chance of bowl: 13.6%
- Member for
- 5 years 5 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|21 hours 34 min ago||video issues||
The videos in this post are screwed up. The first video should be Oregon throwing deep to a slot receiver, but it's Lippett catching a Hemingway-style jump ball. The second video should be Lippett, but it's a video game #fail thing. Also not sure what's going on with the Moment of Zen.
|22 hours 40 min ago||Good||
He did nothing wrong. The NCAA rules are what's wrong. It is now, finally, being fixed. Welcome back, CWebb.
|1 day 15 min ago||This is a good point||
The emails in question could've gone through the publicly accessible email instead of DB's uniqname, which is what I used. Brian's FOIA is more general and should come back faster than a resubmitted request from me would.
|1 day 19 min ago||Please forward it||
Please forward that email (with all headers) to the gmail address starting with mgobisb (so, mgobisb [at] youknowwhatgoesherehintit'sgmail [dot] youknowwhatgoesheretoohintit'scom), and ask him to forward it to me. If what you say is true, I will appeal the response to the President.
|1 day 15 hours ago||jmfc, CGV||
First, holy unnecessary legal argot. Please see item 1 at http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaLegalese.htm. If you want further replies from me, you'll have to speak regular English so everyone who is interested in this exchange can follow it easily. I would also like you to either (i) acknowledge that you were wrong on the law re: what it takes to freeze FOIA'd documents in Michigan or (ii) provide evidence that you were not wrong on that question. (To satisfy (ii), please cite Michigan or federal legislation or a case that constitutes binding precedent on Michigan circuit courts, and provide direct hyperlinks.)
Second, the FOIA request is already reproduced above, so you can read it for yourself if you're interested.
Third, I believe I've already adequately responded to everything else on this thread.
To reiterate: I will not respond to any more posts from you unless you cut the legalese and speak plainly.
|1 day 17 hours ago||Not really...||
I didn't say that I think it's fake in the post you responded to. I said that we now have "at least some evidence" that the email is fake. That's a pretty weak claim. (Compare: The extended Bronco chase was at least some evidence that O.J. was guilty. The glove not fitting was at least some evidence that O.J. was innocent.)
|1 day 17 hours ago||uh...||
I believe a FOIA request freezes the document from the time of the request to 180 days after the U's written denial (at which point my legal right to appeal to the President and/or sue them for disclosure expires).
Also, BiSB is a lawyer, and saw my FOIA request a long time ago, and also I believe submitted one of his own on behalf of MGoBlog. But I appreciate the unwarranted sanctimony of your response; sometimes I think I know everything, too.
|1 day 20 hours ago||my request should've caught it...||
Dear Ms. Sellinger, This is an official Freedom of Information Act request for a complete email chain, including the email described below, which I will call EMAIL ONE, the email sent from the email address to which it was directed as a response, and any other FOIA-accessible email related to it via the common reply or forwarding email functions. I also hereby request any email originating from email@example.com containing the phrase "have a happy life" and any email originating from firstname.lastname@example.org containing the phrase "without you". I believe EMAIL ONE originated from email@example.com. I believe the content of EMAIL ONE to be, at least in part, the following: I suggest you find a new team to support. > We will be fine without you. > Have a happy life... Please confirm receipt of this FOIA request at your earliest convenience. Thank for your prompt attention, Professor [Jon06] (AB '06, MA [xx], Ph.D [xx])
|1 day 20 hours ago||I would assume it doesn't exist, but who knows||
AFAICT, it does not guarantee that the thing doesn't exist. But it either doesn't exist or they don't have to disclose that it does. It might just not be a "responsive" record, if part of what "responsive" means is that the thing is FOIA-accessible. There are a variety of law enforcement exceptions that allow agencies to deny that a record exists, for example. Maybe his emails aren't FOIA-accessible, and that allows the same move. IANAL and anyway I can't tell what the law requires here.
But I take this as at least some evidence that the email was fabricated. (We could tell how good the evidence is if someone would FOIA some emails they know to exist to see what happens then.)
|3 days 1 hour ago||Please reserve your self-righteousness for actual causes||
The Susan G. Komen Foundation is a corporate branding machine that requires shockingly little of associated products. I'm all for the football program doing things to raise money for (breast) cancer research, but wearing pink is not the best way to do it. It's basically just the Brandon way to look like you're trying.
|3 days 16 hours ago||Funk can only be the second worst...||
Tony Gibson. That is all.
|3 days 16 hours ago||You're not overreacting||
If that's true, it's ridiculous. It's hard to imagine what this coaching staff thinks it's doing.
|4 days 16 hours ago||Still in progress||
They gave themselves a 10 day extension at the end of the initial 5 days. They emailed me today to ask for an address to which to mail the response, which I provided.
|1 week 14 hours ago||:(||
Sorry about your dog, and dad, and mom. Nightmares you can't wake up from are the worst. You have my sympathy.
|1 week 3 days ago||He uses them consistently.||
He uses them consistently.
|1 week 3 days ago||[you aren't] asking me, but i'll respond||
Earlier today I said (in some MGoBoard thread...maybe not this one) that I don't buy the narrative about a team-wide talent development problem. It seems right at QB, OL, and RB (and maybe I should add TE), but not elsewhere. I do not think the problem with Countess is how he is being coached. I think the problem is the scheme change, which I don't consider a talent development problem even though it was obviously the coaches' decision. Hopefully that makes sense. For what it's worth, I think Lewis has always been pretty good, and I don't have any opinion about how he's being coached. (I may be confusing Lewis and Stribling here, but I think Dear Leader thinks he's just stopped getting beat by perfect throws and/or phasing out of existence when the ball comes at the whim of a pissed-off gypsy.)
As for Stribling, I can't tell whether he got any snaps because I had a hard time distinguishing 6 and 8 on the jerseys from my seat during the game. Every time I thought he was in the game, it turned out to be Taylor.
ETA: I just realized you were asking somebody else. I am apparently an overactive OP today. Sorry.
|1 week 3 days ago||I do.||
|1 week 3 days ago||yeah yeah||
In my defense, you can be a heck of a muse.
|1 week 3 days ago||an unrelated question for you||
Where do the conventions for abbreviations you use come from? I've never seen them before, but they seem to be completely unambiguous and easy to decipher, so I assume it's from some established newspaper or gambling typographic system.
|1 week 3 days ago||It's my fault on this thread||
Usually the snarkers are to blame but I did it to myself here. But no worries--there is some real discussion above, and hopefully there will be more below.
|1 week 3 days ago||yep||
From the OP:
The way this discussion board thing works is that you read the OP before you comment on it. /snark
|1 week 3 days ago||one point of disagreement left||
I disagree with this, because (having had it pointed out to me already on this thread that it's hard to play in the NFL if you literally cannot play man) I think he's basically a depth CB and/or a practice squad player who earns his keep simulating zone defenders. I think it's easier to catch on as one of those things if you can get a team to spend a late-round draft pick on you than if you're an UDFA, and I think somebody would spend a late-round draft pick on Countess if he can record a few more interceptions next year. But I think that'll only happen if he's playing in a zone coverage scheme.
|1 week 3 days ago||oh fuck off it's a metaphor||
[ETA: wait a minute...are you guys just quoting Austin Powers? My bad. Leaving this for posterity anyway.]
You can find hundreds more if you want, I'm sure.
|1 week 4 days ago||Look upthread||
Blue in Yarmouth raised this issue upthread, where it already has one response. Please continue that discussion up there--it's an interesting question.
|1 week 4 days ago||Yes.||
It is really surprising that BC has played so poorly this year after he'd looked so good early in his career. It's worth talking about.
I do think the #2 thing makes it more ironic than it'd otherwise be, though. (See tags.)
|1 week 4 days ago||agree to disagree?||
If he can prove he's still an A+ zone merchant, I think he's easily worth a 6th/7th round pick. But I also think that's a reasonable thing to disagree about, so ok.
|1 week 4 days ago||i'll play||
So I told you what advice I'd give him, and I'll tell you now as explicitly as I can that I think it's supportive to give people the advice that you think is actually in their best interest, even if they don't want to hear it.
Here's a related example: I have a student right now who is about to walk away from a 60k/year scholarship at my current SLAC doing something he's good at to transfer to a community college in order to pursue a degree in my field, with which he's fallen in love. I give him a new reason why this is a stupid idea every week, because I think it's a stupid idea. But I'll also write him a recommendation letter when he does it anyway, because I want to support him in whatever he ultimately decides to do. That's how to be supportive, IMO.
In Countess's case, I'd present him with all the reasons to transfer that I could, because that's what I think is in his professional best interest. I'd also support him if he decided to stay, of course, but I don't think whoever's advising him is being supportive if they're not advising him to the best of their ability, which will sometimes involve telling him what's true even if he's not inclined to believe it or act on it.
|1 week 4 days ago||I know :)||
Why do you think I put the over/under so high on this otherwise good thread? I know how the internet works. I've just never seen a bear I didn't want to poke.
|1 week 4 days ago||I mostly agree||
I hope I didn't seem mad at BC. I think it's sad that the staff changed schemes in a way that put him in a position to fail. (I kind of think the NCAA should have one-time no-fault transfer rules that allow student-athletes to switch programs if there's a scheme change, even if there isn't a coaching change.)
I'm not sure about the development issues on a team-wide level, though I do think there are serious questions about our RB, OL, and QB development. I agree that talent identification is a big problem when it comes to getting the most productive players on the field, although as recently as this summer we all thought this coaching staff was very good at identifying high school talent.
|1 week 4 days ago||just couldn't resist||
…I know. That's why I did it. I'm sick, doc.
Substance: I don't think it's coaching. I think it's 100% a bad fit with the new scheme.