epbart

quote:

---

During the Q era, or, hell, now currently, which of the Q types are making this separation?

This is a new angle indeed.

---

First, I'm not a Q follower so am not overly familiar with their framing.

Second... New angle? All I'm doing is trying to precisely recall the specifics of that now deleted thread off the top of my head. Normally, I would think you would agree precision matters in such topics. It would not occur to me to consider this a new angle except that you just brought a new allegation... that Epstein's emails (which don't have the code words used by the Comet Pizza crowd) somehow disproves the validity of Pizzagate... Using the absence of something somewhere to positively prove the invalidity of something somewhere else is a helluva stretch. This allegation demands clarity-- thus the distinction I now make.

To my memory, there is overlap in the broader social group-- especially through the Clintons. There are common elements in the potential abuse that is described in both Pizzagate and in the Epstein case. But I don't remember Epstein being mentioned as a big Comet Pizza attendee. To the extent he was brought up in the Q thread, I think it was usually specifically as its own line item. Only then was it generalized and lumped in with Pizzagate so the broad brush of systemic rot could be painted over the whole government.

If that's true, I don't see why I should conflate them as the same? They appear discrete. If Epstein was at Comet Pizza a lot, you'd have to prove it and provide context, including samples of messages between Epstein and the Comet Pizza crowd so we can discern what's there and not there to substantiate your claim.

Interesting connections only go so far if they aren't corroborated. It's simple logic, not a new angle.

So, I repeat, based on what's available currently, you absolutely cannot disprove potential Pizzagate allegations in DC through the absence of specific elements of discourse in the Epstein files, and what happened in NYC, his island, etc.

quote:

---

I agree with Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I can't believe it took this long for someone to finally post the correct answer.

---

This is satisfactory as an answer if you understand what Jefferson means by happiness.

For one, he appears to be riffing on John Locke's: “life, liberty and estate (property).”

Secondly, Jefferson, like many of the Founding Fathers, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, by Aristotle and Epicurus, in particular.

So, if you google, "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to thomas jefferson", the generated answer, supported by a number of sources is:

quote:

---

According to Thomas Jefferson, happiness as a motive in human affairs is not a state of fleeting pleasure, ease, or selfish indulgence, but rather eudaemonia—a profound, lifelong pursuit of virtue, moral purpose, and human flourishing. Drawing from classical Greek philosophy, Epicureanism, and the Enlightenment, Jefferson viewed this pursuit as an active, disciplined commitment to personal improvement and service to the common good.

Here is a breakdown of happiness as a motive in human affairs according to Jefferson:
1. The Core Definition: Eudaemonia and Virtue
Virtue as Foundation: Jefferson believed that virtue was the foundation of true happiness. He famously wrote that "without virtue, happiness cannot be".
Active Pursuit: It is not a passive state to be achieved, but a continuous,, active pursuit.
Not Materialistic: Jeffersonian happiness is distinct from the pursuit of wealth or "worldly possessions". It was defined by "tranquility and occupation" (meaning purposeful activity) rather than "wealth or splendor".

2. Happiness as a Human Motivation
A "Soul Condition": It is a state of the soul that arises from living in harmony with conscience, reason, and moral purpose.
Service and Employment: Jefferson felt that a mind always employed is always happy, suggesting that purposeful work is a primary driver of happiness.
Individual and Collective Good: The pursuit of happiness includes contributing to the greater good, not just personal satisfaction.

3. Happiness and Government
Purpose of Government: Jefferson maintained that the "only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it".
Protection, Not Provision: The government's role is not to provide happiness (as it is not owed to anyone), but to protect the freedom in which citizens can pursue it.
"Rights" to Pursuit: He deemed the "pursuit of happiness" an inalienable right, implying that individuals must be free from oppression (a "disruption of energies") to pursue their own thriving.

4. Philosophical Influences
Epicureanism: In his later life, Jefferson identified as an Epicurean, which in his view meant a rational, gentle philosophy focusing on friendship, limiting desires to necessities, and achieving peace of mind.
Stoicism/Ancient Philosophy: He was heavily influenced by Cicero and other classical thinkers who emphasized that happiness is a result of a good conscience and self-discipline.

In summary, for Jefferson, happiness is the ultimate human endeavor that drives individuals to develop their talents, act with integrity, and contribute to the community, while the government's role is to ensure the liberty to do so.

---

If you google "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to Aristotle", the answer will be very similar.

In short, there was a very strong, ethical and moral dimension that informed Jefferson's interesting deviation in word choice away from Locke's assertion. Understanding this notion of happiness, it is clear that there is a dutiful component to it-- a responsibility as to how we conduct our affairs and how we treat one another... and that the harmony that arises from this way of life generates true happiness. Happiness, to Jefferson, is not just selfishly engaging in pleasurable activity.

quote:

---

For much of the last year, staffers who were initially part of the Department of Government Efficiency effort improperly accessed and shared sensitive personal data on millions of Americans.

---

If it was established and performed within the DOGE framework as established by President Trump, it was not improperly accessed or shared.

quote:

---

The Trump administration hasn't been able to answer how much data is at risk, what it was used for or why its unprecedented efforts to consolidate data are needed.

---

How much data is at risk? Perhaps none if it was properly accessed and collected within the established framework of DOGE. Otherwise, the mission of DOGE is/was to identify waste and fraud in the pursuit of improving government efficiency, which answers the other sensationalized, abstract hypotheticals. I fail to see a problem if the work was done as ordered.

quote:

---

Those questions deepened last week, when the Social Security Administration said it discovered DOGE employees at the agency secretly and improperly shared sensitive personal data last year, but once again can't verify the extent of the violations. The admission came in a court filing last Friday, Jan. 16, that made numerous corrections to testimony given by top agency officials last year in a lawsuit alleging that DOGE was illegally accessing Social Security data.

---

The work was ordered by the Executive branch. Secretly isn't necessarily a problem if it precluded bad actors from hiding data. Further, secretly applies to investigations as well, and if DOGE disclosed to the SSA that they were investigating waste and fraud, I don't see why they should be compelled to divulge all of their processes and other information that the SSA didn't need to know.

Again, improperly isn't accurate if DOGE team members worked within the DOGE framework. If the executive branch ordered it, it is arguable at best to call it illegal. There may have been an authority / jurisdictional dispute as to how much DOGE could do, but this is not some blatantly criminal undertaking.

quote:

---

The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," the filing said. It remains unclear whether any data actually went to this group.

---

If whatever consultancy between DOGE members and others was allowed / encouraged by the executive branch for guidance about how to identify waste and fraud, I don't see an issue. If the intent was the to find fraud... and if they find fraud, I don't see an issue. If they don't find fraud, then that isn't a problem either. And if they only consulted with the advocacy group but didn't share it, then there isn't a problem, and that's a baseless allegation.

quote:

---

"Based on its review of records obtained during or after October 2025, SSA identified communications, use of data, and other actions by the then-SSA DOGE Team that were potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with the District Court's March 20, 2025, temporary restraining order," DOJ attorneys wrote.

---

They were commissioned to do this work by DOGE under the direction of the Executive branch. If they performed this work correctly under the framework of DOGE, then "potentially outside of SSA policy" sounds irrelevant, and "potentially [noncompliant with the 3/32/2035 TRO]" sounds like a very vague, unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

---

DOGE team members also circumvented IT rules to improperly share data on outside servers, sent a password-protected file of private records to DOGE affiliates outside the agency

---

If DOGE members followed their framework and mission to collect and investigate SSA data, it unavoidably circumvents IT rules to not share data with outside servers. In that context, every time the FBI or other forensic investigators have to perform a data collection, the act inherently ignores or circumvents internal IT rules that employees are bound by if the company or organization doesn't want to share that data.

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.
The same people are now completely unbothered by government affiliates improperly exporting private records to outside servers and circumventing IT protections.

---

In one case (Hillary), the data never lived in its proper place, where it would have been subject to proper retention policies and would have been subject to being produced in inquiries and investigations. Personal emails were intentionally and illegally used to avoid oversight and an unsecure server was illegally set up to house classified information.

In the other case, the executive branch launched an investigation into fraud and waste and DOGE employees, so long as they followed their framework, were following orders to access and investigate sensitive personal info (SSN#s) to identify waste and fraud. Even if they did not find voter fraud in this way, they did discover fraudulent or errant payments were being sent to dead people, and helped the SSA and FedGov save money.

One instance was an overtly illegal act to avoid accountability-- arguably to cover for other illegal activity. The other was only potentially illegal-- not in a criminal way-- but in an arguable context of how much authority DOGE workers have to carry out their mission when it conflicts with an organization's internal guidelines. There is no fraudulent element here the way there is in the other.

Comparing these two things seriously would be unintelligent.

quote:

---

If the authorities are able to find the kidnapper through this BTC wallet the veil of security using BTC will evaporate.

Or...

If the authorities cannot trace him through the BTC wallet it will reinforce the security.

---

All bitcoin (BTC) transactions are recorded on the BTC blockchain, which is copied / replicated on a countless number of nodes. Any public, full node is adequate for anyone, including anyone here (not just law enforcement), to do on-chain analysis of transactions... if you have the right tools and know what you're doing.

So, it isn’t necessarily difficult for anyone to know when $1 million in BTC hits an account. In fact, there is something of a cottage industry of crypto nerds viewing the network to see when large amounts of BTC move across the network-- especially on and off exchanges-- and certain addresses/accounts become monitored by other investors as they are believed to be market makers or "whales" and activity in such accounts may signal price might move up or down quickly.

That being said, while the chain of transactions itself is public, and the activity of a whale account might be easy to monitor, the owner of a given account is not necessarily easy to know. Identities are comprised of a public address / key (sort of like an account number and also sort of like your username on here) and your private key (like a password).

If someone used a US based exchange like Coinbase, which requires Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, then they will have to have provided ID to make an account and establish a public key. If they did this, they would be easy to track if law enforcement can determine the account is associated with a crime and is on Coinbase. If they used a foreign exchange that does not require KYC and isn't responsive to US law enforcement, they make it harder to find out who they are. If they create their BTC keys with an offline method-- usually using a hardware wallet or the old school paper method-- they can possibly leave even less of a trail to connect the address to them.

So, it is possible for a given criminal to actively move specific amounts money all over the chain in a notable way since all transactions on the chain, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy to pin their identity and LEO will be left watching with frustration... unless / until they move it out of the network to a bank or in some other type of transaction (like buying peptides with BTC online and providing a physical address that LEO can somehow obtain). If I'm not mistaken, this is where it usually goes wrong for criminals who get caught.

But also, though the BTC blockchain itself is visible, I think the Lightning Network that was built on it is less visible with regards to how easily money can be tracked. And if they convert their BTC into Monero or any other number of other crypto projects, some of which purposefully bundle transactions into larger baskets to blend and blur identities, they can further obscure the money trail and eventually convert to cash.

In short, no, this case will not "evaporate" the security or anonymity of BTC. If / when they are caught and details of how they were caught get leaked, it'll just be a lesson to future criminals of what not to do.

quote:

---

Even posting about it before the show might be considered more of a lobbying effort to get others to join in the movement and would thus not qualify.

This is always the goal of virtue signaling

---

More technically, you're partially correct in effect. But you're specifically wrong in intent.

The goal of lobbying is to convert people into being true believers. Band wagon sorts and virtue signallers are welcome as useful idiots. But in an ideal world, the people promoting the movement would probably, if asked, prefer genuine believers.

So, no.

quote:

---

Put a dent in the Super Bowl? Not likely
Might it still be a success? Sure. Lots of emotional types are not watching the Super Bowl and may watch this to engage in virtue signaling.

---

Your use of virtue signalling here is only partially correct at best. Virtue signalling usually has an outward clout chasing component... like putting a Ukraine flag on your bio so everyone can see how virtuous you are despite you having to do nothing. For those who decide to change the channel who are by themselves or in small groups of friends watching together, there won't really be any social status or clout to gain by switching over to Kid Rock or whatever else... therefore there isn't much of a "signal".

There will be some shallow followers who do it, but this isn't quite virtue signalling. Even posting about it before the show might be considered more of a lobbying effort to get others to join in the movement and would thus not qualify. The act itself of switching channels is not virtue signalling. Only those who go on X or wherever afterwards bragging about switching the channel will really be virtue signalling (there will be some to be fair... and if they're successful, there will be some gloating, but that's different, too).

I was having some trouble thinking of what it should be called, and so did ask Grok for guidance. Aside from being a type of boycott, Grok suggested it might be...

quote:

---

A more fitting term for this kind of largely unseen, individual action might be "political consumerism" or "ethical consumption choice"—where people align their private behaviors (like viewing habits) with their values to "vote with their attention" or wallet, without needing an audience. If it's shallow or done just to feel part of a movement without deeper commitment, it could border on "slacktivism" (low-effort activism that feels good but achieves little), though slacktivism often has a minimal public component like sharing a post. Ultimately, the label depends on the motivation: genuine principle versus self-satisfaction or group conformity.

---

I may or may not change the channel myself, and am not overly concerned with how successful this halftime boycott ends up being. I'm sure there will be some virtue signalling, but the broad sweep of how you applied it is presumptive and misleading. If you're going to label people with any sort of insult, you should take care to be more accurate.

quote:

---

You could say he's [Kid Rock is] the Sarah Stock of Millennial rap-rock political personalities.

---

This is a flat out terrible comparison.

Someone lying and living a double-life while reaping rewards from the community making her famous (Stock) =/= someone who made a temporary boycott of a product and went back to consuming it after they changed their advertising approach. You can read my longer opinion in full in my post above this one to Boomer. Boycotts can absolutely be temporary.

quote:

---

We’re all in trouble if they put a penis on that thing

---

quote:

---

No one loves a purity test more than a leftist

---

By definition, out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

quote:

---

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

---

citizen's handbook

Or, stated another way on another website...

quote:

---

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

---

LINK

It helps to know what you're fighting against, so this is worth repeating for those who don't know.

--------

As for Kid Rock, was never a fan, but don't mind him either. There is value in having celebs of every stripe to broaden the appeal of the Republican/MAGA tent.

I feel the same about Nikki Minaj... though in her case, I'm actually a little more encouraged that she may have sort of woken up to what's going on. I think she didn't expect the vicious backlash she faced from the media when she spoke out against the vax a few years back. If she was on the fence before-- or just not that political-- I suspect that wake-up call made her take a turn towards common sense and decency (despite the vulgarity of some of her music).

Christianity should be welcoming for those who genuinely want what's best for their brothers and sisters in humanity. There shouldn't be an expectation of perfection from one another, but there should be a basic respect for everyone's humanity. The Christian Right therefore can succeed in looking past disagreements in ideology (lewd content in this case) to see the human decency in an artist. This is something the Left cannot currently do: if you don't adhere to their ideology, they purposefully dehumanize you.

Credit to Gumbopot, who posted an excellent set of tweets a couple of years ago I found worthy of saving. In this series of interview snippets on a Tim Poole episode, Matt Gaetz discusses the issue of Congress being captured by special interests.

old poliboard thread

Looks like the thread is locked now otherwise I'd just bump it.

Regardless of how anyone feels about Gaetz' personal behavior, which regrettably played no small part in his exit from Congress and his being unable to take a Senate confirmation level role with Trump's admin, I think he's precise and concise in describing how the sausage is made and some of the major issues Congress faces.

All 12 main parts (each being 30 seconds to 2 minutes) are worth a listen, with a bonus 13th part I did not listen to yet that was added on later.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

I'll link part 8 in particular as it reminds me how the machine increasingly went after Gaetz.
part 8 of 12

quote:

---

Wayfair wasn't running an e-commerce business for missing children, where they provided order numbers, a bill of sale, tracking, and the kids name.

You're still insane.

---

I noticed in the image with all the kid pics and names that at least a couple of them had been found. That absolutely suggests this Wayfair accusation isn't as straight-forward as, "Amy (or whoever) is missing = Amy is for sale on Wayfair". I would imagine it's very rare that a kid in the clutches of a well-organized crime group would escape. So, in a way, I agree: Wayfair (itself) wasn't running an e-commerce biz for missing children.

That being said, most of your sarcasm / derision in this thread fails to comprehend what may be going on. I don't know your posting well enough to know your intentions, but the following is is worth explaining...

Google: "can marketplace sites be used to launder money via third party sellers?"

AI Summary:

quote:

---

Yes, marketplace sites can be used to launder money via third-party sellers, and this is a known and growing problem exploited by sophisticated criminals. The speed, volume of transactions, and cross-border nature of e-commerce make it an attractive target for illicit financial activity.

Common Money Laundering Techniques
* Fictitious or Phantom Transactions
* Mispricing Schemes: Illicit funds are disguised through transactions involving significantly overpriced or undervalued goods between colluding buyer and seller accounts. The inflated value of the item helps move larger sums of money covertly.
...etc.

---

I'll include a small blurb from a couple of security publications for a little more context instead of only relying on the ai summary:

quote:

---

Price and quantity manipulation: Launderers list common items at extreme prices, split transactions to stay below thresholds or engineer rapid partial refunds to move value while dodging flags.

---

Brilliance Security Magazine

quote:

---

Mispricing Schemes: Criminals engage in fraudulent transactions involving significantly overpriced or deliberately undervalued goods. These schemes enable discreet transfer of illegal funds disguised as legitimate transactions. A common practice involves items listed at inexplicably high prices, purchased by accomplices to funnel money covertly.

---

FinCrime Intelligence

quote:

---

Creating e-commerce businesses as a front for illicit transactions (for example, to accept bank card payments for drugs).

---

RUSI.org

In short, $10k pillows or $12k cabinets that look like they're worth a few hundred at most are a red flag for a mispricing scheme hiding fraudulent activity or money laundering. This is unambiguous.

The use of missing kid names is less clear. It is weird. But it could be some criminal org having a sick sense of humor, or something else like using public databases of missing kids as some form of coding between buyers and sellers (like boy names = cocaine; girl names = meth or marijuana). To be clear, I would need to see more information before I would be comfortable making any connection between the missing kids and the possibly fraudulent listing. The kid names on the large poster looking image list missing dates that span from at least 1993 to 2020... and it would seem unlikely a kid who went missing in 1993 ended up for sale sometimes in the 2010s. Then again, identical 5 shelf cabinets with separate listings that cite names like Anabel and Samiyah are suspicious.

It's also important to realize that Wayfair is a marketplace site that represents 3rd party sellers. So, again, Wayfair itself would almost certainly never be shipping children. But they don't have absolute control over bad actors who may have created a fake shop on their site. This is why your sarcasm fails.

In short, it's possible that whoever started the idea of Wayfair being used by pedos was lying and fabricated these ads. I never saw them myself. But it is apparently true that criminals do use this this mispricing technique, so your mere disbelief is insufficient to dismiss the premise. If the ads were real, it just becomes an issue of whether a $10k Duplessis pillow gets you a 5 lb bag of weed in a pillow covering, or if it is something else... like a down payment system (for boomers who don't use crypto) for entre into groups that may be guilty of something along the lines of what is suggested. It would clean the money and would open a line of communication between the 3rd party seller (criminal group) and their customers for further vetting (to weed out the few normies who might get this far... perhaps returning their money due to the "mistaken" ad) and to facilitate further arrangements for those deemed qualified.

quote:

---

Some of you seem to think that you’ve discovered some kind of “gotcha” because the shooters may not be garden variety white dudes.

---

It's not a gotcha... it's irony, you idiot.

quote:

---

No he was a Mossad agent

---

There may not be too much of a difference if you're a student of history.

Re: The Balfour Declaration (google):

quote:

---

The 1917 Balfour Declaration was a pivotal, 67-word letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, pledging British support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. It was not a treaty, but a public statement that became fundamental to the British Mandate and fueled the Zionist movement.

---

The subtext to this text that I once saw a Jewish historian speak about on cspan of all places (it was 2017, i think, and was commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the Balfour Declaration anniversary, iirc) was that Rothschild said he would get the US to join with the allies in WW I if Balfour made this open pledge.

The US was still on the sidelines early in 1917, and the press and jews in the US were at that time neutral to sympathetic to the Germans, having integrated in Germany as well as anywhere. Upon the Declaration being made, public sentiment in the US news quickly turned against Germany, and the merchant ship that was sunk was the final straw. The US joined the war and turned the tide to defeat Germany.

So, if the Rothschild family was the political force behind the UK supporting the creation of Israel-- a movement the US would later embrace-- I don't think it's a stretch to think that family had and likely still has connections to Mossad.

Back to this thread... before this latest drop, I had also seen in previous Epstein related stories that one of the Rothschild family members suggested some person or persons should meet Epstein. Can't remember who off the top of my head. In any case, this is not the first data point to make a connection, but it is quite interesting to read Epstein himself say it.

quote:

---

Cannon has demonstrated for all to see that she’s in the bag for Trump…

---

You can expect Judge Cannon to be no less fair to Brennan than Judges Engoron and Merchan were to Trump.

Personally, I think she'll be more fair.

Left this tab open the other day, and a few names began to rattle around my head.

TheCaterpillar is another notable absence... just seemed to disappear one day.

Pectus also.

Beejon wasn't as well regarded, to my memory, but every now and again I see someone trying to remember him for his tales of fighting demons on the astral plane.

So, just wanted to visit this thread one last time. I don't have an issue with you critiquing Nuss for his decision making at times... that was a legit concern in 2024 and an area he needed to improve. And I'm definitely not knighting for him. Your argument just doesn't work / ignores evidence that refutes your thread title.

1) You are flat out calling Nuss a liar. Quotes from Nuss in the past few days:

quote:

---

"It's been a long process, and I'm starting to get healthy," Nussmeier said.

"I couldn’t use my core," Nussmeier explained. "So I was throwing the ball without my core."

"I'm going back from the ground up and retrain myself. Getting back to finishing throws and rotating through the ball, actually using my core now. It's been nice. The ball is coming out a whole lot differently. It's been good."

“We found out what it actually was a month ago,” Nussmeier told Tiger Rag Thursday night after the American team’s practice at Hancock Whitney. “It wasn’t what we thought it was throughout the entire season. And so, we’re making new progress there, and that’s why.”

Nussmeier said earlier in the week that his new team of doctors did consider surgery.

“Yes, there were a lot of things that went into it,” he said. “Ultimately, right now at this point, we don’t believe I’m going to need surgery. So, we had other plans, and hopefully we knocked it out.”

“I’ve been trying to just re-train from the ground up,” he said earlier this week. “I had built so many bad habits to try and get the ball out my hand because of the injury that it was a struggle at times. Just going back through and being able to actually use my body the right way and being able to finish throws, rotate through the football – that’s something that I’ve been focusing on.”

Nussmeier also made it clear that he did not “opt out” of the final three games of the regular season and the bowl game without an injury consideration. Early this week, he explained his re-injury of Nov. 11.

“I was throwing a front-side shallow,” he said. “That’s an 8-yard throw. Immediately after I threw it, I bent over in pain. At that point, I knew, like, ‘If I can’t throw a front-side shallow, I’m not effective. I can’t help my team win.’ From there, it wasn’t really a decision I was able to make to not play. It was kind of forced upon me. That was in practice. Yes sir. We tried week to week to try and get me to be able to play. It got to a point where I decided, ‘Hey, I can’t do this.’”

---

The quotes are from the following:
TD
Tiger Rag
yahoo

Is it possible Nuss is lying? Sure. The Tiger Rag article calls him out a little bit for being inconsistent with his language. And he doesn't want to say exactly what it is. But if he is lying, he and his dad (who knows better) are creating a bigger problem for him since any NFL team that wants to invest in him is going to want to review his medical records. Would've been simpler to just say he pulled a muscle and it's better now, instead of saying he was working with LSU's staff, doing rehab, but has a new diagnosis with a new set of doctors and is making progress... he's creating a bigger paper trail that can be verified.

On what basis are you accusing Nuss of being a liar? Simple question. I'm not an apologist for him.


2. You're inconsistent in framing your arguments. For one example, on page 2, I stated it isn't unfair to say his 2nd year leap (progression) didn't materialize due to injury. This was a direct reply to your statement that he didn't make a 2nd year leap the way Burrow & Daniels did, as well as to your thread title that errantly, imho, says the injury isn't why. Go back and look at your reply to me... In the first line, you cite his performance in 4 big games in 2024 as justification why he didn't do better the next year. On the last line of the same reply you accuse me of not looking "at his whole body of work", and you go on in several other replies to say only those 4 games matter to you and the other 7 or 8 games are meaningless. So, who is not looking at his whole body of work? You can criticize his play. You can't, however, have it both ways... either his whole body of work matters or it doesn't. And whether or not you consider some or all of 2024, you have to have a healthy 2nd year to make a fair determination on how much he progressed year to year. We didn't get that healthy 2nd year. So just pointing back at 4 games in the prior year is rather meaningless for what you're trying to prove.

I have not gone out of my way to defend Nuss or gloss over anything he did. Re-read my posts if you don't believe me and point out anything to the contrary where I idolize Nuss in any way. I haven't edited anything. You, however, appear to be calling Nuss dishonest and are being oddly selective in framing ways to diss him. It seems inappropriate.

I don't plan on replying in this thread again as I doubt there's much more to add to this. But I do think your major points deserved to be refuted.

Don't worry, though... this year might've gone sideways, but next year will be different. Leavitt, under Kiffin's tutelage, is a shoe-in for the Heisman! (that's sarcasm if you're not sure)