[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=12528.msg124682#msg124682 date=1439824618]What I have a hard time unwinding is how much of the Harbaugh offensive success was due to Harbaugh/Roman, and how much was due to Luck.  Harbaugh and Roman had some nice years with the 49ers, but really failed to develop Kaepernick, and the last year of offense was not good at all.  I think we will get a better sense after Harbaugh is at Michigan a while.

In one area critical for head coaches, replacing departed Assistants and Coordinators, I think he has done a very good job. Akina replacing Mason as DB coach; Bloomgren has been a very good OL coach, though I have some doubts about him as OC; Anderson taking over as DC has been smooth.  I've got no problems with his track record with the assistants or with recruiting. And if the offense picks up where it was at the end of last season, some of my doubts about the OC position and play calling will be eased

It's interesting.  As both a Card and Niner fan (as I suspect many likely are), Harbaugh and Roman's offensive "genius" for which they were widely known has been called into question, as it should be.  The 49ers the past year or two have been awful on offense, and Kaepernick has been woefully underdeveloped as a passer.  But there's really no way to tell whether that was a failing of Harbaugh (or Geep Chryst I suppose) or if Kaepernick just doesn't "get it."  After all, the Harbaugh regime did wonders for Alex Smith's career - not necessarily by making him a "better" quarterback, but simply by figuring out ways to hide his inadequacies as a passer.

Time will tell.
[/quote]

totally agree with this post.  Alex Smith is the counter-argument to the failure to develop Kaepernick.  This year may tell a lot, both because Kaep has a chance to fly without Harbaugh/Roman, and Roman has found a new opportunity elsewhere, and Harbaugh of course is back in Michigan. Maybe separating all three will give us a chance to see: what is Harbaugh's offense like without both Luck and Roman? Does Kaepernick improve away from those two? Was Roman just riding Harbaugh's coattails?

This year should be very interesting, from this perspective.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=12528.msg124682#msg124682 date=1439824618]What I have a hard time unwinding is how much of the Harbaugh offensive success was due to Harbaugh/Roman, and how much was due to Luck.  Harbaugh and Roman had some nice years with the 49ers, but really failed to develop Kaepernick, and the last year of offense was not good at all.  I think we will get a better sense after Harbaugh is at Michigan a while.

In one area critical for head coaches, replacing departed Assistants and Coordinators, I think he has done a very good job. Akina replacing Mason as DB coach; Bloomgren has been a very good OL coach, though I have some doubts about him as OC; Anderson taking over as DC has been smooth.  I've got no problems with his track record with the assistants or with recruiting. And if the offense picks up where it was at the end of last season, some of my doubts about the OC position and play calling will be eased

It's interesting.  As both a Card and Niner fan (as I suspect many likely are), Harbaugh and Roman's offensive "genius" for which they were widely known has been called into question, as it should be.  The 49ers the past year or two have been awful on offense, and Kaepernick has been woefully underdeveloped as a passer.  But there's really no way to tell whether that was a failing of Harbaugh (or Geep Chryst I suppose) or if Kaepernick just doesn't "get it."  After all, the Harbaugh regime did wonders for Alex Smith's career - not necessarily by making him a "better" quarterback, but simply by figuring out ways to hide his inadequacies as a passer.

Time will tell.
[/quote]

totally agree with this post.  Alex Smith is the counter-argument to the failure to develop Kaepernick.  This year may tell a lot, both because Kaep has a chance to fly without Harbaugh/Roman, and Roman has found a new opportunity elsewhere, and Harbaugh of course is back in Michigan. Maybe separating all three will give us a chance to see: what is Harbaugh's offense like without both Luck and Roman? Does Kaepernick improve away from those two? Was Roman just riding Harbaugh's coattails?

This year should be very interesting, from this perspective.

[Mick]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12528.msg124754#msg124754 date=1439852010]

Why does the board autocorrect Wålt Hårris to Wlat Idiotface but leaves Buddy Teevens alone?

Not that I'm in charge of the autocorrect or, for that matter, anything else, but I believe the Webmistress announced an amnesty for Buddy a couple of years ago. As you noted in your post, Buddy was just a lousy coach, not a communicable disease. Idiotface, though....

Given the study that showed that obesity is spread through social networks (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082) like a communicable disease, is that the reason that h*ge is also autocorrected?

BC
[/quote]

I think I'm going to go with the Roman "Hvge" from now on...

[Mick]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12528.msg124754#msg124754 date=1439852010]

Why does the board autocorrect Wålt Hårris to Wlat Idiotface but leaves Buddy Teevens alone?

Not that I'm in charge of the autocorrect or, for that matter, anything else, but I believe the Webmistress announced an amnesty for Buddy a couple of years ago. As you noted in your post, Buddy was just a lousy coach, not a communicable disease. Idiotface, though....

Given the study that showed that obesity is spread through social networks (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082) like a communicable disease, is that the reason that h*ge is also autocorrected?

BC
[/quote]

I think I'm going to go with the Roman "Hvge" from now on...

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124757#msg124757 date=1439852323]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=12528.msg124754#msg124754 date=1439852010]

Why does the board autocorrect Wålt Hårris to Wlat Idiotface but leaves Buddy Teevens alone?

Not that I'm in charge of the autocorrect or, for that matter, anything else, but I believe the Webmistress announced an amnesty for Buddy a couple of years ago. As you noted in your post, Buddy was just a lousy coach, not a communicable disease. Idiotface, though....

two thumbs up on this.  Maybe I just need to start substituting "v" for "u" in the roman style, and maybe "y" for "i" and see how many of the autocorrect changes disappear.

Given the study that showed that obesity is spread through social networks (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082) like a communicable disease, is that the reason that h*ge is also autocorrected?

BC
[/quote]

I think I'm going to go with the Roman "Hvge" from now on...
[/quote]

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124757#msg124757 date=1439852323]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=12528.msg124754#msg124754 date=1439852010]

Why does the board autocorrect Wålt Hårris to Wlat Idiotface but leaves Buddy Teevens alone?

Not that I'm in charge of the autocorrect or, for that matter, anything else, but I believe the Webmistress announced an amnesty for Buddy a couple of years ago. As you noted in your post, Buddy was just a lousy coach, not a communicable disease. Idiotface, though....

two thumbs up on this.  Maybe I just need to start substituting "v" for "u" in the roman style, and maybe "y" for "i" and see how many of the autocorrect changes disappear.

Given the study that showed that obesity is spread through social networks (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082) like a communicable disease, is that the reason that h*ge is also autocorrected?

BC
[/quote]

I think I'm going to go with the Roman "Hvge" from now on...
[/quote]

[Mick]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=12528.msg124682#msg124682 date=1439824618]What I have a hard time unwinding is how much of the Harbaugh offensive success was due to Harbaugh/Roman, and how much was due to Luck.  Harbaugh and Roman had some nice years with the 49ers, but really failed to develop Kaepernick, and the last year of offense was not good at all.  I think we will get a better sense after Harbaugh is at Michigan a while.

In one area critical for head coaches, replacing departed Assistants and Coordinators, I think he has done a very good job. Akina replacing Mason as DB coach; Bloomgren has been a very good OL coach, though I have some doubts about him as OC; Anderson taking over as DC has been smooth.  I've got no problems with his track record with the assistants or with recruiting. And if the offense picks up where it was at the end of last season, some of my doubts about the OC position and play calling will be eased

It's interesting.  As both a Card and Niner fan (as I suspect many likely are), Harbaugh and Roman's offensive "genius" for which they were widely known has been called into question, as it should be.  The 49ers the past year or two have been awful on offense, and Kaepernick has been woefully underdeveloped as a passer.  But there's really no way to tell whether that was a failing of Harbaugh (or Geep Chryst I suppose) or if Kaepernick just doesn't "get it."  After all, the Harbaugh regime did wonders for Alex Smith's career - not necessarily by making him a "better" quarterback, but simply by figuring out ways to hide his inadequacies as a passer.

Time will tell.
[/quote]


I think Roman was an OK NFL coordinator, but I thought he was terrific at Stanford.

Harbaugh turned around Smith by eliminating mistakes.  He cut his INTs in half, leading the league in lowest INT percentage the second year Harbaugh was there.  And I think hiding inadequacies makes a QB better, but his completion and TD percentages went up.    His yards per rush improved and continued to improve in KC.

[Mick]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=12528.msg124682#msg124682 date=1439824618]What I have a hard time unwinding is how much of the Harbaugh offensive success was due to Harbaugh/Roman, and how much was due to Luck.  Harbaugh and Roman had some nice years with the 49ers, but really failed to develop Kaepernick, and the last year of offense was not good at all.  I think we will get a better sense after Harbaugh is at Michigan a while.

In one area critical for head coaches, replacing departed Assistants and Coordinators, I think he has done a very good job. Akina replacing Mason as DB coach; Bloomgren has been a very good OL coach, though I have some doubts about him as OC; Anderson taking over as DC has been smooth.  I've got no problems with his track record with the assistants or with recruiting. And if the offense picks up where it was at the end of last season, some of my doubts about the OC position and play calling will be eased

It's interesting.  As both a Card and Niner fan (as I suspect many likely are), Harbaugh and Roman's offensive "genius" for which they were widely known has been called into question, as it should be.  The 49ers the past year or two have been awful on offense, and Kaepernick has been woefully underdeveloped as a passer.  But there's really no way to tell whether that was a failing of Harbaugh (or Geep Chryst I suppose) or if Kaepernick just doesn't "get it."  After all, the Harbaugh regime did wonders for Alex Smith's career - not necessarily by making him a "better" quarterback, but simply by figuring out ways to hide his inadequacies as a passer.

Time will tell.
[/quote]


I think Roman was an OK NFL coordinator, but I thought he was terrific at Stanford.

Harbaugh turned around Smith by eliminating mistakes.  He cut his INTs in half, leading the league in lowest INT percentage the second year Harbaugh was there.  And I think hiding inadequacies makes a QB better, but his completion and TD percentages went up.    His yards per rush improved and continued to improve in KC.

[Kathy]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Few of you did really well on standardized tests, did you?  Difficult to answer the question if you don't read and understand it, eh?
[/quote]

Always proofread before you get testy. I read very carefully for a living. Your question asks us to name an inanimate object -- a football -- that we'd prefer to Shaw. To me, the brands are all about the same -- Rawlings, Wilson, whatever ...

Your subject line isn't directed at me -- I am neither a doubter nor hater where Shaw is concerned. I think he's the best fit we've had at Stanford in a long time and I hope he stays for a long time. In all my decades of Stanford fandom, Shaw's teams have broken my heart the fewest times.

[Kathy]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Few of you did really well on standardized tests, did you?  Difficult to answer the question if you don't read and understand it, eh?
[/quote]

Always proofread before you get testy. I read very carefully for a living. Your question asks us to name an inanimate object -- a football -- that we'd prefer to Shaw. To me, the brands are all about the same -- Rawlings, Wilson, whatever ...

Your subject line isn't directed at me -- I am neither a doubter nor hater where Shaw is concerned. I think he's the best fit we've had at Stanford in a long time and I hope he stays for a long time. In all my decades of Stanford fandom, Shaw's teams have broken my heart the fewest times.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124656#msg124656 date=1439781430]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Few of you did really well on standardized tests, did you?  Difficult to answer the question if you don't read and understand it, eh?
[/quote]

Always proofread before you get testy. I read very carefully for a living. Your question asks us to name an inanimate object -- a football -- that we'd prefer to Shaw. To me, the brands are all about the same -- Rawlings, Wilson, whatever ...

Your subject line isn't directed at me -- I am neither a doubter nor hater where Shaw is concerned. I think he's the best fit we've had at Stanford in a long time and I hope he stays for a long time. In all my decades of Stanford fandom, Shaw's teams have broken my heart the fewest times.
[/quote]

Really?  I left out "coaches?"  Not even "couches?"  Oh Lord.  Sorry.  Interesting your the first person to point it out.  Reinforces my point, allbeit at my expense.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124656#msg124656 date=1439781430]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Few of you did really well on standardized tests, did you?  Difficult to answer the question if you don't read and understand it, eh?
[/quote]

Always proofread before you get testy. I read very carefully for a living. Your question asks us to name an inanimate object -- a football -- that we'd prefer to Shaw. To me, the brands are all about the same -- Rawlings, Wilson, whatever ...

Your subject line isn't directed at me -- I am neither a doubter nor hater where Shaw is concerned. I think he's the best fit we've had at Stanford in a long time and I hope he stays for a long time. In all my decades of Stanford fandom, Shaw's teams have broken my heart the fewest times.
[/quote]

Really?  I left out "coaches?"  Not even "couches?"  Oh Lord.  Sorry.  Interesting your the first person to point it out.  Reinforces my point, allbeit at my expense.

[yvonne]

Was that intentional?

[yvonne]

Was that intentional?

[Rally]

Was that intentional?

:)

[Rally]

Was that intentional?

:)

[Leftcoast]

BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “brobdingnagian.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

[Leftcoast]

BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “brobdingnagian.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

[Treebound]

I love the edit, Kathy!  As a qb, I prefer Wilson.

Shaw is our coach and he's a very, very good one.  I'm very critical of his play calling and last year's red zone effort was problematic, but I wasn't calling for his head.  I was not a fan of Hogan last year, but having learned the bigger picture on what he was dealing with and seeing his last three games, I realize that I was being harsh.  I hope he picks up where he left off and takes it closer to a Luck level this year. 

As for coaches, it's Shaw, Harbaugh, Walsh, Ty, Green.  Shaw frustrates me at times (when I can call out what he's running), but he's a great fit - as Stanford man who is smart, humble and a winner.  He's still learning and I'm hopeful that he takes us to the next level.  I wish sometimes he would admit his mistakes (that damn FG at the Fiesta Bowl).  Harbaugh turned us around from the dark side.  He was never going to be here long term and he's not the brightest bulb. He brought EUTM and it worked - for that I thank him and respect him.  He'll do the same for UM and then leave.  He has too much ego to stay in the college ranks - his brother and Pom Pom Pete will beckon.

Walsh was amazing and Eddy D recognized that and seized the day.    His second coming was good (beating PSU was great), but his best days had passed at that point.  Ty took us to the Rose Bowl after a long drought and for that I am greatful.  He was solid and I don't begrudge his departure to ND.  It was the right decision for a number of reasons.    We weren't the same program back then.  Today we are so much more and having lived through some lean years (Wiggin), I'm thankful to be able to have this debate and this potential.   

Combining two threads, I fully expect Shaw to become our AD some day.  I hope it's after he has lead us to our second national championship! 

[Treebound]

I love the edit, Kathy!  As a qb, I prefer Wilson.

Shaw is our coach and he's a very, very good one.  I'm very critical of his play calling and last year's red zone effort was problematic, but I wasn't calling for his head.  I was not a fan of Hogan last year, but having learned the bigger picture on what he was dealing with and seeing his last three games, I realize that I was being harsh.  I hope he picks up where he left off and takes it closer to a Luck level this year. 

As for coaches, it's Shaw, Harbaugh, Walsh, Ty, Green.  Shaw frustrates me at times (when I can call out what he's running), but he's a great fit - as Stanford man who is smart, humble and a winner.  He's still learning and I'm hopeful that he takes us to the next level.  I wish sometimes he would admit his mistakes (that damn FG at the Fiesta Bowl).  Harbaugh turned us around from the dark side.  He was never going to be here long term and he's not the brightest bulb. He brought EUTM and it worked - for that I thank him and respect him.  He'll do the same for UM and then leave.  He has too much ego to stay in the college ranks - his brother and Pom Pom Pete will beckon.

Walsh was amazing and Eddy D recognized that and seized the day.    His second coming was good (beating PSU was great), but his best days had passed at that point.  Ty took us to the Rose Bowl after a long drought and for that I am greatful.  He was solid and I don't begrudge his departure to ND.  It was the right decision for a number of reasons.    We weren't the same program back then.  Today we are so much more and having lived through some lean years (Wiggin), I'm thankful to be able to have this debate and this potential.   

Combining two threads, I fully expect Shaw to become our AD some day.  I hope it's after he has lead us to our second national championship! 

[BostonCard]

BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against USC will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against USC will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Cal, USC, and Notre Dame could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Cal, USC, and Notre Dame could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.

[gocard14]

Based on results so far, I hope Shaw stays for life and becomes AD when he runs out of gas on the football field. I critique his play calling as much as the next guy, but the coaching you see on Saturday is a tiny portion of the whole picture. Shaw recruits well, gets our guys ready to play, and develops talent so that we are "in" every game, so that those tactical factors even have a chance to matter.

[gocard14]

Based on results so far, I hope Shaw stays for life and becomes AD when he runs out of gas on the football field. I critique his play calling as much as the next guy, but the coaching you see on Saturday is a tiny portion of the whole picture. Shaw recruits well, gets our guys ready to play, and develops talent so that we are "in" every game, so that those tactical factors even have a chance to matter.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124805#msg124805 date=1439876062]
[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Low APR U, U$€, and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.
[/quote]

You are not alone.  I would want all of those lifted. 

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124805#msg124805 date=1439876062]
[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Low APR U, U$€, and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.
[/quote]

You are not alone.  I would want all of those lifted. 

[Rally]

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12528.msg124807#msg124807 date=1439877007]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124805#msg124805 date=1439876062]
[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Low APR U, U$€, and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.
[/quote]

You are not alone.  I would want all of those lifted.
[/quote]

What's the problem?  It's not a brobdingnagian deal to write Notre Dame, USC, Trojans, Cal, Walt Harris, is it?  Pretty strait forward.  Doesn't seem like a brobdingnagian problem.

[Rally]

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12528.msg124807#msg124807 date=1439877007]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12528.msg124805#msg124805 date=1439876062]
[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12528.msg124799#msg124799 date=1439871660]
BC, here's an excerpt from our ancient FAQ on the banning of h.uge ...

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list?

Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “of exceedingly large proportions.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

I knew the history of the word vis a vis this board.

Of all the banned words, that one is the one I'd most like to see lifted.  There are too many uses of the word "h*ge" that have nothing to do with implying that a game is of great importance, which is the only situation that the ban should be considered.  A 6'9" tackle, 340 lb tackle, for example, can reasonably be called h*ge without issue.  On the other hand, suggesting that our game against U$€ will be h*ge should appropriately be shunned.

BC
[/quote]

While we're lifting bans on words, it would be nice if Low APR U, U$€, and the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends could all be properly typed out.  But I'm probably alone on that one.
[/quote]

You are not alone.  I would want all of those lifted.
[/quote]

What's the problem?  It's not a brobdingnagian deal to write Notre Dame, USC, Trojans, Cal, Walt Harris, is it?  Pretty strait forward.  Doesn't seem like a brobdingnagian problem.

[Kathy]

Too bad the software doesn't fix spelling errors.

[Kathy]

Too bad the software doesn't fix spelling errors.

[yvonne]

The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems, nor will it fix the problem of referring to people as "that."

[yvonne]

The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems, nor will it fix the problem of referring to people as "that."

[JohnR34231]

The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.

[JohnR34231]

The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.

[Rally]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12528.msg124834#msg124834 date=1439907931]
The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.
[/quote]

Their Union will protect them.

[Rally]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12528.msg124834#msg124834 date=1439907931]
The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.
[/quote]

Their Union will protect them.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12528.msg124834#msg124834 date=1439907931]
The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.
[/quote]

Since we're on the topic of police, strictly speaking, inadvertently substituting a homonyms or close-to homonyms are not grammar errors but tend to be among the more amusing errors, particularly when they have a degree of Freudian lingerie quality to them.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12528.msg124834#msg124834 date=1439907931]
The new software does have a spelling checker, but that won't fix the there/their/they're, its/it's, and your/you're problems.

God forbid we should ever automate The Cardboard Grammar Police out of a job.
[/quote]

Since we're on the topic of police, strictly speaking, inadvertently substituting a homonyms or close-to homonyms are not grammar errors but tend to be among the more amusing errors, particularly when they have a degree of Freudian lingerie quality to them.