and... i like them? I think I like them.
- Member for
- 5 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 hours 6 min ago||From Dr MGoWife (she's a||
From Dr MGoWife (she's a veterinarian downriver)
"If your dog has another seizure, you should bring him to the vet right away. The bloodwork is to check and see if there are any abnormalities with the liver, kidneys and other things like his glucose value. There are many different causes of seizures in dogs and you'll need to bring him to a vet to figure out what may be causing them.
If your dog has more than 1 seizure a month or if an episode lasts 5 minutes or more, he needs to be put on medications."
And off the record she doesn't seem to agree with your vet - she thinks he needs to go in and get seen right away.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I personally thought the||
I personally thought the ending was good (not great; it needed a lot more time for the stuff that happened at the end) - instead of every marching off into their fairy tale lives the ending had a huge dose of reality (that and it all really fit who the characters were). The ending also did cap off the show - it's not a story about how Ted met the mother and their life together (which his kids would have never wanted to hear since they experienced it), it really was a story about how he met the mother, and the story between him and Robin that has gone on throughout the entire series.
The amount of gags/plot lines that went throughout the entire run of the show was amazing (in the last episode - Marshall hands Lily cash when Ted gets married because of the bet they made at the beginning of the series, the mother's name is Tracy which was an obscure reference where Ted made his kids think that she was a stripper, etc)
|3 weeks 5 days ago||salt?||
|7 weeks 2 days ago||My wife's (first) response -||
My wife's (first) response - "A cow? But they're too high! Their butt is my height!" (followed by the that's disgusting comments)... only a veterinarian could think that first?
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Huh?||
|7 weeks 2 days ago||See the comment above you -||
See the comment above you - it already has.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Isn't that 'warning' like a 4||
Isn't that 'warning' like a 4 year old's cry of 'say something different and you're a doodoo face'?
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Couldn't resist a downvote||
Couldn't resist a downvote after that comment ^_^
|10 weeks 6 days ago||We need a gif of that frog.||
We need a gif of that frog.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||The confidentiality breach||
The confidentiality breach comes the second they say 'investigation', 'sexual misconduct', and 'Gibbons'.
From my cursory reading of the policy it takes very little for an investigation - definitely less than a policy report and rape kit - all it seems to take is an accusation by someone (not even the victim). For anything to happen in that investigation it takes a whole lot more.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||Gibbons was investigated for||
Gibbons was investigated for something that a prior investigation didn't charge him with anything. He deserves what he got, but it would have been wrong of Brady to bench him (if he knew) for merely being investigated in this. If the accusations were brought up fresh on a player now, then yes, Brady should bench the kid, but for something that bore nothing previously?
As for Lewan, I think prudence would be to let the past, under whatever discipline the previous coach have out, be the past. It would only be an insult to the last HC and a quick way for a new coach to lose his team.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||If the university ever used||
If the university ever used your name in relation to this or its found that they're the cause of the leak? Yup.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||Isn't a separation of powers||
Isn't a separation of powers of the AD from the university something that we've all called for? It leads to a whole lot less abuse.
The university HAS to keep the AD in the dark - that's what the whole policy is for! Would you want the university to broadcast every investigation, especially those where the accused is innocent (especially when the standard for triggering investigations is so low)? No! It leads to all kinds of issues (especially privacy) - and the only way to ensure that is to only inform the AD when there's a verdict of guilt!
In your seemly perfect scenario the whole thing would be ripe with abuse - want to jump up on the depth chart? Just accuse the guy above you of something anonymously, they'll get suspended and you get to play.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||How can the AD act any||
How can the AD act any differently? They should punish a player for something that happened in the past, under a different administration and staff, when they weren't found to be gulity under the previous standards? Same thing to Lewan - how can you justify Brady punishing him for something he did under a different HC, years ago, and that resulted in no legal issues? (Yes, Gibbons and Lewan both deserved to get the book thrown at them, but that was in 2009 not 2013)
|10 weeks 6 days ago||And I think its naive to||
And I think its naive to think the AD knew about this and had more information than the process allows for. They probably knew an investigation was happening, I'll give that, but knowing all the details, etc - that's NOT allowed by all the governing rules/laws... and knowing the verdict before the player himself would - no way.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||What's so hard to understand||
What's so hard to understand that in doing this the university showed its integrity? They could have EASILY let this one slide but actually chose to act!
|10 weeks 6 days ago||How do we even know the||
How do we even know the Athletic Department was even notified? I can see a whole lot more scenarios where in a proceeding like this they wouldn't be notified about what was going on until a decision was reached. Gibbons had, and still has, the right to privacy - does that go completely out the window as an athlete (all rights waived)? According to every source Gibbons was also notified of the decision via mail - do we expect that Brady was told before he was?
|11 weeks 5 hours ago||It hasn't yet and I doubt it||
It hasn't yet and I doubt it will, there really isn't much of a story here (a university actually expelling a player when they could have easily covered it up is probably the main story in this case). While it may seem like the end of the world on MGoBlog nobody else seems to really care (from what I've seen). ESPN is the only major site that seems to have any coverage on it that's on any sort of main page (a sidenote on their CFB page). (For comparison, bleacherreport highlights a 'Gardner vs Morris' article and has no mention of it on a main page)
|11 weeks 5 hours ago||But when players are late,||
But when players are late, skip class, text during meetings, etc they clearly violated a standard. If a player is found not to be guilty then can they be punished for violating that standard? It's a tough question/situation and not as clear cut as we obviously feel in this situation.
|11 weeks 5 hours ago||I think this is a perfect||
I think this is a perfect example of how Michigan has made an effort to do things the right way - they could have very easily swept this under the rug and/or ignored this, especially with Gibbons being at the end of his career; instead they chose to expel him at the end of the semester and his football career (which opens them up to being scrutinized, like they are, and a whole new can of worms). If they ignored investigating nobody would have faulted them since the original incident was largely forgotten and happened four years prior and thus nobody would have known.
The real issue seems to come off of Brian's post about it - they don't like what Hoke said, but in a world where privacy (even for athletes) exists, and in a world where the Athletic Department does not rule the entire university (they don't), there's very little that Hoke probably could have said without opening up a legal can of worms. I wouldn't even be surprised if Hoke never knew about the university reinvestigating Gibbons (does being a player on a football team waive all your privacy rights?) until sometime after the committee reached a verdict. I would even hope that he didn't know before then (unless Gibbons volunteered the information himself) because it would mean that the atheletic department and football program have far more power than they should wield in the university and that they trump any individual player's right to privacy.
|11 weeks 6 hours ago||That was probably all we're||
That was probably all we're going to get. There's a huge legal responsibility for Hoke et al to protect Gibbon's privacy which goes beyond whatever information people may feel is owed to them.
|11 weeks 6 hours ago||double||
double post =(
|11 weeks 1 day ago||It's not really surprising -||
It's not really surprising - they're people with an extremely high competitive drive and also are in the event that they wait their whole lives for; they also each want to make a difference and be 'the guy' at the big game as well. It's sad that they do want to, but completely understandable (which highlights the need for mandatory concussion testing and protocols that all teams follow).
|11 weeks 4 days ago||Terrible, terrible, terrible||
Terrible, terrible, terrible job by the refs.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||2014! YAY! GO BLUE!||
2014! YAY! GO BLUE!
|11 weeks 4 days ago||WOHOO! 2014! I'm a believer!||
WOHOO! 2014! I'm a believer!
|11 weeks 4 days ago||2014 strikes again!||
2014 strikes again!
|11 weeks 4 days ago||2014 strikes again!||
2014 strikes again!
|12 weeks 5 days ago||And in the midst of it all||
And in the midst of it all Michelle Kwan sadly lost out... it's a whole lot more understandable than the whole Mirai Nagasu situation going on now though.
|13 weeks 10 hours ago||It looks like wasn't 'just||
It looks like wasn't 'just another walk on' - besides being a 3* in HS with a scholarship offer at Oregon State he was also moving up the depth chart.