Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:05:59 PM

[whiskeypriest]

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

No, they don't agree with you, de facto or otherwise, because your position is not Meyer's conduct was wrong and deserves discipline, but that Meyer has to be fired, unless you do not have an ounce of intelligence or are a sycophant. THAT is just you working a different factual scenario into your previously stated "he should be fired" stance.

Your post is pure bullshit, and sadly you are in asshole mode about this. So be it.

There are varying degrees of punishment. Fired is punishment. Suspension is punishment. If they support punishment then they defacto agree with me. The only difference here is the severity of the punishment.


Why you have to be a dick about it is, I suspect, because you are getting, as usual, the shitty end of the debate stick and you don't like it. Not my fault, get smarter.

They would only agree with you if the issue isn't the extent of punishment. Since it is, they don't.  It is like saying if you agree we need strong borders you agree we should build a wall. Identifying a problem is one issue. How you deal with it another. Agreeing on the first is not agreeing on the second.

[Yankguy1]

She doesn't start for a couple of weeks but is really looking forward to it.  I'm not (though I'm happy for her).   

[whiskeypriest]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

[whiskeypriest]

She doesn't start for a couple of weeks but is really looking forward to it.  I'm not (though I'm happy for her).

Oooh I have so much to say about this I cannot edit it down to a single post.

[CaptainCargo]

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

No, they don't agree with you, de facto or otherwise, because your position is not Meyer's conduct was wrong and deserves discipline, but that Meyer has to be fired, unless you do not have an ounce of intelligence or are a sycophant. THAT is just you working a different factual scenario into your previously stated "he should be fired" stance.

Your post is pure bullshit, and sadly you are in asshole mode about this. So be it.

There are varying degrees of punishment. Fired is punishment. Suspension is punishment. If they support punishment then they defacto agree with me. The only difference here is the severity of the punishment.


Why you have to be a dick about it is, I suspect, because you are getting, as usual, the shitty end of the debate stick and you don't like it. Not my fault, get smarter.

They would only agree with you if the issue isn't the extent of punishment. Since it is, they don't.  It is like saying if you agree we need strong borders you agree we should build a wall. Identifying a problem is one issue. How you deal with it another. Agreeing on the first is not agreeing on the second.

Who said they agreed with my actual form of punishment. All I said was they agreed with me that punishment is warranted. And in that respect they agree with me.

They agree with me that it was wrong. Serious enough to warrant punishment.


 It is not like saying if you agree we need strong borders you agree we should build a wall. There you are making a conjectural conclusion example that was never inferred by me. More lawyer double talk.

I admit you are very good at it, I've never said you were stupid. Just not good enough to get that shit past me. Why do you try?

[CaptainCargo]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

And there was no context lost. Jimmy mumbles a lot.

[CaptainCargo]

She doesn't start for a couple of weeks but is really looking forward to it.  I'm not (though I'm happy for her).

They all leave the nest at some point bro. But I know how you feel.

[whiskeypriest]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

The posting Olympics are entirely in your head, which is probably why you think you "win" them.

[Yankguy1]

There you are making a conjectural conclusion example that was never inferred by me. More lawyer double talk.

A double-talking lawyer would use "implied" not "inferred."

[CaptainCargo]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

The posting Olympics are entirely in your head, which is probably why you think you "win" them.

People don't debate just to hear the sound of their own voice. And yes some do it just to be an asshole. Although I suppose you could be doing one of those.


Or possibly both.

No matter.

[whiskeypriest]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

The posting Olympics are entirely in your head, which is probably why you think you "win" them.

People don't debate just to hear the sound of their own voice.

You think people (other than you) read their posts aloud when they type?

[CaptainCargo]

There you are making a conjectural conclusion example that was never inferred by me. More lawyer double talk.

A double-talking lawyer would use "implied" not "inferred."

Are ya helping me YG? :-)

[CaptainCargo]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

The posting Olympics are entirely in your head, which is probably why you think you "win" them.

People don't debate just to hear the sound of their own voice.

You think people (other than you) read their posts aloud when they type?

Yak about context and then take something out of context. You have no shame do you. You are the absolute king of bullshit, I'll give you that.

But here's a better poser for you. You think anyone(other than you[and Skippy]) believes your bullshit? 

[CaptainCargo]

Okay, I've had enough for today. As always I'll give you the last word. Have at it.

[whiskeypriest]

The integrity of the University is at stake. If not him then the man above him. Maybe both.

I’ll say once again….Should the university officials be the ones to determine this mans guilt or should it be a court of law? Anything is possible should the only proof be one side’s allegations. At most suspend him until a court case is resolved one way or another.

As to the blatant lying bro there is no question of his guilt. Is there? And that is where I base my 'fire him' stance. Others want to give him a pass, or a suspension.

Any of the people that want to give him a suspension defacto then agree with me. Namely that punishment is warranted.

“ Punishment is warranted”!
In other words it is Ohio State.
LOL

It is Ohio State what? Please be more clear on that statement.

If you think I'm saying it is OSU that should be punished you are wrong. They've, on the surface, done the right thing. So far. I can't speak for what has happened behind the scenes yet.

If you are implying that I'm saying that it is up to OSU to dole out the punishment, then yes. You are correct for a change. That's probably just a blind squirrel nut thing for you though.

But I suspect you meant the former, as you are usually wrong and way off base in your own inimitable opaque fashion.

I believe the third option is that your opinion that punishment is warranted is because it is OSU in the crosshairs. Which was my reading.

Then you are wrong in your belief. I understand you want to believe that. I know you can't fathom anything else as a reason. That's a personal issue you'll have to work out with yourself.

If past precedent is any indicator I won't be holding my breath that you can though.

I suspect it is because you find me a challenge that you just can't seem to master. Don't feel bad dude, coming in second is not a death blow. If you'd only not let your ego get the best of you most of these exchanges wouldn't escalate to the STFU stage.

You are missing the context. In that post, I was pointing out what I believe espnstatevitale was trying to say in his post, since as usual you seemed to have difficulty understanding him.

Though this is probably as good a time as any to disdainfully chuckle at your belief that there are winners and losers in internet discussions.

Says the guy that usually loses.

The posting Olympics are entirely in your head, which is probably why you think you "win" them.

People don't debate just to hear the sound of their own voice.

You think people (other than you) read their posts aloud when they type?

Yak about context and then take something out of context.

Have I ever mentioned that I crack myself up? Take the bait every time.

But here's a better poser for you. You think anyone(other than you[and Skippy]) believes your bullshit?

At least as many (other than you [and your alter ego]) believes yours.