OMN

I disagree on the PPR if you have to hit an 8 catch threshold. First the points are closer to half point PPR when collected. Second, you are only going to get that small bonus when a receiver gets 8 catches and you are likely not to see it again in the same game since its doubtful they get 16 catches. So you give a very small bump to receivers who catch a ton. I think this format makes top yardage QBs/RBs more important but the WR bump is so small and affects such a small group (by percentage relative to the position as a whole) I would almost not take it into account.

I used to like some of these people.... These people are terrible at impromptu conversation and trash talking and jesus was high def bad news for some of these guys. I'm going to throw up

Strong at QB Middle of the road at RB, I expect big things from Brown this year, but Bush is a project. With Addai struggling, I think Rhodes may be a good #2 for you thi syear WRs are good, if DJax is healthy he an dHassel have great chemistry. If Favre is healthy I think Driver puts big numbers. The rest are questions with big upside. Could be big for you if osme play out. Please respond to mine

Barlow is a big ? Personally I think he stinks You have good QBs, a solid RB1, and Barlow could end up being a solid #2 key word "could" WRs are a good but really depend on chambers and culpepper connecting. We'll have to wait and see, but if Chambers plays up to his potential you are in good shape there.

Update: Got a new one on the table LJ, Eli, #14 pick Ronnie, JJ #10 pick I hate to sell Ronnie but I think I have to take this Thoughts?

You're thinking waaaay in advance. Edge still has 3 or 4 good years left and is a better situation. I'm in a 5 keeper league too and I don't put Reggie that high. 5 person keeper is unique in that you have to think a little dynasty and a little redraft. Don't get caught up leaning too much toward dynasty. Ultimately the decision is up to you and if your gut says Reggie is the next M Faulk then maybe its worth it. But personally, not a move for me. Mine http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=222859

I think you have to use McGahee if you want a decent WR. Personally, I am one of the people who think McGahee will do well this year. I would use an existing WR and a RB like Foster to move up. Find someone strong at WR and weak at RB and try to make a 2 for 1 trade up. Mine http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=222859

In all honesty your RBs stink but who knows. Personally I think Kevin Jones will be this years Kevin Jones. Your WRs stink too. Moss will probably be good and maybe Andre Johnson will be good, he has all the talent in the world. Depending on how things play out, you could end up with a good team. Where you need help. Need at least one of your RBs other than Lamont to not stink this year. You need Andre Johnson to have a year equivalent to his talent or maybe Antonio Bryant to stop playing corner in the end zone. These are big needs but who knows with FF. Mine http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=222859

You're a little weak at QB and WR IMO Very good RBs but you don't have a true #1 WR. I think between Plummer and McNair, you'll be fine at QB but neither is spectacular. You spent your picks well for your position. Overall good job. Mine http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=222859

Agree with most here. I liked your first 2 picks, but am not sold on Bush without Deuce or Dillon without Maroney. I like the way Caddy runs and if he stays healthy I think he puts up big numbers. I don't think Holt is affected by a balanced attack. Seems like you threw a bunch of darts at WR to see which one sticks. Overall I think you have good depth here. Your QBs are a little weak and with Cutler doing so well I would avoid Plummer. I think plummer starts all year and a team is stupid if they mess with a successfull QB but I just prefer to avoid any situation with potential question marks. Especially with the headache machine Shanny. I would try to work a trade for Maroney or Deuce. Overall I think you are in good shape for picking 11 Mine http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=222859

12 team 5 keeper league I have Ronnie Brown Julius Jones McGahee Holt D Jackson I pick 10th I also have the 7th pick in the first round We essentially start 1QB, 3RB and 3WRs Couple of trades I am considering One, JJ and my 3rd rounder for Plax and Eli JJ and DJax for S Smith and a 3rd rounder (he offered the 4th but I think I can get the 3rd) JJ and RBrown for LJ -] personally not sure about LJ, think he may be this years McGahee The deal I am most interested in is the S Smith for JJ and DJax Regarding trading up for LJ: My concern is, with the Dolphins schedule and new QB, I feel like this could be a huge year for Ronnie. I know the key word there is "could". Honestly, I am willing to use JJ to trade up on a player and thats my goal but I am having difficulty pulling the trigger I should mention our scoring is a little TD heavy Let me know which deals are most appealing to you and why. Thanks for your help

Yeah I think that is the site. I googled TJ and agnostic and found it and another site http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm which I pasted the quotes from. I have no doubt I can find your quotes as easily on a christian site as I can find the ones I used on an atheist or agnostic one. My original point was just that his religion was a subject of debate. I agree it can't be categorically proven. Another quote of his is .... "As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN" taken from a letter, the entirety of whcih can be read here http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html Epicurus can be read about further here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus From what I gather TJ took philosophies of both Epicurus and JC to heart but that he being a man of intellect constanty challenged beliefs in any specific dogma. The bible includes the old testament which is different and harsher than the new testament. Why did god go soft all the sudden? I leave you with the Epicurean paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief) Good night and good luck

this is all your fault

Come on...the first 2 commandments are pretty much against all principles on which this country is founded upon ie freedom of religion. The Thomas Jefferson discussion was a rebuttal of an argument being made in a previous post. As for the rest this guy addresses it well. http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10a.htm Does the Constitution Embody Christian Thought and Morality? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to the claims of many accommodationists, virtually nothing in the Constitution references Christian thought and morality. The only explicit mention of religion is the article VI declaration that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned with the secular issues of defining federal power, and distributing that power among the various branches of government. Quite against the practice of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to God, and does not raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a remarkably secular document for its day and age. Our e-mail correspondents have occasionally argued that that the structure of our federal government is derived from the Bible; this claim rests on little more than wishful thinking. The most important features of our federal government include (1) a separation of powers among three branches of government, (2) a bicameral legislature, (3) different modes of representation in each chamber of the legislature, (4) a limited executive, (5) and independent judiciary, and (6) a complex system of checks and balances. No model of government found in the Bible corresponds to this outline. Ancient Israel was governed first by Judges and then by Kings; in neither system was there separation of powers (i.e., the executive acted as both lawmaker and judge), nor was there any clear distinction between secular and religious law. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anything like a bicameral legislature, or an independent judiciary. Conversely, the New Testament does not contain a model of government; it simply does not function as a political document in the same way as, eg., the Q'uran does in Islam. Some accommodationists claim that founders derived the principle of separation of powers from Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King; he will save us." Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that this verse was ever referred to by the founders in this context, this argument fails on it's own assumptions: the Constitution sets up an elected executive, not a King, and the tenor of the verse is anti separation-of-powers; it says that all three branches are properly united in one person, the LORD. That the founders would read this verse and derive from it a mandate for divided powers is neither logical nor plausible. Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10 Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments (i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten. Laws against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and coveting are left entirely to the states. The secular ethos of the Constitution extends even to the taking of the oath of office. Quite against the practices of the states, the oath of office described in Article II section 2 of the Constitution is completely secular; it is described as an "oath or affirmation," contains no religious references, and need not be taken on the Bible. The practice of saying "so help me God" is not required by the Constitution; it is a voluntary practice initiated by later presidents. The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices, and did nothing to promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution, ch. 2). If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that task. This should make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.

Explain to me what principles of christianity cannot be found in other monotheisitic or polytheistic religions or social structures? Its all the same stuff. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape...these laws are universal for the most part and were the same in ancient rome, or ancient egypt with the only difference that the laws apply differently over time ie slavery no longer okay suffrage men are now created equal etc... What part of the constitution is expressly christian? I mean there is direct hypocrisy in the Old vs. New testament. It goes from an eye for an ey to turn the cheek. God needs to make up his mind. But the point is this is all old news. In every quote he qualifies his christianity and none make a compelling argument that he is one beyond believing in some principles. Not once does he say I am a christian period. He's a politician in a time when there is tremendous pressure to conform to christian dogma 1st quote: "it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus" why qualify it all? 2nd: No expressed belief in jesus as the son of god 3rd: Seems to be a clear defense of the commonly held belief that he is not a christian in which he then goes on to say that he is a christian in the sense that he agrees with some principles. Some other quotes: Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?") I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789 Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 Contradictory to your post, it sounds like they were directly concerned christian principles being an inherent part... The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814 Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819 Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820 It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825 TJ was certainly not a christian. You are also entitled to your beliefs, thats an integral part of the ideology that created this fine nation. to you for being civil. I know this is a subject many are very passionate about, its nice to have an argument without namecalling. Though I did take a few pokes in my first post.