Make sure to spell check all your words. Just a bit of advice.Let's see what he responds.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Make sure to spell check all your words. Just a bit of advice.Let's see what he responds.
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.Once upon a time, the Mods used to frown on calling out or making personal attacks on other posters. I guess those days are gone. The anonymity of the message board makes people "brave" enough to throw out insults that they would not make face to face(for fear of getting their ass beat).
What? Did I misspell something?Make sure to spell check all your words. Just a bit of advice.
No, you good.What? Did I misspell something?
Is Ewezrfan1 actually Goat?
Look at the time line of events. They knew in July and waited until the following February to act.Do you have any links to prove that IU "sat on it"? I'd be really interested in your records describing what IU initially self- reported about the phone calls, what IU's knowledge was based on and the penalty IU initially self-imposed against itself.
As I recall, IU initially self-reported some phone calls in the fall, but Sampson and McCallum disclosed additional phone calls over the next few months, making themselves look worse. Do you have any information showing that IU had the complete story the previous fall?
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."Willingness to act"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“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.
Good morning Ord.Look at the time line of events. They knew in July and waited until the following February to act.
Is Ewezrfan1 actually Goat?
And used UofL as an argument for quick, responsive action.
If UofL was concerned about "acting promptly", they would have canned RP when his affair with Karen Cunagin surfaced, with all its embarrassing details. They could have canned him after the hooker scandal broke, also.
They didn't because even though RP had brought significant embarrassment to the University he represents, he was still a valuable asset because of the money he brought in through basketball. ONLY WHEN it became apparent supporting him further could cost them a team (and revenue) did they cut him loose.
You're right, IU could have cut Sampson loose in October 2007. They had significant proof - but it still would have to be judicated. Instead of taking a chance at a costly lawsuit, they waited until the NCAA returned their findings.
IU waited almost 8 months after finding out about extra phone calls.
UofL waited over 8 years - and three separate, embarrassing events.
Both schools did it for financial reasons.
Yet UofL is the school that had the "willingness to act" . . .
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Last time I checked that having an affair was not against the law or a against any NCAA rules. Yes it is immoral but you can't just fire someone for doing something immoral.
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.
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.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.
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.
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!”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 . . .
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.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 . . .
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".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!”
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 . . .
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 . . .
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).Let me guess...demanding proof while offering none? Ignore him, just easier than arguing with a bitter little man,
Everyone should just ignore him and he would go away. All he is looking for is attention that he must lack in his life.Let me guess...demanding proof while offering none? Ignore him, just easier than arguing with a bitter little man,
Go away, Scott. You add nothing but pity.Everyone should just ignore him and he would go away. All he is looking for is attention that he must lack in his life.
No, but this is beyond you anyway.
Go away, Scott. You add nothing but pity.
WTF do you add?
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.
Bitter little "man"? Don't you mean a bitter little female sheep? She is EWEzrfan after all !Let me guess...demanding proof while offering none? Ignore him, just easier than arguing with a bitter little man,
The truth, something that's seemingly not valued here by many.WTF do you add?
I only wish I could "contribute" an editor and / or English teacher to you. It would help so much.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.
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!"Misery?
Indigestion?
Diarrhea?
How's your new handle working out, Johnsy? Missed your PSU pick. LolBitter 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!"
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.
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!"