Craft breweries are now brewing English-style brews (brown to dark red). If you love the sour-Bud style American beers, they will not be your favorites.

I like 'em all. What I was saying is the American takes on English reds, browns, ESBs, etc. are better than the English versions I had over there.

Not really that much of a fan myself. I tried a number of beers in local pubs when I was there and nothing registered more than a meh. But obviously you've had a looooooooot more beer over there than I have. 

I like some of the styles but I think in most cases the USA craft versions have been better than anything I had across the pond.

volsboy, did you just put a bunch of key words and phrases about UT's failures in athletics into a Random Post Generator and now just periodically push the button to trot a new one out here? Because they're not really all the same post, but they're really all the same post.

OSP is a tough SOB and a great guy. He was overmatched in this fight to begin with and once that fracture happened there was really no chance.

He may never hold the title in his division but obviously MMA was a great career choice for him when football ended. He's a good rep for UT as well.

I'll consider that question after we see how the season unfolds. I don't see much value in thinking about it at the moment.

Presumably he'll bring Daddy's Boy with him.

Saul looks like this now BTW:

Hey, you see something posted on Volnation, you can  normally take it as gospel.  When have their posters ever steered us wrong?

I used to lurk on that forum regularly looking for good Vol discussion, since there are a lot of members and they mostly stay on topic. I managed to find intelligent comments here and there but it's a needle in a freakin haystack. It's like a real life test of the infinite monkey theorem over there.

They just did Memphis a huge favor.

Good night, CO. 

It's a mandatory fee, correct? 

If one has objection to where any of the fee is spent, are they issued a refund?

No. 

Then stop with the stupid attempt at spinning it. 

Like I said, you can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn't change the FACT that it is still a pig. 

But of course, those in the academia world are so much smarter than the rest of us, correct? 

I can probably do a better job explaining my position, but it's going to involve fractions. Before I bother, do you have any special rules on fractions that you'd like me to bear in mind, or can I just use the standard operations and methods that generally apply in circumstances where fractional quantities are involved?

Just as an example, if I slice a pie into 8 equal pieces and you specify that you want your share of that 8th piece to actually be removed from that piece and left in another piece, then generally speaking that means the 8th piece is now less than 1/8 of the pie. But just because this is how fractions work in every situation I've encountered doesn't mean there isn't some modification of rules that you are aware of but I remain ignorant of. I am always willing to learn new things about math.

[mandatory]

Hello McFly - if it is a mandatory student fee and monies from those mandatory fees are being used for activities collectively. One can't "direct" where mandatory fees may or may not end up.     

Sorry, CO.  Your spin just doesn't make reasonable nor rational sense.  When you pay taxes you have no say in what part goes to pay what service/entitlement offered by the level of government that is taxing its citizens.  A mandatory fee, no matter what one calls it, is no different. 

You are entitled to your opinion on whether Sex Week is a good use of student-directed funds or whether the UT administration should allow it. But you are not entitled to your own set of facts on the subject. This fee was once similar to a government tax, used in its entirety by UT Student Life in whatever manner it thought best. But since the 2014 policy change, individual students actually do-- in reality, not in my "spin"-- have the option of locking those funds away from student-dictated programming they think may be objectionable or that they just otherwise don't want to pay for.

Student-Organized Programming (SOP) is one of eight uses of the SPSF fee. If a a student opts out of his fees being used for SOP, then one of the seven other areas will get the portion of their fee that would have been earmarked for SOP if he had opted in. So no, the SPSF is not reduced by the students who fail to opt in, but the portion used for Student-Organized Programming events like Sex Week is.

The math is simple here and so is the English. Insulting my intelligence is not a strong debate tactic and won't convince many people-- me especially-- that you have a handle on facts that I, as a noted dullard, can't seem to grasp.

It's a mandatory fee, CO.  No matter how you try to spin it part of that fee is going towards that.  They can say they don't want to contribute to it, but the REALITY is that part of the fee they are paying is, in fact, funding it.  It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.  

Sorry, I left my protractor at home. Can you explain to me which part of this doesn't clearly put the onus on the students to voluntarily give part of their fee to the student-driven portion of university activities:

If a student fails, for any reason, to expressly authorize the University to allocate a certain amount or percentage of the SPSF for Student-Organized Programming, then that amount or percentage of the student’s SPSF shall be allocated by the Chief Student Affairs Officer for a use that benefits students, within the limits described in Section 3 and 4, but the funds shall not be used for Student-Organized Programming.

The spin on this is coming from you, Herb. Not me.

Is it an Sex Education class or something?

Partly that, partly quirky and fun sex-related seminars/events and such. Contrary to OP's sentiment I think things like this are more important than ever with the Title IX business.

http://sexweekut.org/about/

It's really hard to use that as a defense when that is a mandatory fee.  There is nothing voluntary about it and even if a student does oppose using it for that purpose there is no reduction in that fee, or money returned.  

They still have to pay the fee but they are not paying for student activities that they disagree with unless they want to. So you can consider this fee mandatory, but supporting Sex Week with the fee is not. If a student disagrees with the way those funds are used, he or she can opt for that fee to go toward other things. The last time a big stink was made about the use of student activity fees-- and it was about Sex Week that time too-- the UT administration bowed to the pressure and made a policy change.

http://spsf.utk.edu/?page_id=23

I understand why UT yielded to politics, but personally I think the policy change is idiotic. This is a college campus. Sex happens. It happens a lot. And the negative consequences of sex among young people are much less likely to occur if there is actually an open and inviting dialogue on the subject, downplaying the idea that it's taboo or bad and that it should be kept quiet and dark-- where abuse is easy and convenient, and where safety takes a back seat.

http://www.rockytopinsider.com/2016/04/02/photo-vol-signee-roughs-gator/

Love it.

When writers with a national voice start paying homage to it, that makes it all the worse.

Well then it's a good thing that morons like Todd Starnes can be easily ignored.

Is this the first time you noticed that Sex Week happens at UT, or just the first time you've been outraged by it?

That white board.

https://twitter.com/King_Kongbo/status/715636648344731649

Well it's one of two things: Either there was "magic" and the magic is gone, or there wasn't magic and the shine is off what he accomplished at UT a little bit.

If that first UT team was much more talented than we all thought it was-- talented enough to be a 2-seed in year one as compared to 40 losses in two seasons at Auburn-- then maybe what he did that season to kick start things was less about him and his "magic" and more about somebody who simply wasn't Buzz Peterson.

Because if all that was what we all saw at the time, then he squeezed every drop out of that team and hasn't been able to recapture that-- or even come close-- at Auburn.

I think it's probably a little of both.

It was a sources inside the higher level of administration. 

I understand that somebody said it was, but I have serious doubts about that.

She has been mentioned as a possible successor to Jimmy Cheek, if rumors of Cheek's summer departure come to fruition. 

I think Cheek's departure will come to fruition but I don't think the Martin-as-Chancellor rumors had any legs at all. I'm not sure who the original source on that was.

The timing is interesting.

This isn't a good sign IMO

Maybe it looks that way, but I don't think the timing means anything.

Apparently going back to the Department of Classics, whatever that is.   

Interesting development, if the reports are accurate. 

It's accurate. Cheek has announced it publicly.

You and I have no idea what shaped her opinions.  I disagree.

^

I think Native is a good and well-meaning person who, like all of us, has blind spots. Sometimes there are understandable reasons for those blind spots.

But how do you prove such a thing?  It's the word of a 20ish student that has motive against the person at the University responsible for enforcing student discipline.

If you are comfortable accepting such thing, then good on you.  I'm not.

I'm not either, and I've been worried about what was behind that whole affair since the story broke. There's undoubtedly more to it. I just hope it's not what Wright says it is.

Of course none of us are so blind that we can't see that these athletes are protected. Just look at all the sexual assault/rape cases that happen and are reported at schools all over the country. Look at how many end up not being prosecuted for one reason or another. You can not tell me that all of the accusers are lying. Why, in most cases does it seem the athlete is the one that gets the benefit of the doubt?

How does that compare to cases on college campuses that do not involve an athlete? I don't know the answer but it seems like you'd need to know that to figure out if the athletes are getting off easy.