- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 16,298
Seems that @imurcane never really left.
Your entire (fake) schtick is based on homophobia and harassment.
You have literally harassed dozens of CIS posters over the years with your fake come-ons.
Bruh if I am walking down the street in vegas and someone walks up to me and offers me coke and a cop hears it, I am not getting arrested. The specific finding was Meier contacted a rep. Maybe it was Ruiz, maybe it was Jr., maybe it was a secretary, who knows. But the poster I was responding to said:
"Ruiz has been yelling from the mountaintop that everything he does is legal and he has never violated any regulation.
And this shows that’s not true. Hate the NCAA all you want but Ruiz looks like a total fool."
What did Ruiz do that was illegal? What did Ruiz do that violated any regulation? How does this make Ruiz look like a fool?
Ruiz said himself if it affected him or his company he would go after them. But it doesn't and it was Meier who screwed up.
Of course a dinner gets us first on the radar.
Not the 6' figure sums a few other schools threw out the minute the flood gates opened.
NCAA better be careful. I know Ruiz isnt indestructible but it just feels like he is not the guy you want to **** of since your income is taking a massive hit.
Like I said back in June “ I don’t see much coming from this at all” . They dug and this is what they found lol.
Yes. I can think of one school (err their collective) that notoriously induced a quarterback to back out of his commitment, only to refuse to pay him on NSDAll that investigation time and all the report finds is one minor WBB contact. I would put that down as a clean bill of health for Ruiz. They will now move on to the nimrod collectives. Hammer one of them.
ESPN says that Ruiz received no sanctions which was "troubling for the panel assembled to decide sanctions”. Who was on the panel? Jim Boheim? Hasn’t he been critical of UM? He must be furious that the Canes Mens team is on verge of winning ACC.Yes. I can think of one school (err their collective) that notoriously induced a quarterback to back out of his commitment, only to refuse to pay him on NSD
I admit this is the ultimate take.
adopting that behavior is homophobic and extends bad stereotypes no matter what jokes have been made. That is the most honest take.
What isn’t offensive about it?
1) Posters have complained about it and been mislabeled as homophonic when they aren’t the progenitor of the root cause of it.
2) What good comes from marginalization of a behavior that may make people uncomfortable or, make people who are themselves, or have close relatives/friends who might be that themselves?