeasement to the Left who wants to criticize how Trump's admin/ICE is actively ramping up deportations. Of course, he isn't overtly criticizing Trump/ICE, but he is giving an unnecessary soundbite that allows critics to condemn ICE activities as potentially inhumane when they are not... with the possible exception of a random officer here and there being too zealous.
If he is going to speak on a topic like this, he must be prepared to go all in instead of straddling the fence as he does here... giving a little nugget to the Left while pretending to not be against the Right.
He should clarify his position beyond framing immigrants as poor humans who are randomly passing through an area trying to live without political context. He should be ready to speak to the plotting of countless NGO's and intergovernmental organization like the UN (which is borderline supra-governmental since it has deployed troops at times) and their involvement in throwing money and incentives to induce the current immigration issue... and how they train immigrants to falsely claim asylum (last I looked, lying isn't condoned and aligns you to the Father of Lies). He should be ready to discuss the role of certain... churches... that make money by helping illegal immigrants.
And he needs to address how immigrants should not be breaking the law to get here. While some may point to Jesus saying "obey God rather than men," in Acts 5:29, that comes into play when the laws of man force someone into a morally compromised position of committing sin. I don't see how accepting UN/Open Society/USAid funds to be a freeloader by evading border agents and ICE is a morally superior / innocent position.
One can also interpret Jesus saying to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's as obedience to laws that don't morally compromise you (as discussed in the previous paragraph).
And perhaps the most instructive example might be looking at Jesus himself. As he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemene, knowing that the po-po would be enroute to arrest him soon, did he flee or did he cooperate with the authorities when they showed up? ... I fully support ICE treating immigrants with humanity and dignity. But sometimes the immigrants make it hard.
re: Why All The Hate For Nick Fuentes?
Posted by epbart on 9/30/25 at 12:00 pm to MajorityWhip
While I haven't actively avoided Fuentes, I don't think I've listened to more than a snippet here or there. So take my criticism with a grain of salt... I don't know his takes well enough to challenge him on his positions.
That being said, on the surface, there may be legitimate reasons to be wary of him. Just looking at this Wikipedia entry on "groypers" (a Pepe-esque sort of political mascot and group of Fuentes followers), there are a couple of eyebrow raising items:
Wikipedia- groypers
(Note: I don't consider Wikipedia an ideal source, but I'm not going to do a deep dive on this topic. And as I've said, I'm not all that familiar with Fuentes' work. So, Wiki is good enough here to make my point.)
From the link:
If the above is true, and if you're a fan of Charlie Kirk, then there is reason for concern. I don't know which Fuentes ally Kirk fired, but nearly every account of Kirk suggests he is a standup guy who effectively used reason and compassion to connect to and persuade his opponents without resorting to hate speech. In contrast, many accounts of Fuentes paint him as someone who appeals to base instincts and uses inflammatory dialogue against certain groups. The appearance of the above excerpt suggests to me that Fuentes and his friends tried to infiltrate Kirk's TPUSA and degrade the quality of positive messaging it was promoting. Once Kirk parted ways with their ally, they took the mask off and began actively attacking the TPUSA events with hecklers and formed an alternative organization.
I am, of course, speculating. But the appearance of this turn of events gives credence to those who suspect Fuentes of being controlled opposition (a Fed).
- It appears Fuentes wanted to subvert the direction of TPUSA from positive persuasion to hate speech.
- It is clear that Fuentes and his allies attacked TPUSA.
- It appears the org started by Fuentes was meant to weaken TPUSA. If it were meant to be complementary, then they would not have disrupted TPUSA events.
Another curious excerpt:
Again, I don't listen to Fuentes, so don't know how accurate these comments are or if more context is needed, but they're a bit out there.
Fuentes undoubtedly must have some talent or charisma to get as far as he has. I'm sure he has some ability to tailor his message to be more appealing when he needs to... and to this end, I'm also sure he's greedily looking at Kirk's audience and wanting to steal as much of it as he can. So, I would imagine he's on his best behavior at the moment.
It's also possible Fuentes may be maturing if you think he's reasonable in his most recent appearances. It could happen. I don't know enough about him to be against him, but I don't put a lot of stock into what he has to say, either.
That being said, on the surface, there may be legitimate reasons to be wary of him. Just looking at this Wikipedia entry on "groypers" (a Pepe-esque sort of political mascot and group of Fuentes followers), there are a couple of eyebrow raising items:
Wikipedia- groypers
(Note: I don't consider Wikipedia an ideal source, but I'm not going to do a deep dive on this topic. And as I've said, I'm not all that familiar with Fuentes' work. So, Wiki is good enough here to make my point.)
From the link:
quote:
What was later dubbed "The Groyper War" began in the fall of 2019, when Fuentes launched a social media campaign targeting Turning Point USA's "Culture War" college tour, led by Charlie Kirk. Enraged by the firing of a Fuentes ally as well as other political conflicts, Groypers disrupted college events by asking provocative questions on immigration, Israel, and LGBT rights, in an attempt to challenge mainstream conservative figures like Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., and Ben Shapiro, whom they labeled "Conservative Inc." The war gained traction after a November 2019 UCLA event where Trump Jr. was cut short by Groyper heckling, exposing divisions among conservatives. Fuentes expanded the movement with the Groyper Leadership Summit in December 2019 and the formation of America First Students in January 2020.
If the above is true, and if you're a fan of Charlie Kirk, then there is reason for concern. I don't know which Fuentes ally Kirk fired, but nearly every account of Kirk suggests he is a standup guy who effectively used reason and compassion to connect to and persuade his opponents without resorting to hate speech. In contrast, many accounts of Fuentes paint him as someone who appeals to base instincts and uses inflammatory dialogue against certain groups. The appearance of the above excerpt suggests to me that Fuentes and his friends tried to infiltrate Kirk's TPUSA and degrade the quality of positive messaging it was promoting. Once Kirk parted ways with their ally, they took the mask off and began actively attacking the TPUSA events with hecklers and formed an alternative organization.
I am, of course, speculating. But the appearance of this turn of events gives credence to those who suspect Fuentes of being controlled opposition (a Fed).
- It appears Fuentes wanted to subvert the direction of TPUSA from positive persuasion to hate speech.
- It is clear that Fuentes and his allies attacked TPUSA.
- It appears the org started by Fuentes was meant to weaken TPUSA. If it were meant to be complementary, then they would not have disrupted TPUSA events.
Another curious excerpt:
quote:
Fuentes has said, "We are the right-wing flank of the Republican Party". He has summarized his political ambitions by saying, "We have got to be on the right, dragging [Republicans] kicking and screaming into the future... Into a truly reactionary party".[28] In 2022, Fuentes advocated a "white uprising" to bring Donald Trump back to power and "never leave" and for the U.S. to "stop having elections" and abolish Congress.[29][30] But less than a year after Trump was reelected, Fuentes said "Trump 2.0 has been a disappointment in literally every way but nobody wants to admit it."[31]
Again, I don't listen to Fuentes, so don't know how accurate these comments are or if more context is needed, but they're a bit out there.
Fuentes undoubtedly must have some talent or charisma to get as far as he has. I'm sure he has some ability to tailor his message to be more appealing when he needs to... and to this end, I'm also sure he's greedily looking at Kirk's audience and wanting to steal as much of it as he can. So, I would imagine he's on his best behavior at the moment.
It's also possible Fuentes may be maturing if you think he's reasonable in his most recent appearances. It could happen. I don't know enough about him to be against him, but I don't put a lot of stock into what he has to say, either.
I am glad she got all that off her chest.
Eta: bless her heart!
Eta: bless her heart!
re: Would I have understood facial expressions if had been raised without human contact?
Posted by epbart on 9/19/25 at 12:10 pm to weagle1999
This post on X shows imaging (MRI maybe?) of a baby in the womb making both a smile and cry face, supposedly in response to exposure to different foods:
I don't know where she sourced this from, but if it's true, it clearly suggests the ability and desire to make facial expressions are innate since the baby could not have visually learned them from anyone.
As to whether a person can understand them on another person without training or exposure, I think the answer is yes, with a caveat...
I remember a time or two when I've been in a bad mood and been around others who were in a happy, carefree state and at that moment I was not vibing with them in the least. It might be a slight stretch to say I was in a temporary dissociative state in relation to these happy people, but in such moments I had no empathy with their feelings, thus saying I was in a dissociative state seems close enough for my point. It follows, then, that if someone remains in a dissociative state, they might not truly understand the expressions of others.
To be clear, I could recognize the happiness in others in these rare moments, but I was not in a state of truly understanding it, and may have even thought some of them to be foolish or had some other insult in mind with which I regarded them. I'm making a distinction between recognition and understanding. To truly understand, you have to have a level of empathy. As a parallel, consider a movie or book character who is a grouch of sorts most of the way through the story (like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol), but has an epiphany that allows him to finally understand the people around him. This sort of character transformation effectively changes the way people see and understand the world.
If you stretch your hypothetical question to its absolute limits, it would theoretically be possible for someone to not recognize or understand facial expressions on others. But it would require that person to also have a severely stunted development. They would have to have lived in a way that they did not experience emotions that induced expressions on their own face in a way they could reflect on and understand personally. And then they would have to be in a sort of permanent dissociative state with an utter lack of empathy that prevented them from ever resonating with the feelings of others.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I don't know where she sourced this from, but if it's true, it clearly suggests the ability and desire to make facial expressions are innate since the baby could not have visually learned them from anyone.
As to whether a person can understand them on another person without training or exposure, I think the answer is yes, with a caveat...
I remember a time or two when I've been in a bad mood and been around others who were in a happy, carefree state and at that moment I was not vibing with them in the least. It might be a slight stretch to say I was in a temporary dissociative state in relation to these happy people, but in such moments I had no empathy with their feelings, thus saying I was in a dissociative state seems close enough for my point. It follows, then, that if someone remains in a dissociative state, they might not truly understand the expressions of others.
To be clear, I could recognize the happiness in others in these rare moments, but I was not in a state of truly understanding it, and may have even thought some of them to be foolish or had some other insult in mind with which I regarded them. I'm making a distinction between recognition and understanding. To truly understand, you have to have a level of empathy. As a parallel, consider a movie or book character who is a grouch of sorts most of the way through the story (like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol), but has an epiphany that allows him to finally understand the people around him. This sort of character transformation effectively changes the way people see and understand the world.
If you stretch your hypothetical question to its absolute limits, it would theoretically be possible for someone to not recognize or understand facial expressions on others. But it would require that person to also have a severely stunted development. They would have to have lived in a way that they did not experience emotions that induced expressions on their own face in a way they could reflect on and understand personally. And then they would have to be in a sort of permanent dissociative state with an utter lack of empathy that prevented them from ever resonating with the feelings of others.
quote:
Three years of development? I bet the first few rounds of testing were ball busters.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of experimentation failures that led to some of those early employees being... sacked.
re: BK Thursday Presser...Link inside
Posted by epbart on 9/4/25 at 10:10 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
You can tell he really legit loves Ju'juan Johnson, he had a different tone when talking about him compared to the other guys.
Lsu777 made an interesting thread on Tuesday with a number of plays being linked to show some of the wrinkles the offense worked on in the game. It's worth a review on its own merit, imho:
LINK
Maybe to your point, when I looked at the plays in the OP, the use of Ju'Juan in the screen game really stood out to me as a theme or principle the coaches were looking to develop. To quote my post on pg 2 of that thread:
quote:
After going through the whole series of tweets, one thing that jumped out to my unexpert eyes is how much they were working Ju'Juan Johnson (#8) to the left side in the passing / screen game.
In plays #6 & #10 of the series of tweets, they send Johnson in motion to the left as a decoy and Nuss looks at him and sells the fake that he may be the target. In play #6, Johnson draws the defender out, allowing Nuss to hit Barion inside for a nice gain. Play #10, the same idea works again, this time allowing Anderson to work back towards the center of the field into what might've been a really nice gain if not for the penalty.
Even though I don't fully understand the intricacies of the design, I can see creativity in how they created options off of sending Johnson into motion and really selling it, and how that was tricking the defense. It was vastly different than watching... say, Matt (Air) Canada having the receivers do wind sprints back and forth before the ball was snapped but not seeing how it really made the defense do anything. (Though it is still funny to remember how the crowd cheered the first time Canada sent a receiver in motion)
But back on topic, in tweet #13, Johnson is rewarded with the 3 consecutive boundary screen receptions (though he wasn't in motion on these plays).
It'll be interesting to see how his use evolves.
re: Has anyone here tried entering into a fighting competition?
Posted by epbart on 9/3/25 at 3:27 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Fighting is one of those things everyone thinks they can do until they get matched up against someone infinitely more skilled and in peak cardio shape. Most average joes couldn't make it one 5 minute round before falling out exhausted.
Very true.
I was generally fit and somewhat athletic when I was young (some cross country, basketball, lifted weights, was a Marine, etc.). At Annapolis, I had to take boxing, wrestling, and judo at various points... Nothing wore me out as much as boxing and wrestling. iirc, we only did 3 one minute rounds for our sessions-- not even a five minute round. But I was exhausted on those days and had to take a big nap after dinner. I tended to be sleep deprived, which was likely a factor, but regardless, a 5 mile run was less tiring to me than 3 minutes in the ring/on the mat.
It's just a different type of conditioning if you're going all out the whole time (and not slacking) and if your muscles haven't developed efficiency at working like that.
re: 5 year old Jacksonville boy sneaks out of house and walks to Chick fil A.
Posted by epbart on 9/3/25 at 12:43 pm to thumperpait
quote:
I did the same kind of thing when I was five. My sister was watching me. Don't remember what happened. But the story is I was hauling arse on my big wheel down a four lane road. The cops got behind me and just followed me until I got to my house. This was in the 70's.
Sort of the same. When I was five (mid 1970s) I lived in Metarie. I used to take my dollar allowance or whatever change I could scrape up from around the house and would walk to a Time Saver store to buy a candy bar or Icee by myself. (not sure if Time Savers are still around... though I remember TulaneLSU made a nice tribute thread to them a couple years or so ago)
I can't remember exactly how far away it was. If I had to guess it was a five minute walk down the length of a long apartment complex, then turning down a partially developed road for a block or two.
Kids could free-range back then.
Edit to add: as i did not have cops in hot pursuit as I fled on my Big Wheel, my anecdote is not nearly as good as yours.
After going through the whole series of tweets, one thing that jumped out to my unexpert eyes is how much they were working Ju'Juan Johnson (#8) to the left side in the passing / screen game.
In plays #6 & #10 of the series of tweets, they send Johnson in motion to the left as a decoy and Nuss looks at him and sells the fake that he may be the target. In play #6, Johnson draws the defender out, allowing Nuss to hit Barion inside for a nice gain. Play #10, the same idea works again, this time allowing Anderson to work back towards the center of the field into what might've been a really nice gain if not for the penalty.
Even though I don't fully understand the intricacies of the design, I can see creativity in how they created options off of sending Johnson into motion and really selling it, and how that was tricking the defense. It was vastly different than watching... say, Matt (Air) Canada having the receivers do wind sprints back and forth before the ball was snapped but not seeing how it really made the defense do anything. (Though it is still funny to remember how the crowd cheered the first time Canada sent a receiver in motion)
But back on topic, in tweet #13, Johnson is rewarded with the 3 consecutive boundary screen receptions (though he wasn't in motion on these plays).
In plays #6 & #10 of the series of tweets, they send Johnson in motion to the left as a decoy and Nuss looks at him and sells the fake that he may be the target. In play #6, Johnson draws the defender out, allowing Nuss to hit Barion inside for a nice gain. Play #10, the same idea works again, this time allowing Anderson to work back towards the center of the field into what might've been a really nice gain if not for the penalty.
Even though I don't fully understand the intricacies of the design, I can see creativity in how they created options off of sending Johnson into motion and really selling it, and how that was tricking the defense. It was vastly different than watching... say, Matt (Air) Canada having the receivers do wind sprints back and forth before the ball was snapped but not seeing how it really made the defense do anything. (Though it is still funny to remember how the crowd cheered the first time Canada sent a receiver in motion)
But back on topic, in tweet #13, Johnson is rewarded with the 3 consecutive boundary screen receptions (though he wasn't in motion on these plays).
Having Nuss get the ball out quick on screens and short passes was definitely a good strategy for this game. Thankfully the defense allowed them to stay with this strategy without having to get too risky.
I'm curious what difference Alex Atkins might've made as run game coordinator. I'm ignorant of X's and O's myself, but recall the scuttlebutt from some posters here who were saying our run game was unimaginative / uninspired last year, and who were hoping Atkins would bring some misdirection type plays or concepts that FSU was using, presumably under his guidance.
I'd guess the one Zavion highlight run where everyone went left and he ran right might be a good example. Not sure how different our run game looked otherwise (though Durham definitely showed good patience at times and showed a knack for gaining more than it looked like he was going to get... and that was fun to watch). And not sure how much credit would go to Atkins vs Sloan.
I'm curious what difference Alex Atkins might've made as run game coordinator. I'm ignorant of X's and O's myself, but recall the scuttlebutt from some posters here who were saying our run game was unimaginative / uninspired last year, and who were hoping Atkins would bring some misdirection type plays or concepts that FSU was using, presumably under his guidance.
I'd guess the one Zavion highlight run where everyone went left and he ran right might be a good example. Not sure how different our run game looked otherwise (though Durham definitely showed good patience at times and showed a knack for gaining more than it looked like he was going to get... and that was fun to watch). And not sure how much credit would go to Atkins vs Sloan.
re: Kade Clubnik seeing Perkins close in on 4th down
Posted by epbart on 9/2/25 at 11:03 am to herecomethetigers02
quote:
Kade Clubnik seeing Perkins close in on 4th
... actually very reminiscent of this old gif:
re: I’ve been seeing a lot of “Trump Health” posts on IG
Posted by epbart on 8/31/25 at 4:45 pm to sidewalkside
Dems, deep state, media, etc. feel compelled to say negative things about Trump whether they are true or not. This serves a couple of purposes:
1) it fuels the hatred in their own base.
2) it potentially chips away at the confidence of some Trump supporters and instills a little fear in some.
Bottom line is that the Dem party is fueled by negative emotions and they will pursue any angle that furthers an atmosphere of negativity towards Trump. If you're a god fearing type, there are esoteric angle to this cultivating of hate and fear, but that's deeper than this thread needs to be and speculative.
The only things I've noticed that have been mentioned here or elsewhere is bruising on Trump's hands a few times and not being in the public the last 3 or so days.
It's not impossible that his health is declining at his age or that he's on blood thinners that exacerbate bruising (as many people his age are), but if this is all there is to it, then the story is just wishcasting by people who want him to have bad health.
1) it fuels the hatred in their own base.
2) it potentially chips away at the confidence of some Trump supporters and instills a little fear in some.
Bottom line is that the Dem party is fueled by negative emotions and they will pursue any angle that furthers an atmosphere of negativity towards Trump. If you're a god fearing type, there are esoteric angle to this cultivating of hate and fear, but that's deeper than this thread needs to be and speculative.
The only things I've noticed that have been mentioned here or elsewhere is bruising on Trump's hands a few times and not being in the public the last 3 or so days.
It's not impossible that his health is declining at his age or that he's on blood thinners that exacerbate bruising (as many people his age are), but if this is all there is to it, then the story is just wishcasting by people who want him to have bad health.
Not sure who it is. But it is almost certainly not Hammertime... this Bama fan does not pass knuckle check standards.
quote:
FFW to 16:20 to see his breakdown of the last play for the Clemson offense on 4th and 4. He says he's never seen a defensive call like this and calls it "diabolical."
Yeah, his breakdown of the 4th and 4 play that sealed the win was enjoyable.
I have little X's and O's knowledge myself, but found his analysis of several plays throughout this video to be well explained and easy to follow.
Really well done.
Popular
36
