IU is definitely leading for Romeo
- Thread starter MKordIUBB
- Start date
I too don’t understand why trolls who are obviously here to disrupt pertinent discussion are not banned. The rude and insulting comments by a few destroy intelligent dialogue.
What? Did I misspell something?Make sure to spell check all your words. Just a bit of advice.
No, you good.
I mis-spelled a word and it became the new focus. He'll use anything to try to make up for his lack of a factual argument.
Look at the time line of events. They knew in July and waited until the following February to act.
You still don’t realize you posted an article that refuted what you’ve been saying all along. That’s, plus using a word you didn’t know to describe a situation you obviously didn’t understand, makes this an easy one. You’re just not very bright. There’s no need to “judicate!” that.
“Judicate” had nothing to do with spell check. We both know that.Make sure to spell check all your words. Just a bit of advice.
IU "could" have cut KS loose in Oct but that would have been a very risky and likely very expensive decision. They might have been in court for two years or longer If you have ever managed a large organization, particularly one that is federally funded, you understand such big boy decisions. I am no fan of the AD at the time, but thankfully the Attorneys got it right. Anyone saying IU sat on the decision is woefully ignorant of how the business world works today.
As an interesting side note, IU got a lot of bad press for firing him as soon as they did.
Many, if not most, employment contracts used to have a clause pertaining to moral turpitude.
Maybe they no longer contain such a clause, or maybe now we no longer consider having an extramarital affair or consorting with prostitutes to be an act of moral turpitude.
We don't need no stinking trolls.
We can make rude and insulting comments ourselves.
blow this mf'er up and delete it, please. I think it's been pages since anyone posted anything about Romeo Langford... you know, what the thread is purported to be about!
Last edited:
This is an absolutely false portrayal of where IU was and the reasoning behind their decision making. You couldn’t be farther from the truth here, though it’s not a surprise that you would get this so completely wrong.
Because you say it is?
Maybe if he had the "willingness to act" it'd be different, huh?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You’re still not able to see that the article you posted refutes your argument, are you? I guess that’s not surprising given that you used a word you did not know to describe a situation you obviously did not understand. “Judicated!”
I’m not sure of your level of education but, for your sake, I truly hope it’s relatively low. At least it would make for a reasonable explanation . . .
Come back when you provide proof that IU "sat on it" because they "did want to tank the season".
Until then, you're just being your usual blowhard self . . .
Read the article you posted. It shows they sat on it, even if you weren’t smart enough to see that when you unwisely posted it as supposed proof of your position.
Again, you used a word you didn’t know to describe a situation you obviously didn’t understand. That says everything about you that we need to know. “Judicated!”
You may be able to determine from that article that IU "sat on it", but certainly gives no PROOF they did so to not "tank the season".
Only thing you've gotten right in all of this is my mistake on a word. Congrats - I'm sure your self-esteem is now complete . . .
Let me guess...demanding proof while offering none? Ignore him, just easier than arguing with a bitter little man,
You posted an article that refuted what you said. Period. And, prior to that fact, you tried to argue a point you didn’t understand by using a term you didn’t know.You may be able to determine from that article that IU "sat on it", but certainly gives no PROOF they did so to not "tank the season".
Only thing you've gotten right in all of this is my mistake on a word. Congrats - I'm sure your self-esteem is now complete . . .
You have zero credibility on this matter, and it actually reduces every time you attempt to mount a feeble argument in your defense.
“Judicated!” really says it all.
No, he offered proof that supported what I said, then tried to BS his way through it by using a term he didn’t know regarding a situation he didn’t understand. He’s justifiably embarrassed, even though much of this is well beyond him (and you).
Everyone should just ignore him and he would go away. All he is looking for is attention that he must lack in his life.
Partial list of Ewezr's* contributions: naked insecurity, revisionist history (i.e., fantasy), snide condescension, thinly-veiled self-loathing, absolutely nothing of redeeming value, wit or originality, a Napoleon complex, holier-than-thou so thick one could cut it with a (virtual) knife, and I suspect really really tiny hands, etc. Possibly bedwetting...
*Rhymes with Hoosier/loser - indicative of fondness for or fellowship with ewes.
I know this is only Monday, but you all looking at the Post of the Week.
Bitter little "man"? Don't you mean a bitter little female sheep? She is EWEzrfan after all !
I only wish I could "contribute" an editor and / or English teacher to you. It would help so much.
The truth, which is something you've proudly chosen to run from here. You look incredibly foolish for a reason, not the least of which is using a word you do not know to describe a situation you onviously do not understand. "Judicate!"
Help what exactly? Your crippled sense of self-esteem? Your campaign to assert yourself as this site's alpha male? To mask your utter lack of originality, creativity or wit? The laughable pretense that you are more learned and educated than everyone else? The general opinion that you're a richard?
Leaving the country tomorrow for a week so won't be here to continue this delightful repartee. You'll just have to play with yourself but suspect it's what you do best..
¡Ciao!
