UNC Slapped with LOIC

[dk72]

Randy didn't like him because he could smell the crook on nevin. Maybe Randy benefited from real world life Donna never had, but if you have half a brain you suspect if not KNOW that easy money is frigging always dirty money not earned money. This is especially true in South Florida. From WPB down on the coast there is now and has always been a large number of "operators" who have run scam after scam for decades. Now I am assuming Donna has brains and pays attention to something other than her fingernails. If you are saying she is stupid, then I might have to reconsider.

What "easy money" are you babbling about? Shapiro checked out as a legit businessman. Again, go read the FBI report. They themselves had a long delay in the case because after they got initial info that he was dirty, their entire case went cold for a full year because they could not find a shred of evidence against him. This occurred after the whole check incident. As far as anyone knew in the administration, Shapiro was an obnoxious loudmouth jerk, but a legitimate businessman who was donating to the school. If a school is going to not accept checks from any rich person that is obnoxious, that would eliminate half of the rich people.

Let's see if we can explain it better. When a person runs up to you in a bowling ally and thrust a $50K check into your inspecting hands, that is easy money. Donors do not throw money at you. Rick people dole out $$$ painfully. You have to "earn" it from them. They always get something in return. If the money comes to you "easy" is it almost always dirty money. Earned or inherited money is not parted with "easy". That is the red flag people who care will look for. Greedy people with borderline criminal natures like Donna just say "more please".

Nonsense. Donors give surprise gifts. It happens at other schools as well. It is quite typical. To say otherwise is simply a lie.

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

 

[Gatorhater]

More history rewriting. Shannon in no way knew he was a con man. He simply did not like the guy because he felt he was a bad influence on the players, and someone who could get them into trouble. Completely different things.

So you are verifying our argument, Radio knew and felt that he was bad news and could get his players in trouble but you justify the troll as a University president not knowing or feeling this because her hand was out. GTFOH

Hanging out with someone vs. accepting donations from that person are completely unrelated things. So you can "GTFOH".

Yes. Hanging out is virtually meaningless compared to taking money. The first can be as innocent as merely being socially polite but the second is ALWAYS serious! You just hung your own argument. Simply put, as bad a HC as Randy was, had he been president of The U instead of Donna, we could have avoided the worst scandal in ncaa history. End of story.

The accepting of a donation from a booster at the time thought to be clean is not the reason for the scandal. The scandal was based on what the players were doing behind everyone's backs.

Wow, you must be a very close relation of Donna. I've defended people for pay and would not spend this much time on it. Are you actually Donna? Or are you getting paid?

 

[duke4heisman]

So you are verifying our argument, Radio knew and felt that he was bad news and could get his players in trouble but you justify the troll as a University president not knowing or feeling this because her hand was out. GTFOH

Hanging out with someone vs. accepting donations from that person are completely unrelated things. So you can "GTFOH".

Yes. Hanging out is virtually meaningless compared to taking money. The first can be as innocent as merely being socially polite but the second is ALWAYS serious! You just hung your own argument. Simply put, as bad a HC as Randy was, had he been president of The U instead of Donna, we could have avoided the worst scandal in ncaa history. End of story.

The accepting of a donation from a booster at the time thought to be clean is not the reason for the scandal. The scandal was based on what the players were doing behind everyone's backs.

Wow, you must be a very close relation of Donna. I've defended people for pay and would not spend this much time on it. Are you actually Donna? Or are you getting paid?

I'm thoroughly convinced "Cane in heel country" is Donna but this cat is a close second, maybe Hillary??

 

[Gatorhater]

What "easy money" are you babbling about? Shapiro checked out as a legit businessman. Again, go read the FBI report. They themselves had a long delay in the case because after they got initial info that he was dirty, their entire case went cold for a full year because they could not find a shred of evidence against him. This occurred after the whole check incident. As far as anyone knew in the administration, Shapiro was an obnoxious loudmouth jerk, but a legitimate businessman who was donating to the school. If a school is going to not accept checks from any rich person that is obnoxious, that would eliminate half of the rich people.

Let's see if we can explain it better. When a person runs up to you in a bowling ally and thrust a $50K check into your inspecting hands, that is easy money. Donors do not throw money at you. Rick people dole out $$$ painfully. You have to "earn" it from them. They always get something in return. If the money comes to you "easy" is it almost always dirty money. Earned or inherited money is not parted with "easy". That is the red flag people who care will look for. Greedy people with borderline criminal natures like Donna just say "more please".

Nonsense. Donors give surprise gifts. It happens at other schools as well. It is quite typical. To say otherwise is simply a lie.

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

 

[Gatorhater]

Hanging out with someone vs. accepting donations from that person are completely unrelated things. So you can "GTFOH".

Yes. Hanging out is virtually meaningless compared to taking money. The first can be as innocent as merely being socially polite but the second is ALWAYS serious! You just hung your own argument. Simply put, as bad a HC as Randy was, had he been president of The U instead of Donna, we could have avoided the worst scandal in ncaa history. End of story.

The accepting of a donation from a booster at the time thought to be clean is not the reason for the scandal. The scandal was based on what the players were doing behind everyone's backs.

Wow, you must be a very close relation of Donna. I've defended people for pay and would not spend this much time on it. Are you actually Donna? Or are you getting paid?

I'm thoroughly convinced "Cane in heel country" is Donna but this cat is a close second, maybe Hillary??

They do seem attached to her in some way. I don't stand by my own children as blindly as they do Donna. Of course, two my kids are gators so maybe that is not a good comparison.

 

[dk72]

So you are verifying our argument, Radio knew and felt that he was bad news and could get his players in trouble but you justify the troll as a University president not knowing or feeling this because her hand was out. GTFOH

Hanging out with someone vs. accepting donations from that person are completely unrelated things. So you can "GTFOH".

Yes. Hanging out is virtually meaningless compared to taking money. The first can be as innocent as merely being socially polite but the second is ALWAYS serious! You just hung your own argument. Simply put, as bad a HC as Randy was, had he been president of The U instead of Donna, we could have avoided the worst scandal in ncaa history. End of story.

The accepting of a donation from a booster at the time thought to be clean is not the reason for the scandal. The scandal was based on what the players were doing behind everyone's backs.

Wow, you must be a very close relation of Donna. I've defended people for pay and would not spend this much time on it. Are you actually Donna? Or are you getting paid?

....he says as he spends just as much time responding...

 

[dk72]

Let's see if we can explain it better. When a person runs up to you in a bowling ally and thrust a $50K check into your inspecting hands, that is easy money. Donors do not throw money at you. Rick people dole out $$$ painfully. You have to "earn" it from them. They always get something in return. If the money comes to you "easy" is it almost always dirty money. Earned or inherited money is not parted with "easy". That is the red flag people who care will look for. Greedy people with borderline criminal natures like Donna just say "more please".

Nonsense. Donors give surprise gifts. It happens at other schools as well. It is quite typical. To say otherwise is simply a lie.

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

 

[Tad Footeball]

Nonsense. Donors give surprise gifts. It happens at other schools as well. It is quite typical. To say otherwise is simply a lie.

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

 

[Gatorhater]

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

Well put. Funny how "scientists" throw fact, logic and truth around so cheaply, when in fact, most of them are the biggest whores in the world. Most are constantly in search of research money to find there existence since they have failed to perform functions for which they can earn a paycheck. Unless they have "sold out" to big business are owned by educational institution presidents who, like Donna, have already done the whoring for them.

Now we can understand our friend. He, or she, is a scientist and therefore probably completely beholden to the fundraising/donor establishment. As an attorney I openly admit that 2 plus 2 equals whatever my client needs it to be. Scientists will fit whatever is needed into the findings of their research to get that grant. You want global warming, you got it. Need that changed to climate change, no problem. When I was in college, the same scientists where warning of the coming ice age. What get the $$$$. All the while claiming some sort of superiority as the only owners of truth. Clearly, our friend is in bed with Donna and her kind. Hey, we all need to feed our families. At least now we understand. It is all about the Benjamins. We understand, dk72.

 

[Gatorhater]

Hanging out with someone vs. accepting donations from that person are completely unrelated things. So you can "GTFOH".

Yes. Hanging out is virtually meaningless compared to taking money. The first can be as innocent as merely being socially polite but the second is ALWAYS serious! You just hung your own argument. Simply put, as bad a HC as Randy was, had he been president of The U instead of Donna, we could have avoided the worst scandal in ncaa history. End of story.

The accepting of a donation from a booster at the time thought to be clean is not the reason for the scandal. The scandal was based on what the players were doing behind everyone's backs.

Wow, you must be a very close relation of Donna. I've defended people for pay and would not spend this much time on it. Are you actually Donna? Or are you getting paid?

....he says as he spends just as much time responding...

Well, thanks to your champion, there is not much else to do. I have a surplus of cash since she has stopped me from ever wanting to give another dime to my school and I can only spend so much time in the casino. Nothing to talk about in football program, so that leaves Donna's obituaries. Checking back for your responses passes the time.

 

[dk72]

Please find me one picture of such a surprised other than your hero's. A lie is claiming Donna was a good president, now that is a lie.

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

No, couldn't care less about her political views, as the position, and her running of the University, have nothing to do with it. It's the haters that continually and constantly bring it up and taints your views.

 

[dk72]

The reality is, your view is 100% based on your political hatred of Shalala and your *****iness about our poor record as of late. If we had a winning record and she was of the "right" party you would be saying she did nothing wrong...and she didn't.

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

Well put. Funny how "scientists" throw fact, logic and truth around so cheaply, when in fact, most of them are the biggest whores in the world. Most are constantly in search of research money to find there existence since they have failed to perform functions for which they can earn a paycheck. Unless they have "sold out" to big business are owned by educational institution presidents who, like Donna, have already done the whoring for them.

Now we can understand our friend. He, or she, is a scientist and therefore probably completely beholden to the fundraising/donor establishment. As an attorney I openly admit that 2 plus 2 equals whatever my client needs it to be. Scientists will fit whatever is needed into the findings of their research to get that grant. You want global warming, you got it. Need that changed to climate change, no problem. When I was in college, the same scientists where warning of the coming ice age. What get the $$$$. All the while claiming some sort of superiority as the only owners of truth. Clearly, our friend is in bed with Donna and her kind. Hey, we all need to feed our families. At least now we understand. It is all about the Benjamins. We understand, dk72.

As a lawyer, it's clear that you have no idea how science works, but then your understanding of how much of anything works has been highly suspect. Don't even try to discuss science here, you're way out of your league, and already made a fool of yourself with your completely incorrect comment about climate change. As for "the Benjamins", no, Shalala being at UM or not, being in power or not, doesn't affect my pay in the least. But it's clear that for you, it's all about fact and reality being what you prefer and what fits your agenda, not actual fact and reality. I guarantee 100% you'd be kissing her *** if we were winning National Championships and she was dumping money into the program. You would be right along with me claiming she had no knowledge of Shapiro's wrongdoing (in which case you'd be right for the first time ever). Because for people like you, facts don't exist, only accepting things based on your emotional responses and preferences are allowed, and used to replace facts.

 

[SFbayCane]

The one thing that always seems to get left out of the Butch Davis discussions is the superior job he did at UM OFF THE FIELD. If you'll recall, he came to UM when the media was trying to have the program ended. Butch cleaned the program up completely while also amassing the greatest roster in the history of the sport. But again, what he did off the field always gets left out of the discussion, most often by those who want to associate him exclusively with UNC.

 

[Gatorhater]

You have mistaken me. I have no party affiliation, but the last time I had one, it was actually as a Democrat. Politically, I hate statism and statists. Since the Republicans are pretty much the fathers of statism in the US and I am aware of history, I do not like them and certainly do not trust them. Today, the Dems have left the republicans in the dust in seeking the Total State, so there is no love lost for them either. I hate Donna because she has destroyed Cane Football, and I believe it was purposeful. Howard got us into trouble with the ncaa also. I know him personally and blamed him for it face to face. Donna was in charge during the entire causative period of the greatest ncaa scandal in our history and I blame her for it. I do not hate Howard because he founded Cane football; I do hate Donna because she destroyed it. Donna's action might have a political element to them, but my dislike of her do not.

I don't really care, but I this point I at this point I feel you should declare your affiliations and connection to Donna. Clearly you have a deep bias in her favor.

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

Well put. Funny how "scientists" throw fact, logic and truth around so cheaply, when in fact, most of them are the biggest whores in the world. Most are constantly in search of research money to find there existence since they have failed to perform functions for which they can earn a paycheck. Unless they have "sold out" to big business are owned by educational institution presidents who, like Donna, have already done the whoring for them.

Now we can understand our friend. He, or she, is a scientist and therefore probably completely beholden to the fundraising/donor establishment. As an attorney I openly admit that 2 plus 2 equals whatever my client needs it to be. Scientists will fit whatever is needed into the findings of their research to get that grant. You want global warming, you got it. Need that changed to climate change, no problem. When I was in college, the same scientists where warning of the coming ice age. What get the $$$$. All the while claiming some sort of superiority as the only owners of truth. Clearly, our friend is in bed with Donna and her kind. Hey, we all need to feed our families. At least now we understand. It is all about the Benjamins. We understand, dk72.

As a lawyer, it's clear that you have no idea how science works, but then your understanding of how much of anything works has been highly suspect. Don't even try to discuss science here, you're way out of your league, and already made a fool of yourself with your completely incorrect comment about climate change. As for "the Benjamins", no, Shalala being at UM or not, being in power or not, doesn't affect my pay in the least. But it's clear that for you, it's all about fact and reality being what you prefer and what fits your agenda, not actual fact and reality. I guarantee 100% you'd be kissing her *** if we were winning National Championships and she was dumping money into the program. You would be right along with me claiming she had no knowledge of Shapiro's wrongdoing (in which case you'd be right for the first time ever). Because for people like you, facts don't exist, only accepting things based on your emotional responses and preferences are allowed, and used to replace facts.

Putting the personal insults aside, we have found common ground. You are right that if we were winning NC's and Donna was dumping $$$ into football we, I at least, would indeed be kissing her hands(don't think I could do her other body part you suggested) and might even defend her(I admitted the 2 + 2 equals what I need it to be). It is nice to see that you have now realized who wrong you were the accuse me and others of hating her for political or party reasons. I do note, however, that you did not publish that seemly new finding of yours.

Now if only you can get over your political bias. You rose to the "label" change from global warming to climate change in predictable manner. Not sure how my state was "completely incorrect". Did not the term "global warming" fall out us went the repeated cold winters made it to embarrassing to continue using it? Was it not replaced with "climate change" in speeches and writing? Did not the scientist support the theory of global warming follow the money and state proclaiming "climate change" as the new mantra? We do not need science to teach us about climate change. History is a true and more honest tutor for it. There have been many cold and warm periods recorded in history. Discovering the current warm period by your vaulted scientists was merely the discovery that might have begun coming out of the then current cold period which started several centuries ago. History also is full an huge social, economic, and political upheaval that usually comes with each change. We do not need political funded science ignoring these facts to blame things that are not the cause to naturally occurring change. By the way, the warm periods have usually been very beneficial. It is the cold one that have proven to be the *****es.

I like are little back and forth, but lets now firm up our common, non-political ground. Set neivn aside. If Donna had continued to deliver NC and $$$$ to football we would love her. Since she did not, can you now admit she sucked badly that part of her role as president and must accept a huge portion of the blame for the results?

Another day we can discuss horrible job she oversaw in the M&A activities for her U HEALTH child. Since have been doing M&A for almost 40 years the debate would be to uneven and lead you to more personal insults which, I assume, are uncharacteristic of scientists.

 

[dk72]

My "deep bias" is for fact, logic, and truth. As a scientist, it always annoys me when people try to pick and choose what is fact and truth based on what they prefer or want to believe. Fact is fact, truth is truth. Period. Watching the nutcases on here make ridiculous comments such as Shalala intentionally "destroyed" the program, and others even being so ridiculous (some which originally liked Golden) as to try to claim that Golden is complicit with the Sandusky crimes, all based on nothing more than being ****y about the losses, and in many cases, yes, political claims being made as well. It's pathetic.

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

Well put. Funny how "scientists" throw fact, logic and truth around so cheaply, when in fact, most of them are the biggest whores in the world. Most are constantly in search of research money to find there existence since they have failed to perform functions for which they can earn a paycheck. Unless they have "sold out" to big business are owned by educational institution presidents who, like Donna, have already done the whoring for them.

Now we can understand our friend. He, or she, is a scientist and therefore probably completely beholden to the fundraising/donor establishment. As an attorney I openly admit that 2 plus 2 equals whatever my client needs it to be. Scientists will fit whatever is needed into the findings of their research to get that grant. You want global warming, you got it. Need that changed to climate change, no problem. When I was in college, the same scientists where warning of the coming ice age. What get the $$$$. All the while claiming some sort of superiority as the only owners of truth. Clearly, our friend is in bed with Donna and her kind. Hey, we all need to feed our families. At least now we understand. It is all about the Benjamins. We understand, dk72.

As a lawyer, it's clear that you have no idea how science works, but then your understanding of how much of anything works has been highly suspect. Don't even try to discuss science here, you're way out of your league, and already made a fool of yourself with your completely incorrect comment about climate change. As for "the Benjamins", no, Shalala being at UM or not, being in power or not, doesn't affect my pay in the least. But it's clear that for you, it's all about fact and reality being what you prefer and what fits your agenda, not actual fact and reality. I guarantee 100% you'd be kissing her *** if we were winning National Championships and she was dumping money into the program. You would be right along with me claiming she had no knowledge of Shapiro's wrongdoing (in which case you'd be right for the first time ever). Because for people like you, facts don't exist, only accepting things based on your emotional responses and preferences are allowed, and used to replace facts.

Putting the personal insults aside, we have found common ground. You are right that if we were winning NC's and Donna was dumping $$$ into football we, I at least, would indeed be kissing her hands(don't think I could do her other body part you suggested) and might even defend her(I admitted the 2 + 2 equals what I need it to be). It is nice to see that you have now realized who wrong you were the accuse me and others of hating her for political or party reasons. I do note, however, that you did not publish that seemly new finding of yours.

Now if only you can get over your political bias. You rose to the "label" change from global warming to climate change in predictable manner. Not sure how my state was "completely incorrect". Did not the term "global warming" fall out us went the repeated cold winters made it to embarrassing to continue using it? Was it not replaced with "climate change" in speeches and writing? Did not the scientist support the theory of global warming follow the money and state proclaiming "climate change" as the new mantra? We do not need science to teach us about climate change. History is a true and more honest tutor for it. There have been many cold and warm periods recorded in history. Discovering the current warm period by your vaulted scientists was merely the discovery that might have begun coming out of the then current cold period which started several centuries ago. History also is full an huge social, economic, and political upheaval that usually comes with each change. We do not need political funded science ignoring these facts to blame things that are not the cause to naturally occurring change. By the way, the warm periods have usually been very beneficial. It is the cold one that have proven to be the *****es.

I like are little back and forth, but lets now firm up our common, non-political ground. Set neivn aside. If Donna had continued to deliver NC and $$$$ to football we would love her. Since she did not, can you now admit she sucked badly that part of her role as president and must accept a huge portion of the blame for the results?

Another day we can discuss horrible job she oversaw in the M&A activities for her U HEALTH child. Since have been doing M&A for almost 40 years the debate would be to uneven and lead you to more personal insults which, I assume, are uncharacteristic of scientists.

Glad to discuss the climate change issue elsewhere, as this is supposed to be a football forum, though people seem to discuss more politics and other whining than actual football. However, you are completely incorrect in your "understanding" of the situation. The "global cooling" pushed by a portion of the media a few decades ago was based on a couple of popular science magazines discussing the findings of a handful of research papers that were not widely accepted by climate scientists at the time. In fact, even back then the number of scientific papers predicting climate WARMING outnumbered the cooling papers by many multiples. I can send you all kinds of actual facts on that if you were actually interested. As for climate change, that has always been the scientific term used. "Global warming" was the easy pop-science way of describing it for the lay folk, and ultimately it is accurate as there is a NET warming. However, anyone who understands even the most basic climate science knows that while net warming can occur, some areas can get hotter while others get colder. It's also what every model predicts.

As for Shalala, bottom line is like her or dislike her politics, blame her or not for the state of the football program, trying to pretend her acceptance of Shapiro's donation was some big deal and she should have known better is revisionist history based on your bias against her.

 

[Gatorhater]

If you're a real scientist and not a "social scientist" then I pray whatever lab you may ever grace with your presence has higher standards than you apply to Shalala's administration. Your apparent respect of her political views is actually what interferes with actual facts in these threads. Political allegiance is the only thing short of being a blood relative that would justify the devotion you and your brethren in Heel Country share.

Well put. Funny how "scientists" throw fact, logic and truth around so cheaply, when in fact, most of them are the biggest whores in the world. Most are constantly in search of research money to find there existence since they have failed to perform functions for which they can earn a paycheck. Unless they have "sold out" to big business are owned by educational institution presidents who, like Donna, have already done the whoring for them.

Now we can understand our friend. He, or she, is a scientist and therefore probably completely beholden to the fundraising/donor establishment. As an attorney I openly admit that 2 plus 2 equals whatever my client needs it to be. Scientists will fit whatever is needed into the findings of their research to get that grant. You want global warming, you got it. Need that changed to climate change, no problem. When I was in college, the same scientists where warning of the coming ice age. What get the $$$$. All the while claiming some sort of superiority as the only owners of truth. Clearly, our friend is in bed with Donna and her kind. Hey, we all need to feed our families. At least now we understand. It is all about the Benjamins. We understand, dk72.

As a lawyer, it's clear that you have no idea how science works, but then your understanding of how much of anything works has been highly suspect. Don't even try to discuss science here, you're way out of your league, and already made a fool of yourself with your completely incorrect comment about climate change. As for "the Benjamins", no, Shalala being at UM or not, being in power or not, doesn't affect my pay in the least. But it's clear that for you, it's all about fact and reality being what you prefer and what fits your agenda, not actual fact and reality. I guarantee 100% you'd be kissing her *** if we were winning National Championships and she was dumping money into the program. You would be right along with me claiming she had no knowledge of Shapiro's wrongdoing (in which case you'd be right for the first time ever). Because for people like you, facts don't exist, only accepting things based on your emotional responses and preferences are allowed, and used to replace facts.

Putting the personal insults aside, we have found common ground. You are right that if we were winning NC's and Donna was dumping $$$ into football we, I at least, would indeed be kissing her hands(don't think I could do her other body part you suggested) and might even defend her(I admitted the 2 + 2 equals what I need it to be). It is nice to see that you have now realized who wrong you were the accuse me and others of hating her for political or party reasons. I do note, however, that you did not publish that seemly new finding of yours.

Now if only you can get over your political bias. You rose to the "label" change from global warming to climate change in predictable manner. Not sure how my state was "completely incorrect". Did not the term "global warming" fall out us went the repeated cold winters made it to embarrassing to continue using it? Was it not replaced with "climate change" in speeches and writing? Did not the scientist support the theory of global warming follow the money and state proclaiming "climate change" as the new mantra? We do not need science to teach us about climate change. History is a true and more honest tutor for it. There have been many cold and warm periods recorded in history. Discovering the current warm period by your vaulted scientists was merely the discovery that might have begun coming out of the then current cold period which started several centuries ago. History also is full an huge social, economic, and political upheaval that usually comes with each change. We do not need political funded science ignoring these facts to blame things that are not the cause to naturally occurring change. By the way, the warm periods have usually been very beneficial. It is the cold one that have proven to be the *****es.

I like are little back and forth, but lets now firm up our common, non-political ground. Set neivn aside. If Donna had continued to deliver NC and $$$$ to football we would love her. Since she did not, can you now admit she sucked badly that part of her role as president and must accept a huge portion of the blame for the results?

Another day we can discuss horrible job she oversaw in the M&A activities for her U HEALTH child. Since have been doing M&A for almost 40 years the debate would be to uneven and lead you to more personal insults which, I assume, are uncharacteristic of scientists.

Glad to discuss the climate change issue elsewhere, as this is supposed to be a football forum, though people seem to discuss more politics and other whining than actual football. However, you are completely incorrect in your "understanding" of the situation. The "global cooling" pushed by a portion of the media a few decades ago was based on a couple of popular science magazines discussing the findings of a handful of research papers that were not widely accepted by climate scientists at the time. In fact, even back then the number of scientific papers predicting climate WARMING outnumbered the cooling papers by many multiples. I can send you all kinds of actual facts on that if you were actually interested. As for climate change, that has always been the scientific term used. "Global warming" was the easy pop-science way of describing it for the lay folk, and ultimately it is accurate as there is a NET warming. However, anyone who understands even the most basic climate science knows that while net warming can occur, some areas can get hotter while others get colder. It's also what every model predicts.

As for Shalala, bottom line is like her or dislike her politics, blame her or not for the state of the football program, trying to pretend her acceptance of Shapiro's donation was some big deal and she should have known better is revisionist history based on your bias against her.

Wow, that was fast. Just have a minute. As to Donna, buck stops at the top, period. Anyway you want to slice the pie, it is her fault. In a court of law, the determiner of fact in our system, that photo of her would have hung around her neck until she choked. A a common lay person you might think otherwise, but you would be wrong.

As to climate change, you ignored my point. It is an historic fact that does not need science to be known. But thanks for advising the Brits that it is again safe to grow wine gapes in England; it has been hundreds of years since they could and I am sure the news was welcome.