I did not make this headline up
- Member for
- 5 years 17 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|17 hours 31 min ago||Looks like a temporary conflict||
between their tactical headline-grabbing function and their long-term institutional propaganda function.
I wonder if the concussion narrative could continue to gain traction, regardless of what facts show, once ESPN decided it was no longer in their long-term interest to flog it?
|17 hours 40 min ago||Logged in||
Never forget; never forgive.
|1 day 18 hours ago||Update.||
Now that's more like it.
|1 day 18 hours ago||Is AIRBHG||
part of a package deal with Rudock?
|1 day 18 hours ago||You have violated||
every rule of the time-space continuum:
|1 day 19 hours ago||I hope||
this is a thing.
Per post below, establishing Pantone 7406 C sounded more like historical reconstruction than negotiation.
It would be interesting to hear the full story on AD incorporation, or not, of UM Brand Standard. This would spare cranky old-timers such as myself the sight of the by-now habitual neon highlighter depiction of UM school colors.
I hope you are right.
|1 day 19 hours ago||Don't tuck your shirt||
inside your underwear.
Even though things don't feel as secure that way.
This will also keep your underwear from showing above the cumberbund on your tux pants.
|1 day 19 hours ago||I doubt||
it is the Pantone 7406C apparently painstakingly reconstructed from the fabric patches laid down for all time by the special committee of the University Senate in 1912.
If any debate exists, it should be around why we aren't using the Official Brand Standard Maize already established.
|1 day 19 hours ago||I assume||
all that is where this comes from.
Doesn't look like there is any room for debate. It doesn't seem the AD is bound by this in any way.
The decisions on uniform(z) colors must be coming from somewhere in the AD, independent of the UM Style Guide and the swathes from 1912.
|2 days 14 hours ago||Sort of nice||
considering the snake-oil we pulled on Ferentz.
Maybe he's relying on Delaney to put the kabosh on it.
|2 days 14 hours ago||Damn.||
That's exactly right.
+1 for "Dr. Bronner's."
|3 days 11 hours ago||No more||
|3 days 11 hours ago||Nobody||
has had a black-and-white TV in 30 years, so the rationale for white jerseys is gone.
Let teams wear their real colors.
If there is a clash of colors, say, with Delaware or Cal-Berkeley, then I vote for this:
|4 days 10 hours ago||"Trampling on tradition"||
I got that vibe the first time he banished "the proudest uniform in college football [Bo]" for some merchandising-driven eyesore and called it a "throwback jersey."
|6 days 5 hours ago||Well,||
I like it.
BTW, "Capitalization" is not a proper noun, is it? I think your FORUM topic is incorrectly capitalized, per you.
Now, what else can I bitch about?
|6 days 5 hours ago||Harbaugh||
has changed the tide of the rivalry.
|6 days 5 hours ago||I could see||
the 1969-74 ones.
MVictors has suggested this one as well (MVictors 12-2-11), although maybe in jest:
BTW, in answer to those who say Bo derived the stickers from Woody, the same article has the following:
|6 days 5 hours ago||Amen!||
Bring back "Green Bay Gold" ( = "maize").
|6 days 5 hours ago||"It's not a beauty pagent out there."||
Nothing says "Lytle would play" like:
|6 days 6 hours ago||You mean||
|6 days 6 hours ago||I like the ones||
without the wolverines on them. There's no way you can make sense of the wolverine likenesses from more than 6 inches away; they just clutter the visual.
|6 days 6 hours ago||'84||
wasn't the greatest of years anyway.
Although it would be only slightly below average by the standards of the last seven years.
|6 days 6 hours ago||I find||
a plethora of there/their, its/it's, 've/of ("would of helped") to keep the technicians hopping.
In order to keep a lower profile, I find myself turning down most of these opportunities.
|6 days 11 hours ago||I think there is||
a lack of clarity in the concept of "rules" like this.
I think that inflammatory, contentious or rude comments are frowned on in general, whether they pertain to religion or what-have-you.
My understanding of MgoFAQ is that even a polite and informative advocacy, say, of Obama's or Gingrich's farm policy as it relates to natural turf in the B1G would be subject to scrutiny under "no politics" because of the destructive potential of partisan political discussion in general; but religion, not so much.
I remember discussions here of Tebow's advocacy of For The Family (I think it was called) that went into supreme court cases and other examinations of when the practice of religion veered into political advocacy in the direction of political coercion, and clearly different world-views were heard, and I don't recall that anything got truly ugly or hateful; it was a test that the MgoBoard weathered successfully. But I understand how this could go wrong.
Edit: I also recall now that the whole thread was deleted in the end. So in practical terms, "No Religion" is somewhat real at the moderator level, I think, back in 2009 or whenever that happened.
I think there is FAQ discussion about being a shit-head in general; IMO this is where attention should be when it comes to blog citizenship.
|6 days 11 hours ago||Beat me to it.||
That's what I get for commenting at the end of Page 1.
I would just edit my own comment to acknowledge your priority, but that shoots my carefully crafted formatting all to ... a very dark place.
|6 days 11 hours ago||Edit.||
Apologies to the one up-vote.
The above skirts the edges of a political grievance, which is contra to FAQ statute.
See below, there is no FAQ statute contra discussion of religion, although several assert one with religious fervor. It is clearly a perception and perhaps irreversable usage.
I would choose to avoid inflammatory comments in general although not all truthful statements are popular.
But if you move the argument from religion to politics, there is an actual statute there. Naughty Naughty.
|6 days 12 hours ago||"no politics/religion rule."||
Actually, more an informal convention than a rule. Don't expect to find "no religion" in the FAQ.
So supplement your reading of the FAQ with a healthy dose of lurking if you want to be safe. Lots touchiness lately.
|6 days 13 hours ago||"Taste||
|6 days 13 hours ago||He just got here.||
Don't be trying to retire Harbaugh already.
I say he sticks around twice as long as Paterno, with no scandals, and as a 120-year-old man, is still bouncing and rolling around on the turf to show proper shotgun snap lace-alignment and release technique.
Meanwhile, 3 generations of Harbaughs will be ready and waiting to take over if and when.
Only then will it be time to have the succession discussion.
|6 days 13 hours ago||1938.||
. . .