Dick Wad now bigger embarrassment to Michigan
Alan Jones
More so than WVU, Michigan is now feeling the shame that is
Rodriguez, "It won't help the hallowed Michigan image if a trial
unearths testimony and documentation that paints Rodriguez as a
soulless mercenary whose loyalties extend only as far as his next
contract." With his pitiful claims against WVU, RR is unwittingly
forcing Michigan into paying his buyout. Serves them right...
___
Michigan should cut losses in Rich mess
Drew Sharp, Detroit Free Press
DETROIT - Will common sense ever prevail in the ongoing rancor
between Rich Rodriguez and West Virginia?
Rarely does a winner ever emerge in a legal dispute where ego
collides with arrogance. Both sides should bury the pettiness and
immediately find a tolerable compromise before this lawsuit goes to
trial. All that would do is make this mess uglier and potentially
cause more damage to the careers and credibility of those directly
involved.
Don't believe me?
What would Kwame Kilpatrick say today about the virtues of an
out-of-court settlement?
It's time for Michigan to remove itself from the sidelines and
implore its new football coach to reach an accord with his former
employers. University president Mary Sue Coleman and athletic
director Bill Martin are grossly mistaken if they believe they're
merely innocent bystanders in a fractured family feud.
It won't help the hallowed Michigan image if a trial unearths
testimony and documentation that paints Rodriguez as a soulless
mercenary whose loyalties extend only as far as his next contract.
Nobody knows how far a jilted suitor will push in its quest for
vengeance. It's not worth it for Michigan to sit idly by and allow
West Virginia to gratuitously sully its new coach's character over
$4 million, his buyout penalty.
You never know what could emerge in an acidic courtroom fight. If
you're Michigan, why risk your new coach's reputation before he has
had the opportunity to invoke the institutional change that has been
long overdue with this football program?
Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on.
Rodriguez portrays himself as a trusting victim duped by
disingenuous West Virginia university administrators in a second
letter of resignation - dated Jan. 10 - to West Virginia athletic
director Ed Pastilong.
Rodriguez alleges the university breached the tenets of a term
agreement the parties reached 13 months earlier, after Rodriguez
almost bolted for a $12-million deal at Alabama. He also insisted he
had verbal assurances from the incoming university president that
the $4-million buyout would be diminished or obliterated altogether.
The university denies such discussions took place.
But it begs the question: How can Rodriguez express displeasure over
having such a stiff buyout in his West Virginia deal, yet have no
issue with a similar buyout provision in his Michigan contract? (His
letter of intent with Michigan calls for him to pay U-M $4 million
if he leaves in the first year of his contract; the buyout decreases
by $500,000 each subsequent year he remains.)
Rodriguez also wrote that he felt pressured to formally sign the
contract last August despite his misgivings about the $4-million
buyout. He wrote that the university misled him into believing it
was the boosters who adamantly insisted on the buyout. Rodriguez
wrote that he learned later the boosters had nothing to do with the
buyout language.
But how can he argue duress when it took him nine months to sign the
contract? If there were discrepancies, couldn't he have figured
those out in that amount of time?
Don't think those questions wouldn't be asked in a trial.
Michigan had no alternative but to co-opt its antiquated ideals of
integrity. If you can't develop good coaches, you must pry them from
somebody else's clutches. That's fine. Those are the rules of the
coaching jungle, but don't be surprised how quickly the hunter
becomes the quarry.
Michigan might seek distance from this embarrassing charade, because
it doesn't want to see how ugly things could get when Rodriguez one
day leaves Michigan.
http://wvgazette.com/Sports/WVU/200801250813
DISCUSS THIS TOPIC AT...
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WVU-Sports
Jon Enslin
> More so than WVU, Michigan is now feeling the shame that is
> Rodriguez, "It won't help the hallowed Michigan image if a trial
> unearths testimony and documentation that paints Rodriguez as a
> soulless mercenary whose loyalties extend only as far as his next
> contract." With his pitiful claims against WVU, RR is unwittingly
> forcing Michigan into paying his buyout. Serves them right...
> ___
>
> Michigan should cut losses in Rich mess
> Drew Sharp, Detroit Free Press
>
> DETROIT - Will common sense ever prevail in the ongoing rancor
> between Rich Rodriguez and West Virginia?
>
> Rarely does a winner ever emerge in a legal dispute where ego
> collides with arrogance. Both sides should bury the pettiness and
> immediately find a tolerable compromise before this lawsuit goes to
> trial.
Funny...I have been saying the above since the entire mess started and
you didn't seem to agree with me then. Now you agree with this
article?
Jon
Alan Jones
I do not necessarily agree with the entire article. You should never
assume so with any article I post.
To be clear, I want no compromise. I want ALL of the 4 million and
then some if possible.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
1/26/2008 6:10 PM???
I?
*I*?
****I****?
Wow - your pomposity knows no bounds!
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Bill Lang
(victor.ki...@verizon.net) wrote
I love the irony of a guy who lives in a thousand killfiles
threatening to throw the rest of us in his.
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"I before E except after C, and E before N in chicken"
Bill Lang
wrote
If you post an article without a disclaimer or annotation, you damb
well better agree with it. If you don't, we don't have any
limitations on what we can or cannot assume.
And somebody is going to call you on it, moran.
Vijay Ramanujan
> More so than WVU, Michigan is now feeling the shame that is
> Rodriguez, "It won't help the hallowed Michigan image if a trial
> unearths testimony and documentation that paints Rodriguez as a
> soulless mercenary whose loyalties extend only as far as his next
> contract." With his pitiful claims against WVU, RR is unwittingly
> forcing Michigan into paying his buyout. Serves them right...
> ___
>
> Michigan should cut losses in Rich mess
> Drew Sharp, Detroit Free Press
Drew Sharp's *whole career* as a Freep writer is based on slamming
Michigan. He *hates* Michigan.
This is like using a Dave Jones article as evidence that even PSU fans
have turned on Paterno.
Vijay R.
unklbob
regularly. Of course, Michigan media in general takes a glass half
empty approach towards its sports teams even when they were winning
the Stanley Cup, the NBA championship or playing in the World Series.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
Really - you shouldn't pick the Freep writer that hates all local
sports to make a point. Drew Sharp hates Michigan, hates the Lions,
hates the Pistons, and hates the Tigers - and never writes a
positive story about any of them.
--
Aaron
LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> On Jan 26, 10:51?pm, Vijay Ramanujan <vramanu...@gmail.com> wrote:
...and Drew Sharp is the "Negative Nancy" of Michigan sports media.
Jon Enslin
The entire fucking article says Michigan should implore RR to cut a
deal. All of it. Are you saying that you posted an article that you
actually don't agree with at all?
Jon
Alan Jones
<vrama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Drew Sharp's *whole career* as a Freep writer is based on slamming
>Michigan. He *hates* Michigan.
>
>This is like using a Dave Jones article as evidence that even PSU fans
>have turned on Paterno.
>
>Vijay R.
I don't doubt the writer has strong biases, most all do, but is
there anything in the article that is not fair, reasonable, or
realistic? With his recent "they made me do it" nonsense, is it
incorrect to think RR is now embarrassing MU more than WVU.
As this saga began, WV found itself in a unique position to stomp,
kick, scream, and carry on with near impunity. Most of America uses
the state for the butt of its jokes anyway, so why not give them
what they want and hope it works in your favor.
The weeks ran on and, lo and behold, the real Richie shows his clown
face. Michigan University, with all of its beloved Americana and
dignity, now looks like the biggest fool of all. Sweet irony and
just deserts. Michigan wanted him, indeed stole him, and now they're
stuck with him.
Perhaps MU should pay the four million before it morphs into much
more, and before their new coach is turned into a complete laughing
stock and unbearable distraction to his job. Serves 'em right...
deem...@aol.com
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:51:55 -0800 (PST), Vijay Ramanujan
>
> >Drew Sharp's *whole career* as a Freep writer is based on slamming
> >Michigan. He *hates* Michigan.
>
> >This is like using a Dave Jones article as evidence that even PSU fans
> >have turned on Paterno.
>
> >Vijay R.
>
> I don't doubt the writer has strong biases, most all do, but is
> there anything in the article that is not fair, reasonable, or
> realistic? With his recent "they made me do it" nonsense, is it
> incorrect to think RR is now embarrassing MU more than WVU.
>
> As this saga began, WV found itself in a unique position to stomp,
> kick, scream, and carry on with near impunity. Most of America uses
> the state for the butt of its jokes anyway, so why not give them
> what they want and hope it works in your favor.
No, at first it was understandable, but now it looks like a bunch
of whiny children.
>
> The weeks ran on and, lo and behold, the real Richie shows his clown
> face. Michigan University, with all of its beloved Americana and
> dignity, now looks like the biggest fool of all. Sweet irony and
> just deserts. Michigan wanted him, indeed stole him, and now they're
> stuck with him.
"Stole" usually denotes breaking the law. Where did Meatchicken
break the law?
>
> Perhaps MU should pay the four million before it morphs into much
> more, and before their new coach is turned into a complete laughing
> stock and unbearable distraction to his job. Serves 'em right...
Why would Marshall pay anything?
Alan Jones
<jen...@charter.net> wrote:
>The entire article says Michigan should implore RR to cut a
>deal. All of it.
I read the article to mean MU should cut 'their' losses, bail RR
out, help pay the bill, get it over with.
>Are you saying that you posted an article that you
>actually don't agree with at all?
What is so weird about someone posting an article they disagree
with? Do you even for one minute think about what you say?
In this case, I agree with MU paying the bill but I do not want WVU
to cut a deal. The PR side of this has possibly made a decisive turn
in WVU's favor. Had WV already cut a deal, crumbled in defeat, we
would not be enjoying Dickie Rod's latest bout of clowndumb.
Hey Jon, seriously dude, you don't need the hostility. I think it's
clouding your thinking, judgment, argument. I prefer to discuss the
various issues as calmly and intelligently as possible. I mean that
in a sincere honest way. :)
Jon Enslin
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:01:30 -0800 (PST), Jon Enslin
>
> >The entire article says Michigan should implore RR to cut a
> >deal. All of it.
>
> I read the article to mean MU should cut 'their' losses, bail RR
> out, help pay the bill, get it over with.
Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal. Selected
quotes:
"Both sides should bury the pettiness and immediately find a tolerable
compromise before this lawsuit goes to trial."
"It's time for Michigan to remove itself from the sidelines and
implore its new football coach to reach an accord with his former
employers."
"You never know what could emerge in an acidic courtroom fight. If
you're Michigan, why risk your new coach's reputation before he has
had the opportunity to invoke the institutional change that has been
long overdue with this football program?
Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on."
>
> >Are you saying that you posted an article that you
> >actually don't agree with at all?
>
> What is so weird about someone posting an article they disagree
> with? Do you even for one minute think about what you say?
Oh come on. Don't even try that. You posted the article because it
slams on RR and Michigan. You never said you disagreed with it one
bit. You probably read nothing but the headline.
>
> In this case, I agree with MU paying the bill but I do not want WVU
> to cut a deal. The PR side of this has possibly made a decisive turn
> in WVU's favor. Had WV already cut a deal, crumbled in defeat, we
> would not be enjoying Dickie Rod's latest bout of clowndumb.
>
> Hey Jon, seriously dude, you don't need the hostility. I think it's
> clouding your thinking, judgment, argument. I prefer to discuss the
> various issues as calmly and intelligently as possible. I mean that
> in a sincere honest way. :)
You may *want* to discuss the issues intelligently, but it isn't
working.
Jon
Anthony Summers
> Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
> never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
> to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal. Selected
> quotes:
>
> "Both sides should bury the pettiness and immediately find a tolerable
> compromise before this lawsuit goes to trial."
>
> "It's time for Michigan to remove itself from the sidelines and
> implore its new football coach to reach an accord with his former
> employers."
>
> "You never know what could emerge in an acidic courtroom fight. If
> you're Michigan, why risk your new coach's reputation before he has
> had the opportunity to invoke the institutional change that has been
> long overdue with this football program?
>
> Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on."
The last two paragraphs are inferences that Michigan should sign a
check, if that's what's needed to avoid risking the new coach's
reputation. You are the one with "borked" reading comprehension.
--
A. Summers || summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
"In a very short time, you have gone from nobody to RFSC's biggest twat!
Congratulations, and welcome to my killfile!" -- "C the Shocker"
Jon Enslin
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:53:09 -0800 (PST), Jon Enslin wrote...
> > Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
> > never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
> > to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal. Selected
> > quotes:
>
> > "Both sides should bury the pettiness and immediately find a tolerable
> > compromise before this lawsuit goes to trial."
>
> > "It's time for Michigan to remove itself from the sidelines and
> > implore its new football coach to reach an accord with his former
> > employers."
>
> > "You never know what could emerge in an acidic courtroom fight. If
> > you're Michigan, why risk your new coach's reputation before he has
> > had the opportunity to invoke the institutional change that has been
> > long overdue with this football program?
>
> > Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on."
>
> The last two paragraphs are inferences that Michigan should sign a
> check, if that's what's needed to avoid risking the new coach's
> reputation. You are the one with "borked" reading comprehension.
Absolutely not. It states that Michigan has a vested interest in RR
getting a deal done with WVU because he might one day leave Ann Arbor
and UM might find themselves in the same boat. There is nothing that
states, or infers, that they should help foot RR's bill.
Honestly, I know you guys are homers and that West Virginia isn't
exactly the pinnacle of public education, but you should *read* the
article for what it says.
Jon
Anthony Summers
> On Jan 27, 9:57 am, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yah00.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:53:09 -0800 (PST), Jon Enslin wrote...
> > > Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
> > > never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
> > > to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal. Selected
> > > quotes:
> >
> > > "Both sides should bury the pettiness and immediately find a tolerable
> > > compromise before this lawsuit goes to trial."
> >
> > > "It's time for Michigan to remove itself from the sidelines and
> > > implore its new football coach to reach an accord with his former
> > > employers."
> >
> > > "You never know what could emerge in an acidic courtroom fight. If
> > > you're Michigan, why risk your new coach's reputation before he has
> > > had the opportunity to invoke the institutional change that has been
> > > long overdue with this football program?
> >
> > > Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on."
> >
> > The last two paragraphs are inferences that Michigan should sign a
> > check, if that's what's needed to avoid risking the new coach's
> > reputation. You are the one with "borked" reading comprehension.
>
>
> Absolutely not. It states that Michigan has a vested interest in RR
> getting a deal done with WVU because he might one day leave Ann Arbor
> and UM might find themselves in the same boat. There is nothing that
> states, or infers, that they should help foot RR's bill.
That's your opinion, and that's fine, Mr. Enslin; I disagree. It seems
pretty clear that the author flirted with the idea of Michigan doing
whatever's necessary to avoid an "acidic courtroom fight" - in other
words, either compelling RR to pay the bill or helping to do so.
> Honestly, I know you guys are homers and that West Virginia isn't
> exactly the pinnacle of public education, but you should *read* the
> article for what it says.
Adults can disagree; our different ways of interpreting the same stimuli
are what make us unique, human, etc. You're just being a dick, though.
Homers? I've been advocating that the administration drop the childish
nonsense as soon as possible, whatever the cost of doing so - not the
action or suggestion of a WVU homer, Mr. Enslin.
Alan Jones
<jen...@charter.net> wrote:
>Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
>never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
>to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal.
The title of the article is... "Michigan" should cut losses in Rich
mess. That sounds like MU should take charge and get it over with.
Quoting the writer... "Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on." There is
every reason to think MU would be the party signing the check.
Some insight... If RR could cut a deal for less money with WVU, he
would have by now. The insistence of MU will not change that. WVU
wants blood, they want all of the money. Thus, with my boundless
logic, I conclude the writer is talking about MU getting off of the
sidelines, sitting down, and settling things with WVU, not RR alone.
Richie Rod needs money. Michigan has money. Richie Rod needs
Michigan's money. Michigan needs to get this nightmare over with.
You're so set on disagreeing with me you cannot see the logic.
>> >Are you saying that you posted an article that you
>> >actually don't agree with at all?
>>
>> What is so weird about someone posting an article they disagree
>> with? Do you even for one minute think about what you say?
>
>Oh come on. Don't even try that. You posted the article because it
>slams on RR and Michigan. You never said you disagreed with it one
>bit. You probably read nothing but the headline.
My comments at the top of my initial post do not in any way indicate
I agree with everything in the article. You assumed or imagined I
did, and that's your mistake not mine. Just as I'm supposed to be a
hypocrite in the last thread, you've twisted this thread into
something completely off base and irrelevant. Some advice: An online
discussion is rarely about either side being wrong. There is almost
always middle ground.
>> In this case, I agree with MU paying the bill but I do not want WVU
>> to cut a deal. The PR side of this has possibly made a decisive turn
>> in WVU's favor. Had WV already cut a deal, crumbled in defeat, we
>> would not be enjoying Dickie Rod's latest bout of clowndumb.
>>
>> Hey Jon, seriously dude, you don't need the hostility. I think it's
>> clouding your thinking, judgment, argument. I prefer to discuss the
>> various issues as calmly and intelligently as possible. I mean that
>> in a sincere honest way. :)
>
>You may *want* to discuss the issues intelligently, but it isn't
>working.
(sniffle, sniffle) I did talk about not having time for brick walls,
or the hostility, accusations, rudeness, and nonsense. I did try to
get along with you. (sniffle)
Alan Jones
<summers...@yah00.com> wrote:
>The last two paragraphs are inferences that Michigan should sign a
>check,
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Tell him what he has won, Bob!
Just having a little fun. No offense intended. :) Anyway, Jon wants
to disagree so much he will see whatever it takes to pick a fight.
It's unnecessary and unfortunate, but that's the way things are much
of the time in a discussion group, especially on usenet. Oh well...
Bill Lang
wrote
"Michigan had no alternative but to co-opt its antiquated ideals of
integrity. If you can't develop good coaches, you must pry them
from
somebody else's clutches. That's fine. Those are the rules of the
coaching jungle, but don't be surprised how quickly the hunter
becomes the quarry.
Michigan might seek distance from this embarrassing charade,
because
it doesn't want to see how ugly things could get when Rodriguez one
day leaves Michigan."
There are the last two paragraghs. I don't see a damb thing ya'll
are claiming are there. Even if I remove all the words over two
syllables, I can't see where you are getting confused.
Knowing the bias' of the author, the only inference I can pull is
that the author can't wait til RR leaves Michigan and the author's
hopes that it will be equally embarrassing to Michigan.
Anthony Summers
> There are the last two paragraghs. I don't see a damb thing ya'll
> are claiming are there. Even if I remove all the words over two
> syllables, I can't see where you are getting confused.
Last two paragraphs in the post, not the article, Mr. Lang.
Alan Jones
<summers...@yah00.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:07:32 GMT, Bill Lang wrote...
>
>> There are the last two paragraghs. I don't see a damb thing ya'll
>> are claiming are there. Even if I remove all the words over two
>> syllables, I can't see where you are getting confused.
>
>Last two paragraphs in the post, not the article, Mr. Lang.
At worst, the article is ambiguous. Why does it really matter
whether MU only talks to RR or actually offers to help pay. My
point was MU is now more embarrassed by this soap opera than is
WVU. Everything else is nitpicking for the sake of a fight.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> Michigan. He *hates* Michigan.
>
I've read the Freep on a regular basis for a couple of years now. As
an amazing coincidence, three of their sports columnists are all
apparently "hacks" (based on the feedback on their columns) and making
a career being anti-Michigan at a Michigan paper. I would think that
a journalist would want to do something more with their career ... or
the Freep would maybe rethink how many anti-Michigan columnists they
want to staff.
Coincidently, Jim Carty, from the Ann Arbor News, is cast in that mold
as well whenever he voices an opinion that is not completely pro-
Michigan.
Bill Lang
(summers...@yah00.com) wrote
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:07:32 GMT, Bill Lang wrote...
>
>> There are the last two paragraghs. I don't see a damb thing
>> ya'll are claiming are there. Even if I remove all the words
>> over two syllables, I can't see where you are getting confused.
>
> Last two paragraphs in the post, not the article, Mr. Lang.
>
You guys really do live on the hedge. Do you push the goal poasts
manually or are they on remote control?
J Anal Jones has dug himself into a manure pile he simply cannot
extricate (that means get out of) himself from. First he
regurgitates an article without checking out the author. Second,
it's an article that actually doesn't say what he thought it said.
Third, he's trying to make it say something else thru "inferences".
Finally, he just sticks tampons in his ears so he doesn't have to
respond to being corrected.
Sorry, but you've been here long enough to know that is not going
to get thru the bullshit filters. Before you get all hot and
bothered, this post is really directed at Jones. Since he's
tampon-eared me, you're just the medium.
I must admit, I'm truly fsckin' enjoying this. As an occasional
Michigan hater and former WVu rival, this stuff is a free ride on
the Giggle-Go-Round(TM). Almost as good, I suspect that a few more
weeks of this and RSFC will be reminiscing fondly about the Hokie
Invasion of 1999. Keep up the good work! You have a ways to go to
catch the Leinaglapski Homer Beast, but you're well on you way.
Bill Lang
wrote
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:11:58 -0500, Anthony Summers
> <summers...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:07:32 GMT, Bill Lang wrote...
>>
>>> There are the last two paragraghs. I don't see a damb thing
>>> ya'll are claiming are there. Even if I remove all the words
>>> over two syllables, I can't see where you are getting
>>> confused.
>>
>>Last two paragraphs in the post, not the article, Mr. Lang.
>
> At worst, the article is ambiguous. Why does it really matter
> whether MU only talks to RR or actually offers to help pay. My
> point was MU is now more embarrassed by this soap opera than is
> WVU. Everything else is nitpicking for the sake of a fight.
>
Maybe next time, you should hitch your waggons to an article that
isn't ambigous. Dumnass.
Anthony Summers
> Everything else is nitpicking for the sake of a fight.
Someone newer than me, apparently. Welcome to RSFC, n00b.
Jon Enslin
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:53:09 -0800 (PST), Jon Enslin
>
> >Then your reading comprehension is really, really borked. The article
> >never says that once. Never even infers it. What they want Michigan
> >to do is force RR to the negotiation table to cut a deal.
>
> The title of the article is... "Michigan" should cut losses in Rich
> mess. That sounds like MU should take charge and get it over with.
The title of an article is not written by the writer of the article.
And who is "MU?"
> Quoting the writer... "Get a deal. Sign a check. Move on." There is
> every reason to think MU would be the party signing the check.
I quoted the same thing and you took it out of context. And who is
"MU?"
> Some insight... If RR could cut a deal for less money with WVU, he
> would have by now. The insistence of MU will not change that. WVU
> wants blood, they want all of the money. Thus, with my boundless
> logic, I conclude the writer is talking about MU getting off of the
> sidelines, sitting down, and settling things with WVU, not RR alone.
> Richie Rod needs money. Michigan has money. Richie Rod needs
> Michigan's money. Michigan needs to get this nightmare over with.
>
> You're so set on disagreeing with me you cannot see the logic.
YOU ARE INFERRING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EVEN IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE
DUMBASS!!
Seriously, if this is an example of your "boundless logic" you very
well me the dumbest newbie to post here in my lifetime. Honestly, you
and Summers shouldn't even try anymore because you are just
embarrassing yourselves.
> My comments at the top of my initial post do not in any way indicate
> I agree with everything in the article. You assumed or imagined I
> did, and that's your mistake not mine. Just as I'm supposed to be a
> hypocrite in the last thread, you've twisted this thread into
> something completely off base and irrelevant. Some advice: An online
> discussion is rarely about either side being wrong. There is almost
> always middle ground.
You were wrong, I called you on it, and your backtracking. You're not
even doing a good job at that.
Jon
Jon Enslin
It clearly states throughout the entire article that they should
compel him to settle. It never states anything about UM paying part
of it. You can't hope for something that is in the article to be
there.
Jon
Alan Jones
<summers...@yah00.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:24:36 GMT, Alan Jones wrote...
>
>> Everything else is nitpicking for the sake of a fight.
>
>Someone newer than me, apparently. Welcome to RSFC, n00b.
Oh no, it's not a new revelation for me. It's certainly no shock
that this group is about like most others on usenet.
I was actually trying to help you a little with your previous post.
You seemed to be getting into a bit trouble. :)
Anthony Summers
> > > Absolutely not. It states that Michigan has a vested interest in RR
> > > getting a deal done with WVU because he might one day leave Ann Arbor
> > > and UM might find themselves in the same boat. There is nothing that
> > > states, or infers, that they should help foot RR's bill.
> >
> > That's your opinion, and that's fine, Mr. Enslin; I disagree. It seems
> > pretty clear that the author flirted with the idea of Michigan doing
> > whatever's necessary to avoid an "acidic courtroom fight" - in other
> > words, either compelling RR to pay the bill or helping to do so.
> It clearly states throughout the entire article that they should
> compel him to settle. It never states anything about UM paying part
> of it. You can't hope for something that is in the article to be
> there.
Hope? The only thing I hope for in this is that the damned situation
goes away. The inference was pretty clear in the article. You're
getting hot and bothered because you can't see it; pretty silly on your
part, really, Mr. Enslin.
Anthony Summers
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:06:04 -0500, Anthony Summers
> <summers...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:24:36 GMT, Alan Jones wrote...
> >
> >> Everything else is nitpicking for the sake of a fight.
> >
> >Someone newer than me, apparently. Welcome to RSFC, n00b.
>
> Oh no, it's not a new revelation for me. It's certainly no shock
> that this group is about like most others on usenet.
Yet you continue trying to get the masses to conform to your standards,
Mr. Jones? Are you insane?
> I was actually trying to help you a little with your previous post.
> You seemed to be getting into a bit trouble. :)
Trouble? Not likely.
Vijay Ramanujan
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:51:55 -0800 (PST), Vijay Ramanujan
>
> >Drew Sharp's *whole career* as a Freep writer is based on slamming
> >Michigan. He *hates* Michigan.
>
> >This is like using a Dave Jones article as evidence that even PSU fans
> >have turned on Paterno.
>
> >Vijay R.
>
> I don't doubt the writer has strong biases, most all do, but is
> there anything in the article that is not fair, reasonable, or
> realistic?
Did you even read what you wrote and what I wrote?
Vijay R.
Alan Jones
Yes, I did. Again, what in the article do you think is unfair,
unreasonable, or unrealistic? I'm kindly asking you to please
specify what you disagree with. :)
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
I don't think any of the freep columnists outside Sharp are bad -
but Sharp hates everything; Michigan, Lions, Pistons, Tigers...