forums

Confirmed Alonzo Highsmith (joining Miami staff, 5.25 update)

scorpio40 said:
Preach cane family! My girl has cheeks f4 days!
Click to expand...
God bless u bro
x factor GIF
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Maaaaan, Godfather 3 got fvcked up by some horrible casting. Would have been sooooo much better with Bobby D coming back as Tom instead of George Hamilton and with Winona Ryder instead of Sofia Coppola. They also should have hired a much better actor to play Anthony Corleone. I don't hate Bridget Fonda in this movie, but her character didn't mesh. You should never have major Godfather characters with names like "BJ Harrison" and "Grace Hamilton". Sorry.

And, yes, the script itself could have been tightened. Garcia was great, Mantegna was great, Wallach was great. Coppola should have expanded the mob conflict with Joey Zaza's family and the shady role played by Altobello, and de-emphasized the Vatican stuff to be more "historical background", similar to the way that characters from "the Senate hearings" were not major characters in Godfather 2, they just kept the main "mob" stories humming along.
Click to expand...
Ok (deep breath as I prepare for my random rant) it is an abomination it should have never been filmed, it should have stayed and ended with #2 as it was always intended as per Coppola. In fact out of principle I refuse to purchase, cus I would never turned down a free glass of wine I am not a savage you know, but i will never purchase Coppola wine! Never! Why? You may ask. It is because of Coppola wine that the film that shall not be named was made. For years the studio was asking Francis to make 3rd film and for years he said no his vision was to leave the story as is after Godfather 2. Fast forward Francis vineyard is going bankrupt and he comes to the studio and says “I’ll do it for 20 mil” saves his vineyard and ****es out that travesty of a film.

Casting was horrendous (Sofia was atrocious), Fonda’s character was pointless, the mob conflict was but a blip, the whole making a statement towards the Vatican was a bit much, and the stupid resolution between Michael and Kate prior to Anthony was plain dumb etc etc etc

And I’m done, I feel better now
 
Rellyrell said:
1st, thanks for posting. 2nd, I’m not a very sentimental type, but this legit almost brought tears to my eyes. We’ve been in this dark place for so long, looking for anything, any sign that this darkness would cease. Hearing Zo speak w/ so much professionalism while encompassing enthusiasm is outstanding.

I wanted to touch on something he said that may have been missed; he said when The Pittsburgh Steelers “recruit.” That wasn’t a slippage of the tongue. I’ve never been an insider, nor do I ever want to be classified as one, but I’ve been blessed to have the gift of gab, & w/ that gift I’ve met some amazing ppl in passing just off general conversations. Being w/ an ex whose father is a 4x SB winner u meet ppl, & some of the folks I’ve met have been in the front office of NFL teams. We talked scouting & draft process, I’ve seen big boards & thoughts behind it. Drafting is indeed recruiting. You have interviews, highlight films, game films, workout films, character evals, etc. etc. Once a culture has been established (i.e Bears - Defense, KC - offense, Baltimore - defense, running, etc), u’re draft board is going to be centered around that fit.

With Zo being in that spectrum, plus a former top 3 NFL pick himself, his eyes r valuable. His knowledge of what NFL teams r looking for is priceless. He truly can help young men grasp, not only the playing side, but what it takes to be a NFL player for a long career.

I was just on the phone w/ one of my homegirls (who I reaaaaaaally wish wasn’t married, lol) & her brother played ball at Wyoming b4 getting drafted. I haven’t talked to him in a min, so I checked up on him. He got injured & is on NFL disability compensation. I reached out to him to see what was what. He’s not going to play again, but b/c of how he conducted himself, how he handled things, a personnel opportunity w/ a NFL team just opened up b/c he stayed professional. These r the things Zo can instill in these young men, how to be great while in uniform, but also, what it means to be a true professional.

Man, I take real pride being a Hurricanes fan; I’m happy for myself, but I’m more happy for alums & fans who saw the rise of the program & have endured a desecration to their Alma Mater. I liked how Zo tempered 1st yr expectations, so I’m going to sit back & enjoy w/e I see yr 1, knowing it’s a building block. Also, last thought…if u notice Zo mentioned Bama a few times. Listen, just b/c some of us have mentioned Bama as a standard doesn’t mean it’s dyck riding; it’s a fact. It’s no different than MJ trying to knock off Bird then Zeke or The Red Sox trying to knock off The Yankees. When u’re at the top for a while, u become a standard for that period. We were the standard for our time, & we’ll become The Standard again.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a bad flock, only a ****** shepherd.

We have numerous no nonsense, proven, professional shepherds who understand what this entire organization should look like when it is rolling. They also know what the "rest" of elite college football has transformed into from a baselining standpoint.

We even have the mythical Miami Hurricane billionaire in Ruiz who appeared out of left field last November and seemingly has his transparent middle fingers raised at the country in how NIL should be done.

Honestly I was commenting to some friends if this is the twilight zone because everything we could imagine to turn around this so decline to death is happening.
 
Advertisement
First things first, ima need Zo to close Jaden. Kill this dog and pony show and tell his pops to lock it in.

Show em' TVD bank account and his Wall Street poster too.
 
Fzac75 said:
Ok (deep breath as I prepare for my random rant) it is an abomination it should have never been filmed, it should have stayed and ended with #2 as it was always intended as per Coppola. In fact out of principle I refuse to purchase, cus I would never turned down a free glass of wine I am not a savage you know, but i will never purchase Coppola wine! Never! Why? You may ask. It is because of Coppola wine that the film that shall not be named was made. For years the studio was asking Francis to make 3rd film and for years he said no his vision was to leave the story as is after Godfather 2. Fast forward Francis vineyard is going bankrupt and he comes to the studio and says “I’ll do it for 20 mil” saves his vineyard and ****es out that travesty of a film.

Casting was horrendous (Sofia was atrocious), Fonda’s character was pointless, the mob conflict was but a blip, the whole making a statement towards the Vatican was a bit much, and the stupid resolution between Michael and Kate prior to Anthony was plain dumb etc etc etc

And I’m done, I feel better now
Click to expand...

as a godfather acolyte, i've read the book 10-12 times. i still have the copy that my grandmother purchased for me in 1972 +/- at the bookstand (not bookstore) in the coral gables metro bus station on aragon avenue.

agreed that #3 was made for money. as always, the godfather and any good movie starts and ends with the script, and this script was horrific. plus, as you said, the movie was made for money and nothing else. mike looked like a pimp and connie like a cheap eye-talian ****.

there is only one, AND I MEAN ONE, decent part and it happens to be played by Andy Garcia when he tells the intruders to kill the girl since she doesn't mean anything to him.

coppola has admitted that casting sofia coppola was a mistake, but it wasn't the first mistake. the first mistake was making that bullsh!t of a movie.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Maaaaan, Godfather 3 got fvcked up by some horrible casting. Would have been sooooo much better with Bobby D coming back as Tom instead of George Hamilton and with Winona Ryder instead of Sofia Coppola. They also should have hired a much better actor to play Anthony Corleone. I don't hate Bridget Fonda in this movie, but her character didn't mesh. You should never have major Godfather characters with names like "BJ Harrison" and "Grace Hamilton". Sorry.

And, yes, the script itself could have been tightened. Garcia was great, Mantegna was great, Wallach was great. Coppola should have expanded the mob conflict with Joey Zaza's family and the shady role played by Altobello, and de-emphasized the Vatican stuff to be more "historical background", similar to the way that characters from "the Senate hearings" were not major characters in Godfather 2, they just kept the main "mob" stories humming along.
Click to expand...
IIRC Duval wanted no part of the movie. he knew it was a bomb
 
Advertisement
BS85 said:
@OriginalCanesCanesCanes @TheOriginalCane

Since we're sharing a lot of info about how this all went down....just how big of a ***** is/was David Epstein really?
Click to expand...


I'm not going to go into a super-deep-dive on Epstein, because some of the things I could say "cannot be proven" and are just things that I have heard. So I'll try to stick to the known knowns.

---No one can argue that leaks never occurred. There was VERY specific information that arose in BOT meetings which made it into various media reports. You can do a rough correlation between certain reports, the opinions of certain factions on the BOT, and the motivations/goals of the leaks. You could then reasonably conclude who did what. But it's not "provable", unless the sportswriters reveal their sources, which they will not do.

---You can then compare the HC/AD leaking to decades of prior BOT activity and norms. Simply, you have NEVER seen that level of leaking from the UM BOT ever, it was unprecedented. Why? Athletics is just a fraction of what the BOT oversees. Why does someone put a lifetime appointment to the BOT in jeopardy over spilling the tea on an AD and a HC hire? And this is where I respectfully submit that certain Trustees saw this as a much larger jihad, the "old guard" vs. the "youngsters", the "glacial/conservative pace approach" vs. the "get it done now approach".

---Then you look at "if not Epstein, then who?" Honestly, there aren't that many people on the BOT who are as active, who are as invested, who are as powerful, who are as threatened, and who are as motivated as Epstein was to leak information. Sure, we could all play some kind of "well, there are 100 BOT murder suspects in this room that we need to interrogate" game, but the reality is that there are only a couple of likely suspects. Or one.

---Finally, you look to the sportswriters. In particular, Ferman's case is very instructive because myself and multiple other people called him out by name for being a pawn of certain Trustees, in that they were using him to publicize their side of the narrative. First, Ferman denied that he even knew Epstein. Later, Ferman changed his tune, when he began to realize that Epstein had used intermediaries to do his dirty work. So while you can't directly prove what Epstein did, you get the impression of what he did indirectly when Ferman stops playing along when he realized that he had been used.

To sum up, I believe that Epstein's behavior was reprehensible for two reasons. First, he violated the secrecy/confidentiality of the BOT proceedings. I am the first to call for GREATER transparency in BOT meetings and deliberations, but in a fair and uniform fashion. No Trustee should be allowed to weaponize the confidentiality (or lack thereof). Second, Epstein and his intermediaries disclosed things related to personnel, which is much more complicated and problematic than, say, "UM wants to build an 8-story building but Coral Gables will only approve a 5-story building". There were issues with Mario's ongoing employment, there were issues with the New Mexico AD, you even had motherfvckin' Lane Kiffin publicly submitting his verbal resume because everyone recognized the process as a "****e show". The reality is that there were 2 shows, the very organized show (outside consultant, involvement of Joe Echevarria and Rudy Fernandez) and the ****e show (separate camps, ongoing leaks, petty jealousies).

I wish I could provide times and dates and phone logs for Epstein. I think he used other people as buffers and as usually happens after a war, he smiled and shook hands with everyone afterwards. I can't say if some rogue Trustee pulled this kind of crap back in the 1950s, but I can tell you that it is unprecedented in the 35 years that I've been a UM student and alum. I do hope that Epstein "retires" soon (as a Trustee), but I also hope we reduce the size of the Board and we start becoming more transparent, at least to the students, faculty, and alums.

Maybe Athletics can lead the way, showing the rest of the UM administration that greater outreach and communication and respectful treatment of all of the stakeholders will produce better results across the spectrum. And I don't care if people think I'm overly optimistic and/or idealistic, but we have to start making changes and improvements somewhere sometime.
 
rsa coral gables said:
IIRC Duval wanted no part of the movie. he knew it was a bomb
Click to expand...

Well, that's not entirely true. I've heard multiple interviews he's done, Bobby D wanted more input and collaboration (and pay) at that point in his career, and Coppola wouldn't give that to him.

I too am a huge fan of the book and (first two) movies, I've read/watched many times, and I think I've said that I took a Management course at UM that used The Godfather as the textbook (no joke).

I agree completely that money was the primary motivating factor for making the Godfather III film, particularly the collapse of Coppola's Zoetrope Studios.

But.

Mario Puzo was the author of the book and collaborated on all of the screenplays. He may not have ORIGINALLY intended to extend the story, but he did. He participated, nobody put a gun to his head.

I understand why so many people repudiate the third movie. But we have to be honest. The mafia continued to operate after the Senate hearings in the 60s. The mafia continued to operate into the 1980s and 1990s. There is nothing wrong with continuing the story into the present day, as long as it is done well.

The script needed work. About half of the cast should have been re-cast. And I wish that Puzo and Coppola had swallowed their pride and collaborated with Pacino and Duvall and other key actors in order to get a better sense of what their characters would do and say.

But I'm not in the "Godfather III should never have been attempted" camp.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm not going to go into a super-deep-dive on Epstein, because some of the things I could say "cannot be proven" and are just things that I have heard. So I'll try to stick to the known knowns.

---No one can argue that leaks never occurred. There was VERY specific information that arose in BOT meetings which made it into various media reports. You can do a rough correlation between certain reports, the opinions of certain factions on the BOT, and the motivations/goals of the leaks. You could then reasonably conclude who did what. But it's not "provable", unless the sportswriters reveal their sources, which they will not do.

---You can then compare the HC/AD leaking to decades of prior BOT activity and norms. Simply, you have NEVER seen that level of leaking from the UM BOT ever, it was unprecedented. Why? Athletics is just a fraction of what the BOT oversees. Why does someone put a lifetime appointment to the BOT in jeopardy over spilling the tea on an AD and a HC hire? And this is where I respectfully submit that certain Trustees saw this as a much larger jihad, the "old guard" vs. the "youngsters", the "glacial/conservative pace approach" vs. the "get it done now approach".

---Then you look at "if not Epstein, then who?" Honestly, there aren't that many people on the BOT who are as active, who are as invested, who are as powerful, who are as threatened, and who are as motivated as Epstein was to leak information. Sure, we could all play some kind of "well, there are 100 BOT murder suspects in this room that we need to interrogate" game, but the reality is that there are only a couple of likely suspects. Or one.

---Finally, you look to the sportswriters. In particular, Ferman's case is very instructive because myself and multiple other people called him out by name for being a pawn of certain Trustees, in that they were using him to publicize their side of the narrative. First, Ferman denied that he even knew Epstein. Later, Ferman changed his tune, when he began to realize that Epstein had used intermediaries to do his dirty work. So while you can't directly prove what Epstein did, you get the impression of what he did indirectly when Ferman stops playing along when he realized that he had been used.

To sum up, I believe that Epstein's behavior was reprehensible for two reasons. First, he violated the secrecy/confidentiality of the BOT proceedings. I am the first to call for GREATER transparency in BOT meetings and deliberations, but in a fair and uniform fashion. No Trustee should be allowed to weaponize the confidentiality (or lack thereof). Second, Epstein and his intermediaries disclosed things related to personnel, which is much more complicated and problematic than, say, "UM wants to build an 8-story building but Coral Gables will only approve a 5-story building". There were issues with Mario's ongoing employment, there were issues with the New Mexico AD, you even had motherfvckin' Lane Kiffin publicly submitting his verbal resume because everyone recognized the process as a "****e show". The reality is that there were 2 shows, the very organized show (outside consultant, involvement of Joe Echevarria and Rudy Fernandez) and the ****e show (separate camps, ongoing leaks, petty jealousies).

I wish I could provide times and dates and phone logs for Epstein. I think he used other people as buffers and as usually happens after a war, he smiled and shook hands with everyone afterwards. I can't say if some rogue Trustee pulled this kind of crap back in the 1950s, but I can tell you that it is unprecedented in the 35 years that I've been a UM student and alum. I do hope that Epstein "retires" soon (as a Trustee), but I also hope we reduce the size of the Board and we start becoming more transparent, at least to the students, faculty, and alums.

Maybe Athletics can lead the way, showing the rest of the UM administration that greater outreach and communication and respectful treatment of all of the stakeholders will produce better results across the spectrum. And I don't care if people think I'm overly optimistic and/or idealistic, but we have to start making changes and improvements somewhere sometime.
Click to expand...

ToC, I'm assuming Diaz' dad played a role here too, no? Either way, whoever it was, they lost. Now the question is are they back on board with the new paradigm? Or is Frenk going to have to deal with a governance body that is dysfunctional?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm not going to go into a super-deep-dive on Epstein, because some of the things I could say "cannot be proven" and are just things that I have heard. So I'll try to stick to the known knowns.

---No one can argue that leaks never occurred. There was VERY specific information that arose in BOT meetings which made it into various media reports. You can do a rough correlation between certain reports, the opinions of certain factions on the BOT, and the motivations/goals of the leaks. You could then reasonably conclude who did what. But it's not "provable", unless the sportswriters reveal their sources, which they will not do.

---You can then compare the HC/AD leaking to decades of prior BOT activity and norms. Simply, you have NEVER seen that level of leaking from the UM BOT ever, it was unprecedented. Why? Athletics is just a fraction of what the BOT oversees. Why does someone put a lifetime appointment to the BOT in jeopardy over spilling the tea on an AD and a HC hire? And this is where I respectfully submit that certain Trustees saw this as a much larger jihad, the "old guard" vs. the "youngsters", the "glacial/conservative pace approach" vs. the "get it done now approach".

---Then you look at "if not Epstein, then who?" Honestly, there aren't that many people on the BOT who are as active, who are as invested, who are as powerful, who are as threatened, and who are as motivated as Epstein was to leak information. Sure, we could all play some kind of "well, there are 100 BOT murder suspects in this room that we need to interrogate" game, but the reality is that there are only a couple of likely suspects. Or one.

---Finally, you look to the sportswriters. In particular, Ferman's case is very instructive because myself and multiple other people called him out by name for being a pawn of certain Trustees, in that they were using him to publicize their side of the narrative. First, Ferman denied that he even knew Epstein. Later, Ferman changed his tune, when he began to realize that Epstein had used intermediaries to do his dirty work. So while you can't directly prove what Epstein did, you get the impression of what he did indirectly when Ferman stops playing along when he realized that he had been used.

To sum up, I believe that Epstein's behavior was reprehensible for two reasons. First, he violated the secrecy/confidentiality of the BOT proceedings. I am the first to call for GREATER transparency in BOT meetings and deliberations, but in a fair and uniform fashion. No Trustee should be allowed to weaponize the confidentiality (or lack thereof). Second, Epstein and his intermediaries disclosed things related to personnel, which is much more complicated and problematic than, say, "UM wants to build an 8-story building but Coral Gables will only approve a 5-story building". There were issues with Mario's ongoing employment, there were issues with the New Mexico AD, you even had motherfvckin' Lane Kiffin publicly submitting his verbal resume because everyone recognized the process as a "****e show". The reality is that there were 2 shows, the very organized show (outside consultant, involvement of Joe Echevarria and Rudy Fernandez) and the ****e show (separate camps, ongoing leaks, petty jealousies).

I wish I could provide times and dates and phone logs for Epstein. I think he used other people as buffers and as usually happens after a war, he smiled and shook hands with everyone afterwards. I can't say if some rogue Trustee pulled this kind of crap back in the 1950s, but I can tell you that it is unprecedented in the 35 years that I've been a UM student and alum. I do hope that Epstein "retires" soon (as a Trustee), but I also hope we reduce the size of the Board and we start becoming more transparent, at least to the students, faculty, and alums.

Maybe Athletics can lead the way, showing the rest of the UM administration that greater outreach and communication and respectful treatment of all of the stakeholders will produce better results across the spectrum. And I don't care if people think I'm overly optimistic and/or idealistic, but we have to start making changes and improvements somewhere sometime.
Click to expand...

i agree with this entirely. it was also "old miami" versus "new miami" and everything that dichotomy entials.
 
grover said:
ToC, I'm assuming Diaz' dad played a role here too, no? Either way, whoever it was, they lost. Now the question is are they back on board with the new paradigm? Or is Frenk going to have to deal with a governance body that is dysfunctional?
Click to expand...


Not really, as it relates to the "leaks". Diaz Sr. did intervene on Manny's behalf, and asked for Manny to be allowed to coach out the season. But contrary to the belief of soooommmme posters, Diaz Sr. doesn't have quite the same political POWER. He has connections, but he can't compel as he once did. He can be persuasive, sure.

As for the BOT, I've described my "new paradigm" before. I would like to see a smaller Board, with set terms of office. I have no problems with someone being re-appointed to the Board, just do it with transparency. Think: Corporate Board of Directors. Smaller, more nimble, fuller participation. If someone can't commit to participating, put someone else on the Board. Minimize "emeritus" members.

Back when I was in school, we got UM to agree to putting a student rep on the Board (usually the Undergraduate Student Body Government president). I'm not sure if they allow the law school, med school, and graduate school to send reps, but it would be helpful. I know there is a Faculty Senate rep, and I think UM recently created a "Coral Gables community" rep as well.

Finally, we should create a few committees, particularly one for ATHLETICS, that is made up of SOME Trustees and other qualified people. For Athletics, you could put multiple former athletes, coaches, and/or athletic administrators on this committee. When he was alive post-retirement, Paul Dee would have been great for this. Alonzo. John Routh. Gino. Tim Dawson. Tiffany Arrington. Tracy Kerdyk. I could go on and on, but you understand the types of people I'm talking about. Find people with expertise in all areas, competition, NIL, academic support, facilities, ticketing/boosters, etc.

I don't know if it will get done. Once I have a few minutes, I may reach out to Rudy Fernandez directly, he seems to be an open-minded person and truly caring about UM Athletics.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
i agree with this entirely. it was also "old miami" versus "new miami" and everything that dichotomy entials.
Click to expand...


Great point. I saw a lot of that happening in real-time during the 80s and 90s, and that was just the front-end time period of what has been taking decades to change.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm not going to go into a super-deep-dive on Epstein, because some of the things I could say "cannot be proven" and are just things that I have heard. So I'll try to stick to the known knowns.

---No one can argue that leaks never occurred. There was VERY specific information that arose in BOT meetings which made it into various media reports. You can do a rough correlation between certain reports, the opinions of certain factions on the BOT, and the motivations/goals of the leaks. You could then reasonably conclude who did what. But it's not "provable", unless the sportswriters reveal their sources, which they will not do.

---You can then compare the HC/AD leaking to decades of prior BOT activity and norms. Simply, you have NEVER seen that level of leaking from the UM BOT ever, it was unprecedented. Why? Athletics is just a fraction of what the BOT oversees. Why does someone put a lifetime appointment to the BOT in jeopardy over spilling the tea on an AD and a HC hire? And this is where I respectfully submit that certain Trustees saw this as a much larger jihad, the "old guard" vs. the "youngsters", the "glacial/conservative pace approach" vs. the "get it done now approach".

---Then you look at "if not Epstein, then who?" Honestly, there aren't that many people on the BOT who are as active, who are as invested, who are as powerful, who are as threatened, and who are as motivated as Epstein was to leak information. Sure, we could all play some kind of "well, there are 100 BOT murder suspects in this room that we need to interrogate" game, but the reality is that there are only a couple of likely suspects. Or one.

---Finally, you look to the sportswriters. In particular, Ferman's case is very instructive because myself and multiple other people called him out by name for being a pawn of certain Trustees, in that they were using him to publicize their side of the narrative. First, Ferman denied that he even knew Epstein. Later, Ferman changed his tune, when he began to realize that Epstein had used intermediaries to do his dirty work. So while you can't directly prove what Epstein did, you get the impression of what he did indirectly when Ferman stops playing along when he realized that he had been used.

To sum up, I believe that Epstein's behavior was reprehensible for two reasons. First, he violated the secrecy/confidentiality of the BOT proceedings. I am the first to call for GREATER transparency in BOT meetings and deliberations, but in a fair and uniform fashion. No Trustee should be allowed to weaponize the confidentiality (or lack thereof). Second, Epstein and his intermediaries disclosed things related to personnel, which is much more complicated and problematic than, say, "UM wants to build an 8-story building but Coral Gables will only approve a 5-story building". There were issues with Mario's ongoing employment, there were issues with the New Mexico AD, you even had motherfvckin' Lane Kiffin publicly submitting his verbal resume because everyone recognized the process as a "****e show". The reality is that there were 2 shows, the very organized show (outside consultant, involvement of Joe Echevarria and Rudy Fernandez) and the ****e show (separate camps, ongoing leaks, petty jealousies).

I wish I could provide times and dates and phone logs for Epstein. I think he used other people as buffers and as usually happens after a war, he smiled and shook hands with everyone afterwards. I can't say if some rogue Trustee pulled this kind of crap back in the 1950s, but I can tell you that it is unprecedented in the 35 years that I've been a UM student and alum. I do hope that Epstein "retires" soon (as a Trustee), but I also hope we reduce the size of the Board and we start becoming more transparent, at least to the students, faculty, and alums.

Maybe Athletics can lead the way, showing the rest of the UM administration that greater outreach and communication and respectful treatment of all of the stakeholders will produce better results across the spectrum. And I don't care if people think I'm overly optimistic and/or idealistic, but we have to start making changes and improvements somewhere sometime.
Click to expand...
Great post, thank you
 
BS85 said:
Great post, thank you
Click to expand...


No problem, happy to shine some light. I don't "hate" Epstein, he's done a lot of good for UM in the past. But he's lost his way, he's lost perspective. Sometimes these guys are in power for so long they start to think they ARE the University, when they are really just stewards of the University. They don't own it, they just rent it for a while.

And they **** well better leave it in better shape than when they found it. And stop breaking ****e!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top