Member for

10 years 1 month

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
07/27/2010 - 4:36pm True.

The beaten dead horse is complimentary.

07/19/2010 - 2:45pm Nader Purrha


Nader Purrha


07/15/2010 - 1:31am (no subject)

07/14/2010 - 2:29pm BANNER CONTEST!

(mgo needs


(mgo needs banners)


(mgo needs banners)


(mgo needs banners)


(mgo needs banners)


(mgo needs banners)


(mgo needs banners)

06/23/2010 - 5:14pm A little later I noticed he

A little later I noticed he was talking to my manager, inwhich I later found out he complained about me being "unprofessional" and "disgraceful" to him, and he wont shop here again.

Thanks for the lesson.

"Borned" is especially funny to me for reasons I won't get into.

06/23/2010 - 5:03pm 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.


06/01/2010 - 7:40pm 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.

06/01/2010 - 4:36pm Two Questions

I care less about the how and what than I do about just making it go away. There is precedent for doing this on this board.

Making what go away?

What precedent do you speak of?

06/01/2010 - 4:21pm 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.

05/11/2010 - 2:42pm 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.

05/11/2010 - 11:56am *GASP*


05/11/2010 - 11:53am 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?

05/11/2010 - 11:29am And all he had to do was to

And all he had to do was to answer Angelique Chengelis' phone call.

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.

05/11/2010 - 11:10am 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.

05/11/2010 - 10:49am Clearly the most important

Clearly the most important thing to come out of all of this is that Section 1 of MGoBlog was right.

03/16/2010 - 11:03am You're right in one respect.

Anonymity isn't a shield. However, the expectation of privacy, as detailed by the site's privacy policy, as well as common decency are. They establish trust between a website and its visitors. In this instance, that trust was breached.

As someone who helped write that WLA post, I can say the reason for bringing up the exceptions in the privacy policy was, as you noted, to demonstrate that none of them applied. That means to say, the general policy stated that no information, such as an IP address, would be shared, except for certain defined situations. None of those situations applied. As a result, the IP address should never have been sent to the person's employer, nor should the person's employer have been contacted.

Even so, the nature of the comment was a picture of Kevin from The Office. The response to that comment was not simply to delete it and ban the user, but to further contact the user's employer about such "offensive content." That crosses the line not only of the privacy policy, but also conventional behavior, even for the Internet.

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.

11/21/2009 - 2:10pm Worse than those fuckin'

Worse than those fuckin' Geauxfurs.

Yeah. I went there.

11/17/2009 - 5:41pm Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE



10/29/2009 - 12:38pm Executive Summary

Showing MGoPoints = Badt

Hiding MGoPoints = Goodt

10/29/2009 - 11:58am 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?

10/29/2009 - 10:53am 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.

10/27/2009 - 7:20pm Well, it used to be Jay, but

Well, it used to be Jay, but he abandoned us.

10/27/2009 - 7:12pm I didn't like Magnus as a

I didn't like Magnus as a poster (except can't think of any exceptions), and I haven't heard anything good about him personally.

10/27/2009 - 7:04pm Already posted.

10/23/2009 - 1:26pm 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.

10/23/2009 - 1:24pm 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.

10/22/2009 - 1:22pm Humor is subjective.

Humor is subjective.

10/22/2009 - 12:21pm 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.

10/21/2009 - 11:51am Here's a gold star.

10/21/2009 - 11:29am

Now with new, spiffy design.

10/21/2009 - 11:19am James Stapleton


10/21/2009 - 10:50am Rodriguez can wear whatever

Rodriguez can wear whatever he wants, on any day that he wants, and for whatever reason he wants. He doesn't owe me anything, least of all what he chooses from his wardrobe.

10/20/2009 - 3:52pm Yes, but do they look at the

Yes, but do they look at the M-Card, as well?

10/20/2009 - 1:11am He calls it "Ol' Chomper".

He calls it "Ol' Chomper".

10/19/2009 - 8:59pm You and PurpleStuff should

You and PurpleStuff should probably hang out together. Either that, or definitely not hang out together.

10/19/2009 - 1:34pm No. You have no reason to be embarrassed.

However, the athletic department should for scheduling a game like this.

10/18/2009 - 11:37pm This made me laugh.

fuck all of you who judge people and fuck everyone who doesn't know enough about someone to be judgemental on them

Which was immediately preceded by the following judgments about MGoBoard:

I'm not taking shit from a bunch of people that sit around and hump their hands all day cause they know they can't get pussy from a girl if they tried. Fuck all of you grammar nazis fuck all of you commies and obama lovers

I'm going to miss you.

P.S. It's "judgmental". The rest is pure gold, though.

10/18/2009 - 7:56pm Hey, that's just your

Hey, that's just your epinion, man. No sugarcoat.

10/16/2009 - 6:52pm I've enjoyed La Chouffe and

I've enjoyed La Chouffe and Chouffe, both of which are a pale ales. La Chouffe is spiced (coriander), but not overpowering. Low alcohol taste with a high alcohol content (~8%). It's carbonated, as are a lot of the Belgians that I've seen. I'm not great at comparisons, but I think it's comparable to Duvel.

It's basically a very drinkable beer, ime, without any flavors that will bowl you over. Not that that's a bad thing, but I like to just sit back and enjoy a beer while watching the game without thinking too much about it. I'm looking to try McChouffe, which is a darker ale, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

10/16/2009 - 5:40pm La Chouffe

Don't let the dwarf fool you. It's a pretty good Belgian beer.

10/16/2009 - 5:18pm Chestnuts ARE lazy!

But in this case the specific term "No sugarcoat" was WLA/Scorn created, albeit derived from GBMW's regular use of the term "sugarcoat" or "sugarcoating".

10/16/2009 - 5:14pm I'm afraid he did his board

I'm afraid he did his board retirement post months ago.

10/16/2009 - 5:00pm Also WLA.

Also WLA.

10/16/2009 - 4:58pm Hey there, tricky dick.

You just pulled a Captain.

Don't pretend like it didn't happen.

10/16/2009 - 4:56pm Here's a list of suspects:

Original WLA members
Rival blogs
Scorn regulars

10/16/2009 - 3:53pm But we were just getting to

But we were just getting to know one another!

[Edit: At least he booed us. That should make MGoBoard better.]

10/16/2009 - 3:48pm I believe you're thinking of

I believe you're thinking of this guy for this thread.

It was classic.

10/16/2009 - 3:38pm I believe the record still

I believe the record still belongs to diclemeg (since banned), who lost more than 1000 over about 24 hours for this thread.

10/16/2009 - 1:17pm Your comparison to invading

Your comparison to invading Iraq is pure garbage, so I will refrain from addressing it. In fact, most of your argument boils down to armchair psychology, armchair coaching and demonstrates why analyzing a decision in a vacuum is both misleading and lazy.

Up until Denard’s interception, Tate was 8/19 (42.1%) with 1 INT and 94 yards (11.8 ypc). The passing game was not working well. The running game, on the other hand, had been doing quite well with 200+ yards on the ground at a pace of 4.3 ypa. Denard had just finished an 11 play, 59 yard drive for a touchdown to put Michigan within a field goal of winning. He was, up until the interception, 3/3 with no interceptions and 30 yards (10.0 ypc), along with 49 yards rushing at a pace of 5.4 ypa (Tate had 26 net yards for 3.3 ypc all game). The only problem was that Denard made a freshman mistake and threw the interception to end the game, kind of like Tate did just a week earlier.

So with a freshman quarterback who is a talented passer but was not throwing particularly well for the night (and who makes freshman mistakes), a running game that was working, another freshman quarterback who is a talented runner and had previously led a TD drive (and who also makes freshman mistakes), you want to second guess the coach as to who should go in for the final drive for a field goal? I’m not saying the decision was right. I’m not saying it was wrong. I’m saying it was a coaching decision that was made with the best information and judgment available; information and judgment that is a helluva lot better that you or I had at the time.

But the thing that I find most astounding about your unsupported, nonsensical rant, is your accusation against Brian and Tim as not having played in any organized sport, thereby invalidating their defense of Rodriguez’s decision. Yet the person who actually made the decision that they are defending has been involved in organized sports for decades.

So, please, go on talking. You sound more foolish with every word.

10/16/2009 - 11:19am Try one of these.……

You can get them from on the Game Central page. Hope that helps.