Good Article On Oversigning
dam
As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
problem on a permanent basis.
dam
-----
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion,
and religious men without intelligence. – Abu’l-Ala al Ma’arri
Huck Kennedy
> http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
I thot this wuz gonna be an article about the tea party.
Huck
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
<
< I thot this wuz gonna be an article about the tea party.
I thot it would be about US vs. Europeon highways.
--Tedward
Huck Kennedy
wrote:
> "Huck Kennedy" <tempeh...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
>
> <
> < I thot this wuz gonna be an article about the tea party.
>
> I thot it would be about US vs. Europeon highways.
And I thot it would be about European sports jerseys vs.
American sports jerseys.
Huck, "other than those silly NASCAR onesies, of course"
TimV
Seems easy to fix. You have 24 scholarships available, you can offer 24
scholarships.
T
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
>
>As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
>has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
>problem on a permanent basis.
>
>
>dam
"Players still line up to sign with Alabama even after a Wall Street
Journal investigation into the tactics Coach Nick Saban uses to get
under the 85-scholarship limit each year. Give Saban credit. At least
he tells recruits they might get cut to clear space for newer
signees."
So what's the problem? If you touch the "wet paint" sign don't be
surprised if the paint is wet.
Hugh
Futbol Phan
> http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
>
> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
> problem on a permanent basis.
>
> dam
"A Web site, oversigning.com, has popped up. Its mission? Track and
shame the programs that sign too many players each year."
Ah yes, let's just shame these SEC schools into submission. Like they
care about image; all that matters is the W, and if you have to be
sleazy to get there, so be it. Hey to Auburn, Florida, Alabama, ...
It is interesting to note the top 11 oversigning BCS schools are
either SEC or B12. Seems that there is a strong relationship between
athletic integrity and academic competence.
Starcade
> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
> problem on a permanent basis.
As demonstrated this year, you can no longer run a clean program to
win a national title.
Probably not in basketball either.
Mike
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
> problem on a permanent basis.
<
<As demonstrated this year, you can no longer run a clean program to
<win a national title.
<
<Probably not in basketball either.
Not *that* right there is shiney.
--Tedward
mianderson
seems to me there is a strong relationship between almost never
winning big and promoting irrelevant things of dubious value.....
J. Hugh Sullivan
<darkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 25, 10:21=A0am, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
>> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
>> problem on a permanent basis.
>
>As demonstrated this year, you can no longer run a clean program to
>win a national title.
I think your major was unawareness and minor was jumping to
conclusions.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, the SEC is smart enough to do it without breaking any rules. The
Big 10/11/12 is too dumb to understand the rules.
Hugh
Kyle T. Jones
Ahh. Everything is clear, now. You lack any real moral depth.
It really explains a lot. You disguise it well by spending so much time
up on that tallish horse, I think.
Cheers
TimV
Dude, he's a genuine war hero. That makes up for a lifetime of moral
turpitude.
T
J. Hugh Sullivan
Using the rules to one's advantage has mothing to do with morals, only
intelligence. Breaking then invilves morals.
I thought maybe you had the intelligence to comprehend the difference.
My mea is all culpaed.
Hugh
dam
How about honor and integrity? Deliberately signing a kid knowing you
may have to yank his scholarship later doesn't demonstrate either.
dam
-----
I believe that a human being, without religious faith, can be a very
good person - sincere, a good heart, having a sense of concern for
others - without belief in a particular religious faith. - Dalai Lama
Thomas R. Kettler
<77b0e86c-ea36-4c4e...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
dam <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 10:27 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:44:16 -0600, "Kyle T. Jones"
> > <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> > >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:34:25 -0800 (PST), Futbol Phan
> > >> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Jan 25, 12:21=A0pm, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
> >
> > >>>> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
> > >>>> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
> > >>>> problem on a permanent basis.
> >
> > >>>> dam
> > >>> "A Web site, oversigning.com, has popped up. Its mission? Track and
> > >>> shame the programs that sign too many players each year."
> >
> > >>> Ah yes, let's just shame these SEC schools into submission. Like they
> > >>> care about image; all that matters is the W, and if you have to be
> > >>> sleazy to get there, so be it. Hey to Auburn, Florida, Alabama, ...
> >
> > >>> It is interesting to note the top 11 oversigning BCS schools are
> > >>> either SEC or B12. Seems that there is a strong relationship between
> > >>> athletic integrity and academic competence.
> >
> > >> Yeah, the SEC is smart enough to do it without breaking any rules. The
> > >> Big 10/11/12 is too dumb to understand the rules.
> >
> > >Ahh. Everything is clear, now. You lack any real moral depth.
> >
> > Using the rules to one's advantage has mothing to do with morals, only
> > intelligence. Breaking then invilves morals.
> >
> > I thought maybe you had the intelligence to comprehend the difference.
> > My mea is all culpaed.
>
> How about honor and integrity? Deliberately signing a kid knowing you
> may have to yank his scholarship later doesn't demonstrate either.
Trying to explain ethics to Hugh works as well as explaining good taste
to Howard Stern.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Jan 25, 10:27=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>How about honor and integrity? Deliberately signing a kid knowing you
>may have to yank his scholarship later doesn't demonstrate either.
>
>
>dam
If you had bothered to read the original URL reference, OR my quote of
it in my first response, you would have noted that Saban tells his
recruits of the possibility of losing their scholarship to another.
The article also said the kids still line up to go to Bama.
A couple of players have lost their schollys in just that manner and
decided to walk on at Bama.
Because some two-bit colleges decide to enforce different, more
stringent rules does not mean that those who choose to abide by the
current NCAA rules are wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
So, as far as Bama is concerned all the whiners about morals and
integrity are ignorant, liars, jealous or just plain assholes.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>Trying to explain ethics to Hugh works as well as explaining good taste
>to Howard Stern.
That speaks only of your feeble abilities at explaining.
The difference is that when I choose to be somewhat unethical I tell
you up front and come straight at you. Most of you are too unethical
and cowardly to do that.
Hugh
JGibson
Is that what you tell your wife after you cheated on her? That you
didn't break any laws, and you were just using the law to your
advantage?
the_andr...@yahoo.com
Please don't make me defend SPUAT or Nick Saban, but his recruits
apparently know before they sign that it is a 1-year agreement and
they may not be renewed the following year.
As I understand it, this is made very clear to potential SPUAT
signees. Which is not always the case at other schools.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 25, 10:21 am, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCAA
> > has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve the
> > problem on a permanent basis.
>
> As demonstrated this year, you can no longer run a clean program to
> win a national title.
But, I thought it was the cabal who chose?
addre...@invalid.invalid
It is pointless to whine about morals or integrity at Alabama.
--
GS Rider
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
Yes, jealousty IS pointless.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 7:21=A0am, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 10:27=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:44:16 -0600, "Kyle T. Jones"
>>
>> > <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> > >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:34:25 -0800 (PST), Futbol Phan
>> > >> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> On Jan 25, 12:21=3DA0pm, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
>>
>> > >>>> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The N=
>CAA
>> > >>>> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve=
> the
>> > >>>> problem on a permanent basis.
>>
>> > >>>> dam
>> > >>> "A Web site, oversigning.com, has popped up. Its mission? Track and
>> > >>> shame the programs that sign too many players each year."
>>
>> > >>> Ah yes, let's just shame these SEC schools into submission. =A0Like=
> they
>> > >>> care about image; all that matters is the W, and if you have to be
>> > >>> sleazy to get there, so be it. Hey to Auburn, Florida, Alabama, ...
>>
>> > >>> It is interesting to note the top 11 oversigning BCS schools are
>> > >>> either SEC or B12. =A0Seems that there is a strong relationship bet=
>ween
>> > >>> athletic integrity and academic competence.
>>
>> > >> Yeah, the SEC is smart enough to do it without breaking any rules. T=
>he
>> > >> Big 10/11/12 is too dumb to understand the rules.
>>
>> > >> Hugh
>>
>> > >Ahh. =A0Everything is clear, now. =A0You lack any real moral depth.
>>
>> > Using the rules to one's advantage has mothing to do with morals, only
>> > intelligence. Breaking then invilves morals.
>>
>> > I thought maybe you had the intelligence to comprehend the difference.
>> > My mea is all culpaed.
>>
>> > Hugh
>>
>> How about honor and integrity? Deliberately signing a kid knowing you
>> may have to yank his scholarship later doesn't demonstrate either.
>
>Please don't make me defend SPUAT or Nick Saban, but his recruits
>apparently know before they sign that it is a 1-year agreement and
>they may not be renewed the following year.
>
>As I understand it, this is made very clear to potential SPUAT
>signees. Which is not always the case at other schools.
Well, I defended Newton and Fairley more than you guys...
Between us I don't know how honest any coach would be in discussing
the potential problem. The WSJ seemed to believe Saban was honest.
Saban can afford to do that and y'all can now - so can a couple of
others who have recruits salivating to go to a certain school.
What the others have to say in their ignorance or glee in dissing
Bama, whether a lie or not, helps me to pass the time responding.
It's so much fun watching them diss me for doing less than they do.
Somehow I thought you might be one of the honest posters, although the
above was a surprise. Ya gotta have guts to speak for us and us for
you. I won't tell anybody.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 25, 10:27=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:44:16 -0600, "Kyle T. Jones"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:34:25 -0800 (PST), Futbol Phan
>> >> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Jan 25, 12:21=3DA0pm, dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/4ktdm4k
>>
>> >>>> As noted before, it gives offenders a competitive advantage. The NCA=
>A
>> >>>> has a meaningless rule in place now and is looking at how to solve t=
>he
>> >>>> problem on a permanent basis.
>>
>> >>>> dam
>> >>> "A Web site, oversigning.com, has popped up. Its mission? Track and
>> >>> shame the programs that sign too many players each year."
>>
>> >>> Ah yes, let's just shame these SEC schools into submission. =A0Like t=
>hey
>> >>> care about image; all that matters is the W, and if you have to be
>> >>> sleazy to get there, so be it. Hey to Auburn, Florida, Alabama, ...
>>
>> >>> It is interesting to note the top 11 oversigning BCS schools are
>> >>> either SEC or B12. =A0Seems that there is a strong relationship betwe=
>en
>> >>> athletic integrity and academic competence.
>>
>> >> Yeah, the SEC is smart enough to do it without breaking any rules. The
>> >> Big 10/11/12 is too dumb to understand the rules.
>>
>> >> Hugh
>>
>> >Ahh. =A0Everything is clear, now. =A0You lack any real moral depth.
>>
>> Using the rules to one's advantage has mothing to do with morals, only
>> intelligence. Breaking then invilves morals.
>
>Is that what you tell your wife after you cheated on her? That you
>didn't break any laws, and you were just using the law to your
>advantage?
>
Strange as it may seem to all the cheaters here, in 62 years of
marriage I have never cheated on my wife. To salve my conscience
please don't ask if I ever wanted to.
Hugh
dam
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:21:05 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
A used car salesman will tell you that you'll "get a discount" on the
clear coat paint protection as well. How does that work usually out?
Just because Saban ignores the spirit of the rule doesn't make him
morally right, just sleezy. I've always found that people who push the
edge of the envelope in regards to rules/guidelines/laws shouldn't be
trusted because they have their own interests in the forefront, not
yours.
Why must you always resort to name-calling? Does that make you feel
superior to us in your own mind somehow? I've never interacted with
anyone quite like you. I think that is a good thing.
dam
-----
All bibles are man-made. - Thomas Edison
Kyle T. Jones
It's actually a bit scary that you believe the above, Hugh. Of course,
you lashing back is just more of the childishness I've come to expect
from you.
Basically, you're saying it's ok for me to steal anything/everything
from you - to kill you even - as long as I find a way to do it that
doesn't violate any currently "on the book" laws.
This is the basic defense presented by the very first scum that engaged
in checking and credit fraud. No laws on the books yet - sorry. Forget
intent, forget "spirit of the law" - if it ain't written, it ain't
wrong. LMAO.
It's a good legal defense. Not such a good moral defense. I'm not so
much surprised that you don't have the intelligence to comprehend the
difference - more surprised that you lack the conscience.
Cheers.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Jan 26, 9:02=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:21:05 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 25, 10:27=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> >How about honor and integrity? Deliberately signing a kid knowing you
>> >may have to yank his scholarship later doesn't demonstrate either.
>>
>> >dam
>>
>> If you had bothered to read the original URL reference, OR my quote of
>> it in my first response, you would have noted that Saban tells his
>> recruits of the possibility of losing their scholarship to another.
>> The article also said the kids still line up to go to Bama.
>>
>> A couple of players have lost their schollys in just that manner and
>> decided to walk on at Bama.
>>
>> Because some two-bit colleges decide to enforce different, more
>> stringent rules does not mean that those who choose to abide by the
>> current NCAA rules are wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> So, as far as Bama is concerned all the whiners about morals and
>> integrity are ignorant, liars, jealous or just plain assholes.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>
>A used car salesman will tell you that you'll "get a discount" on the
>clear coat paint protection as well. How does that work usually out?
>Just because Saban ignores the spirit of the rule doesn't make him
>morally right, just sleezy. I've always found that people who push the
>edge of the envelope in regards to rules/guidelines/laws shouldn't be
>trusted because they have their own interests in the forefront, not
>yours.
Only people intelligent enough to really comprehend the rules are
intelligent enough to use them to their advantage without breaking
them. I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand them.
And whether it is within the spirit of the rules is not your decision
to make.
>Why must you always resort to name-calling?
Because I am honest and truthful and willing to be up front about it.
>I've never interacted with
>anyone quite like you.
I'm not always willing to go slumming. I react differently to people
who matter.
> I think that is a good thing.
Me, too. I work much better with people who have acheieved something
in life more than being able to post on rsfc.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>It's actually a bit scary that you believe the above, Hugh. Of course,
>you lashing back is just more of the childishness I've come to expect
>from you.
I am unaware of another way to speak to children.
>
>Basically, you're saying it's ok for me to steal anything/everything
>from you - to kill you even - as long as I find a way to do it that
>doesn't violate any currently "on the book" laws.
That's about the size of it. But you run the risk of getting killed
and found with a gun in your hand. Saban runs no such risk. Your idea
of comparing the two lacks intelligence.
>This is the basic defense presented by the very first scum that engaged
>in checking and credit fraud. No laws on the books yet - sorry. Forget
>intent, forget "spirit of the law" - if it ain't written, it ain't
>wrong. LMAO.
Intent comes when challenged and as a defense. Otherwise it should
have been included as a preface to the rule. People who uses rules to
thier advantage are always smarter than those who wrote them.
>It's a good legal defense. Not such a good moral defense. I'm not so
>much surprised that you don't have the intelligence to comprehend the
>difference - more surprised that you lack the conscience.
I' surprised that you think you are God and the annointed judge of
morality.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
>Dude, he's a genuine war hero. That makes up for a lifetime of moral
>turpitude.
>
>T
What branch of the service were you in and what years were you on
Active Duty?
Hugh
dam
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:36:50 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
No, it is the ethos of a morally centered society.
>
> >Why must you always resort to name-calling?
>
> Because I am honest and truthful and willing to be up front about it.
Sadly, I'll never meet you in person. I'm sure I could persuade you
differently.
>
> >I've never interacted with
> >anyone quite like you.
>
> I'm not always willing to go slumming. I react differently to people
> who matter.
>
> > I think that is a good thing.
>
> Me, too. I work much better with people who have acheieved something
I help save children's lives for a living Hugh. Been doing that for
nearly 40 years. I'm curious as to what exactly you have accomplished
in your life that makes you so high and mighty?
> in life more than being able to post on rsfc.
And yet that's exactly what you are doing. Hmm.
dam
-----
I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
nothing like your Christ. - Gandhi
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Jan 27, 5:25=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>> And whether it is within the spirit of the rules is not your decision
>> to make.
>
>No, it is the ethos of a morally centered society.
Where might one of those be found?
>>
>> >Why must you always resort to name-calling?
>>
>> Because I am honest and truthful and willing to be up front about it.
>
>
>Sadly, I'll never meet you in person. I'm sure I could persuade you
>differently.
I would look forward to that with pleasure.
>> Me, too. =A0I work much better with people who have acheieved something
>I help save children's lives for a living Hugh. Been doing that for
>nearly 40 years.
This is not an accusation but that could just mean that you wear a
condom.
>I'm curious as to what exactly you have accomplished
>in your life that makes you so high and mighty?
I'm not high and mighty - just beyond what most, not all, people on
here have posted as achievements.
When people have achieved nothing they excuse not posting by calling
it bragging. One doesn't have to volunteer but they shouldn't chicken
out when called out.
>> in life more than being able to post on rsfc.
>
>And yet that's exactly what you are doing. Hmm.
>
>dam
Comparatively speaking I don't originate that many posts. I respond a
LOT - just like I'm doing now. I'll admit that many of my posts bring
out all the people in the cheap seats.
Hugh
the_andr...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:19:20 -0800 (PST), "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
I think he's honest with these kids.
I also think it's less of a problem with the kids themselves than it
is with BiggeningInteger fans.
Most of those kids will have a scholarship, regardless of whether or
not it's an athletic scholarship (see, medical hardships).
But, the honest question needs to be, if a kid goes to a school on an
athletic scholarship and doesn't give an effort, should he be allowed
to keep his scholarship? That isn't how the overwhelming majority of
non-athletic scholarships operate.
dam
But most arent'
>
> I also think it's less of a problem with the kids themselves than it
> is with BiggeningInteger fans.
It is gaining traction on a national level to the point that the NCAA
is reevaluating the applicable rules.
>
> Most of those kids will have a scholarship, regardless of whether or
> not it's an athletic scholarship (see, medical hardships).
It was mentioned in the story that medical hardships are being
orchestrated by the schools as well.
>
> But, the honest question needs to be, if a kid goes to a school on an
> athletic scholarship and doesn't give an effort, should he be allowed
> to keep his scholarship? That isn't how the overwhelming majority of
> non-athletic scholarships operate.
That's the risk that every coach takes. Not all kids are going to pan
out but if he is a good evaluator of talent, or better yet, a good
coach, this should be a non-issue.
dam
-----
Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wants to make a
million dollars, the best way would be to start a new religion. - L.
Ron Hubbard
J. Hugh Sullivan
>But, the honest question needs to be, if a kid goes to a school on an
>athletic scholarship and doesn't give an effort, should he be allowed
>to keep his scholarship?
Whether he did would pay a number of lawyers over time.
>That isn't how the overwhelming majority of
>non-athletic scholarships operate.
Interesting comparison.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>That's the risk that every coach takes. Not all kids are going to pan
>out but if he is a good evaluator of talent, or better yet, a good
>coach, this should be a non-issue.
>
>dam
But his point is valid. For purposes of performance why shouldn't all
be held to some standard. Or, why should athletes be exempt from
performance standards?
Hugh
dam
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:26:12 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's the risk that every coach takes. Not all kids are going to pan
> >out but if he is a good evaluator of talent, or better yet, a good
> >coach, this should be a non-issue.
>
> >dam
>
> But his point is valid. For purposes of performance why shouldn't all
> be held to some standard. Or, why should athletes be exempt from
> performance standards?
>
> Hugh
They are. It's called "playing time".
dam
-----
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen
Roberts
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Jan 27, 5:26=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:26:12 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >That's the risk that every coach takes. Not all kids are going to pan
>> >out but if he is a good evaluator of talent, or better yet, a good
>> >coach, this should be a non-issue.
>>
>> >dam
>>
>> But his point is valid. For purposes of performance why shouldn't all
>> be held to some standard. Or, why should athletes be exempt from
>> performance standards?
>>
>> Hugh
>
>They are. It's called "playing time".
>
>dam
So, it's fine with you for athletes to get full scholarships for
sitting on the bench for 5 years? We are certianly in no danger of you
being hired as a coach.
Nowhere but government would one find such an absurdity.
Hugh
dam
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:19:59 -0800 (PST), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
Did you reach the rank of general/admiral during your military
service? If not, according to your logic, you served no useful
purpose.
dam
-----
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool;
he that dares not reason is a slave. - William Drummond
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
No, my lack of AcDu as an officer, only as enlisted, caught up with
me. And I expect you could count on one hand the number of Navy people
who ever made 0-5 without such.
If there were more, factor in a selection rate of no more than 33%.
Actually if I had volunteered when I was 16 I would have been a
commissioned officer before I was 18 years old.
Hugh
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> Only people intelligent enough to really comprehend the rules are
> intelligent enough to use them to their advantage without breaking
> them. I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand them.
What's funny is that this leads to over legislation, more government
and contradicts the attitude of many who want to express "rights,"
etc.
If you want to get technical, you could argue that anything is fair
game ... it's only "against" the rules if you're caught.
> >Why must you always resort to name-calling?
>
> Because I am honest and truthful and willing to be up front about it.
You're honest about name-calling? And that somehow justifies it?
>
> >I've never interacted with
> >anyone quite like you.
>
> I'm not always willing to go slumming. I react differently to people
> who matter.
Such is the life of an online relationship.
>
> > I think that is a good thing.
>
> Me, too. I work much better with people who have acheieved something
> in life more than being able to post on rsfc.
>
You realize that by posting and spending so much time on RSFC, you're
taking yourself out of that pool.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:25 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
> > Only people intelligent enough to really comprehend the rules are
> > intelligent enough to use them to their advantage without breaking
> > them. I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand them.
>
> What's funny is that this leads to over legislation, more government
> and contradicts the attitude of many who want to express "rights,"
> etc.
Actually, I'll rephrase. I hate "it wasn't in the rules" or "it's not
against the law" people because more often than not, those types of
assholes force legislation that make it a pain in the ass for everyone
else. There's always one dickhead who spoils things for many others
because they had to "think" they were so smart, but the reality was
that the others didn't breach the subject because they didn't want to
f* it up for themselves and everyone else.
Sarbanes Oxley is one of those.
Most tax laws are the result of such bullshit.
The profanity isn't directed personally, I just cannot stand pricks
who rationalize that way.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tom_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 28, 6:38=A0pm, "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
I'll probably need help to understand why I should have a problem with
what you think.
If I take advantage of the rules, without breaking, I'll beat you
almost every time. When the rules are changed I'll still find a way.
If someone wants to govern me they have to be smart enough to do it.
And, we are all very happy that you never exceed the speed limit
because that would not be within the spirit of the rule even if not
enforced until about 7 mph over the limit. For me, I'll take what they
give.
Hugh
Thomas R. Kettler
Whatever you say, Pharisee. Jesus told us to follow not just the letter
of the law but the spirit as well. Legalism is antithetical to
Christianity.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I don't believe I have seen an official written copy of the spirit of
the law written by the original formulaters. Until then my definition
of the spirit is sufficient.
The spirit of the law is what you are not ticketed for.
Hugh
Kyle T. Jones
>> I help save children's lives for a living Hugh. Been doing that for
>> nearly 40 years.
>
> This is not an accusation but that could just mean that you wear a
> condom.
>
You're trash, you know that Hugh? Just #@$%ing common ass gutter trash.
Cheers.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> I'll probably need help to understand why I should have a problem with
> what you think.
Because it's that mentality that leads to more government. Wait,
maybe I missed it... you love more government?
>
> If I take advantage of the rules, without breaking, I'll beat you
> almost every time. When the rules are changed I'll still find a way.
No this is not taking "advantage" of the rules, it's finding away
around the system. I guess you can try to rationalize it, but that is
the exact mentality of those who exploit the government programs and
are ... is "worthless" the word you always use?
It's the same mindset. So which side are you on?
>
> If someone wants to govern me they have to be smart enough to do it.
>
> And, we are all very happy that you never exceed the speed limit
> because that would not be within the spirit of the rule even if not
> enforced until about 7 mph over the limit. For me, I'll take what they
> give.
That's fine ... remember that thought process every time one of those
"worthless" people you complain about receives another check for doing
nothing.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Not really. I'm just visiting you.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tom_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't blame them for working the system. I blame the people you
elect for not being smart enough to stop it - and you for electing
them.
Hugh
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
>
> I don't blame them for working the system. I blame the people you
> elect for not being smart enough to stop it - and you for electing
> them.
? I elected them? I'm a Republican and against more gov't.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tom_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then what's your beef?
Hugh
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
I think I stated that previously, no?
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
> Then what's your beef?
<
<I think I stated that previously, no?
P-U! I think Hugh needs to change his butcher.
--Tedward
J. Hugh Sullivan
Right. He backed into his meat grinder and got a little behind in his
work.
Hugh