Trolls typically seek out a more visible forum, not some heretofore unknown edge of the internet. If they violate this principle, and are playing some kind of long game, then they're not so much trolls as they are borderline sociopaths.
He either was on a months-long vision quest or has been toiling in his lab to come up with something as canonically original as Dickrod. He's probably really tired.
Drew Sharp made an ass of himself (his misunderstanding of the search firm statement), and judging from the tone of Hackett's response, he (Hackett) didn't not relish correcting the asshat.
Suppose the planets do align, and the OTC comes to Michigan, how likely is it that he can convince his NFL coordinators to follow? Harbaugh may or may not be long for the NFL, but what about his assistants? Moreover, how much does Michigan need the DC, OC and HC as a package deal?
Why did the attorney find it necessary to talk about his father in these emails? I've never seen such bizarre behavior.
I'm looking forward to hearing Gene Smith use the "that's part of our discussion with the NCAA" tactic over and over again. Didn't he seem really self-satisfied with that, like it was somehow magnificently clever? He appeared almost giddy.
ESPN/Fox Sports, et al are mostly diluted milquetoast garbage. It seems as though the WWL's mission is to be the fanboy of whomever is on top at a given moment. No depth, no detail, no originality=yawn.
While I agree that the vacuous posts are annoying, I don't understand the inclination to engage rather than move on. Let natural selection do its thing. By now, most posters can tell by the thread title whether or not they want to click and read. Responding, arguing and indulging the name-calling waste more time than clicking <back>.
Aside from being somewhat annoyed by uninformative or uninteresting posts that we are not compelled to read, what is the issue? Bandwidth?
Solution?
Perhaps there can be some voting mechanism that either deletes a thread or sends it to the back page after an arbitrary number of negative votes?
There was a brief image of someone wearing some absurd burgundy sweatshirt and hat. If this was HaHa in Alabama gear I'm somewhat disgusted. I thought only Mo Clarett pulled shit like that.
I would like to have seen a timeout called before UConn's TD. They were clearly hurrying and caught the D off guard. A timeout wouldn't have guaranteed a stop, but they would have had a better chance given how they'd been playing in 3rd and 4th down situations.
No coach or TV person wants to see that? I respect DB, but this logic (whether he truly supports it or not) is mystifying. How often do the conference ADs, presidents and administration really expect M and OSU will meet in the conf. title game? And isn't that an implicit F.U. to the other programs? I'm not sure what's more offensive: the complete and unambiguous removal of the fans in these considerations or the disruption of a century of traditions.
Quite a few months back, when Brian was appearing on WTKA with more regularity, he had a great response to the "you didn't go to the school, so why are you a fan" notion. Basically, he said that it doesn't say too much about your team/program if the only reason you would ever be a fan of it is if you attend the school.
I get ranking and grading on perceptions of talent. But using turnovers (that may or may not occur) as a criterion seems like reaching. Yes, there were an abundance of turnovers in 08 and 09, but I'm not convinced that sufficiently translates to a plethora of turnovers in 2010--stats that can tell me I'm wrong be damned.
Recent Comments
Double-negative intended.
No, 'flom fire' is the name of the photographer.
"So I was thinking--you know--if you--if you're not doing anything later..."
Agreed. But replace the whatever that is with a dipshit brandishing a sousaphone. Whoa. I think I just channeled Beck. I don't even like Beck.
Scotch does some interesting things.
Why did the attorney find it necessary to talk about his father in these emails? I've never seen such bizarre behavior.
I'm looking forward to hearing Gene Smith use the "that's part of our discussion with the NCAA" tactic over and over again. Didn't he seem really self-satisfied with that, like it was somehow magnificently clever? He appeared almost giddy.
His name is Troy Otto von Bisfork.
Edit: I should get it right too. That was to mtxgoblue.
ESPN/Fox Sports, et al are mostly diluted milquetoast garbage. It seems as though the WWL's mission is to be the fanboy of whomever is on top at a given moment. No depth, no detail, no originality=yawn.
While I agree that the vacuous posts are annoying, I don't understand the inclination to engage rather than move on. Let natural selection do its thing. By now, most posters can tell by the thread title whether or not they want to click and read. Responding, arguing and indulging the name-calling waste more time than clicking <back>.
Aside from being somewhat annoyed by uninformative or uninteresting posts that we are not compelled to read, what is the issue? Bandwidth?
Solution?
Perhaps there can be some voting mechanism that either deletes a thread or sends it to the back page after an arbitrary number of negative votes?
So how does that explain Jack Nicklaus?
Goodnight everybody! You've been great!
True--but that doesn't make it any less gross or tacky.
(I'm not entirely serious.)
There was a brief image of someone wearing some absurd burgundy sweatshirt and hat. If this was HaHa in Alabama gear I'm somewhat disgusted. I thought only Mo Clarett pulled shit like that.
I would like to have seen a timeout called before UConn's TD. They were clearly hurrying and caught the D off guard. A timeout wouldn't have guaranteed a stop, but they would have had a better chance given how they'd been playing in 3rd and 4th down situations.
After Heather Cox told him to go celebrate, Denard responded with a truly child-like (read: wide-eyed, not childish) "OK!" and sped off.
It's interesting that the most established player (Martin) is the "one to watch." Is that b/c he should have the greatest impact? Explain, please.
No coach or TV person wants to see that? I respect DB, but this logic (whether he truly supports it or not) is mystifying. How often do the conference ADs, presidents and administration really expect M and OSU will meet in the conf. title game? And isn't that an implicit F.U. to the other programs? I'm not sure what's more offensive: the complete and unambiguous removal of the fans in these considerations or the disruption of a century of traditions.
They must not have given the Fleetwood as an option.
Quite a few months back, when Brian was appearing on WTKA with more regularity, he had a great response to the "you didn't go to the school, so why are you a fan" notion. Basically, he said that it doesn't say too much about your team/program if the only reason you would ever be a fan of it is if you attend the school.
I get ranking and grading on perceptions of talent. But using turnovers (that may or may not occur) as a criterion seems like reaching. Yes, there were an abundance of turnovers in 08 and 09, but I'm not convinced that sufficiently translates to a plethora of turnovers in 2010--stats that can tell me I'm wrong be damned.