and... i like them? I think I like them.
- Member for
- 5 years 25 weeks
|3 years 37 weeks ago||True.||
The beaten dead horse is complimentary.
|3 years 38 weeks ago||Nader Purrha||
|3 years 39 weeks ago||(no subject)||
|3 years 39 weeks ago||BANNER CONTEST! (mgo needs||
(mgo needs banners)
(mgo needs banners)
(mgo needs banners)
(mgo needs banners)
(mgo needs banners)
(mgo needs banners)
|3 years 42 weeks ago||A little later I noticed he||
Thanks for the lesson.
"Borned" is especially funny to me for reasons I won't get into.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||Living on the Interwebz, I ve||
Living on the Interwebz, I ve meet many idiot fans (which I have lots of complaints about). Today, I was working, which happens to be a place of working, and saw this post from some guy on MGoBoard. I was reading his handle and I noticed he was from Wisc. He was telling this idiot story about his first interaction with an OSU fan. I laughed out loud and sarcastically said to myself "god what a fucking great representative of Michigan fans". He seemed like a confused adolescent that should know better when working in retail, and it's kinda embarassing the brah was borned and raised in Michigan. A little later I saw another brah comment about this, inwhich he bragged about how the threw down against some OSU fans, and I don't blame them one bit for beating on the guy. This brah being a big mich fan thought it was all cool and awesome and shit. But you got to be kidding me, these guys are really acting like that and bragging about it? Does they really got to be such fucktards that it becomes easier and easier to see why people hate mich fans? This thread sucks.
|3 years 45 weeks ago||The difference between your||
The difference between your precedent and the present situation is that in your examples it is the message itself, whether conveyed inherently or explicitly, that lowers the level of discourse, thereby necessitating the institution of policy. A non-print-only link to the freep alone does no such thing, especially when ancillary to the main message of a comment, even if there is an intended underlying anti-boycott sentiment. The discourse only devolves thereafter, as you demonstrated. The problem isn't the link; it's the rabble that follows.
As a consequence, your proposal risks throwing the babby out with the bathwater, no matter the policy, and necessarily dictates acceptance of one side or another, rather than respect. To the extent you want policy on this board, how about one that requires respect of one's choice to support the boycott or not, and leave it at that. Don't force it down people's throats one way or another.
|3 years 45 weeks ago||Two Questions||
Making what go away?
What precedent do you speak of?
|3 years 45 weeks ago||This insistence on having an||
This insistence on having an "agreed upon way" to link to the freep makes little sense. This is not a subject of communal agreement, but rather respect for those that don't give a shit about the boycott and vice versa. Communal agreement is fine for things that make the board readable. Posting freep links, in and of itself, does not contribute to making the board unreadable. It's the inevitable rabble afterwards that does, which goes to the heart of the issue - get rid of the fucking rabble, respect others' opinions about the boycott, and make the personal decision to click or not click the link.
It's as bad as me eating a burger and a vegan coming up and getting in my face about it. Dude, it's my choice to eat cow even if it's offensive to you, and it's your choice to eat lettuce for lunch even if I would rather kill myself. We don't need to have an agreed-upon menu.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||Your smugness is delicious.||
So the real issue here is Carr's personal reputation. And he needed Section 1 of MGoBlog to place the focus on him to step up and comment on the story that disparaged his good name, something that is an intensely personal to him and him alone? How arrogant.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||*GASP*||
|3 years 48 weeks ago||There's that rightness||
There's that rightness again. Please continue to wallow in it.
I have little doubt that he understood the situation better than I. He clearly understood it better than you, Brian and many others here. Which makes knee-jerk responses like "his culpability would have been his inaction" all the more ridiculous.
Please, tell me. What would he have been guilty of had he not acted?
|3 years 48 weeks ago||And all he had to do was to||
Well, see, there's the thing. He didn't have to do anything. He put in 30 years at Michigan, and, as you acknowledge, he's continuing to put in more as Senior Associate Athletic Director. He doesn't owe you or me anything. He doesn't owe Trent or Rodriguez anything. He doesn't owe Michigan anything. He doesn't have to do a damn thing.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||An elderly, retired man with||
An elderly, retired man with a disdain for the media spoke up within a few days of the report first appearing on the internet. Get a grip.
|3 years 48 weeks ago||Clearly the most important||
Clearly the most important thing to come out of all of this is that Section 1 of MGoBlog was right.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||You're right in one respect.||
In the discussions with SBN, termination of BBC's contract was never advocated. An apology to the wronged parties would have been fine. Termination of the contract was a decision SBN came to upon reviewing the evidence, discussing the situation with Jeff, the head of the BBC, and weighing all the factors involved. The folks at SBN took the situation very seriously, and rightfully so. They should be commended for it.
As a final note, the WLA is not playing the victim. I certainly do not feel like a victim in this. We stuck up for an e-friend. The only victim, if you want to identify one, is the guy who posted a picture of Kevin from The Office on the BBC and in return had his IP traced back to his employer followed by an email complaining about the picture as being "offensive content" in an effort to get him in trouble with his employer. If you don't believe that's a breach of trust or crossing the line, then I don't know what to tell you.
|4 years 21 weeks ago||Worse than those fuckin'||
Worse than those fuckin' Geauxfurs.
Yeah. I went there.
|4 years 21 weeks ago||Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE||
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN WOLVERINES FOOTBALL PLAYER AND AN OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY BUCKEYES FOOTBALL PLAYER?
A: THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY BUCKEYES FOOTBALL PLAYER WILL ENGAGE IN UNBECOMING, IMMORAL AND ETHICALLY DUBIOUS BEHAVIOR, WHEREAS THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN WOLVERINES FOOTBALL PLAYER IS A STAND-UP YOUNG MAN AND HIGHLY THOUGHT OF MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Executive Summary||
Showing MGoPoints = Badt
Hiding MGoPoints = Goodt
|4 years 24 weeks ago||People will never get over||
People will never get over that notion. Not as long as this system exists. It’s simply too much to ask. Aside from scraping the whole system, the next option is to hide them completely.
No one can say "my points changed, I don't know why" if they can't see them in the first place.** All posting privileges remain, unless they fall under the minimum threshold. Neither they, nor anyone else, would ever notice a difference between 20 points and 2000 points. Yet it still serves it’s primary purpose: calling attention to particularly abusive posters and trolls.
Further, it might actually force people to start reading comments and forming their own opinions before voting, instead of voting en masse because a comment has already gotten several votes in one direction or another. Heck, it even force people to comment better, because it eliminates the e-peen and carelessness that can come from the knowledge of having many points. Am I going to make a thoughtless comment if I’m not sure whether I have 20 points or 2000 points? Probably not.
So basically, the point is to put them out of sight and out of mind. Trolls will still get negged, and threads like this one will hopefully be limited to one a year (or eliminated completely), instead of being a weekly occurrence.
**Isn’t this a complaint already?
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Why not just get rid of them||
Why not just get rid of them or hide them completely? It's much harder for people to complain about something that doesn't exist or that they can't see. And complaints seem to be the biggest problem that has come from this whole system.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||I don't care how bad Illinois||
I don't care how bad Illinois is, I still wouldn't insult them like that. That's going too far, jamie. Way too far.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Well, it used to be Jay, but||
Well, it used to be Jay, but he abandoned us.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||I didn't like Magnus as a||
I didn't like Magnus as a poster (except as...uh...um...I can't think of any exceptions), and I haven't heard anything good about him personally.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Already posted.|
|4 years 25 weeks ago||UM needs Carr to become part||
UM needs Carr to become part of the solution ASAP
Rodriguez is the solution, and he's just doing fine. Carr speaking out now would only undermine him. That would be a problem, not a solution.
You've certainly been no stranger to conspiracy theories in the past. This type of comment coming from you is not surprising. While I would like to respond more fully, because there is so much wrong in what you say, it's simply not worth further wasting my time on your imaginary collusion wrought from nothing more than conjecture about a man of few words opting to enjoy his retirement.
Watch out for those black helicopters.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||It's like clockwork.||
Not all the time, but every now and again you make comments that demonstrate just how far removed you are from reality. It would be fascinating, if it wasn't so sad.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Humor is subjective.||
Humor is subjective.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Fine.||
Maybe "bust" isn't quite what Brian was saying, but he did say this:
That would score one for ESPN's scouting service, BTW.
ESPN's scouting service graded Campbell at a 79. That corresponds to a high 3 star, according to their grading chart. That's still getting awfully down, awfully quickly on the guy.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Here's a gold star.||