IlliniHQ 2
General Category => Halas Hall Football Forum => Topic started by: Jobu on September 30, 2024, 01:37:03 PM
-
Just wanted to go ahead and start this one, since I've already admitted it in another thread. I didn't think the fucking Bears could run the ball using power football concepts, but they did it against the Rams in the second half in week 4.
I was wrong about it. I want to acknowledge it, and Custard, can you go ahead and pin this so we can all have a reminder of how wrong I was in this instance?
Thanks.
-
Lol
-
And I’m the one who overreacts…
-
About little things…
-
welcome to the club buddy!
-
welcome to the club buddy!
Thanks
-
I don't feel like I'm overreacting. I want this thread pinned. Just so we all know that I can admit that I was wrong.
-
Seriously, I made two comments about it in like one minute. I didn’t go on and on about it. Sorry I said anything. Especially after I saw your conciliatory post from last week.
-
I don't feel like I'm overreacting. I want this thread pinned. Just so we all know that I can admit that I was wrong.
This could get you nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
-
Seriously, I made two comments about it in like one minute. I didn’t go on and on about it. Sorry I said anything. Especially after I saw your conciliatory post from last week.
Am I supposed to accept that as some kind of real apology? Because it's not one.
Yes, I made a post allowing for you to be right, after further thought. It didn't matter. It's whatever. I don't need an apology. It's fine. The only thing is don't tell me I haven't been nice to you, and I've been busting your balls when I haven't been.
-
This could get you nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I don't need the Nobel Peace Prize, lol. I have been decent to you. You shit on me today. It is what it is.
-
Custard, if you wouldn't mind, go ahead and pin this. Seriously.
-
I continued after the play was blown dead. My bad. Sorry I went there.
-
Honestly, I think I did it because of the way you talk to Spark. Spark and I have had our differences, but he makes this place more fun. And ultimately I respect him. You can say what you want, though. You’re obviously going to anyway. I like having Spark here.
-
Honestly, I think I did it because of the way you talk to Spark. Spark and I have had our differences, but he makes this place more fun. And ultimately I respect him. You can say what you want, though. You’re obviously going to anyway. I like having Spark here.
Really? Uh, ok. That makes zero sense. Spark has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.
Yeah, I don't know. I'm speechless here, actually. Can anyone come in here and make any sense out of this? Where does Spark come into Tempo slam dunking my ass over something I already admitted to being wrong about?
Honestly. Are we in the fucking twilight zone? Because I don't know...
Oh, and I don't want to complete this post without saying that Spark can go fuck himself.
-
So, if I tell Spark to go fuck himself, Tempo then feel justified in being a dick.
Lot to unpack there.
-
Actually, I'm feeling sick and I'm tired. I'm logging off. I really just don't care anymore.
Tempo, congratulations. Seriously. I was wrong, and you were there to dunk on my ass. It was truly glorious for you I'm sure, and it's an amazing thing. I'm really happy for you.
-
Basically Jobu brought Tempo's wrath upon himself not because of what Jobu said to/about Tempo, but what Jobu said to/about Spark.
This is all about Tempo white knighting for Spark.
Maybe Custard can make a Spark Shrine for Tempo next?
-
I don't know. I am super confused.
-
Some suggestions for Tempo's Spark Shrine:
*A picture of Spark Mandrill (or Spark Mandriller, as Robb once called him).
*Jobu from Major League (appearing to be dead of course).
*Reggie (as in Reggie Jackson), Jobu's "son."
*A picture of Trubisky as a Bear. And Payton Manning, since, per Tempo, Spark compared Trubisky favorably to Manning. (I think I have that right.)
*A picture of Khalil Mack as a Bear.
*Terrence Shannon Jr. in prison garb.
Anything else?
-
Well, anyway. I was wrong about the Bears running game. I've been wrong about a lot of shit. Just ask my wife. She can tell you. Hell, my kids can probably come up with some shit too.
I basically suck. I'm worth more dead than alive, based on my insurance. Hell, maybe my shitty heart will give out when I'm sleeping and solve other people's problems. Who knows.
Doesn't matter. The world keeps turning regardless.
-
I basically suck. I'm worth more dead than alive, based on my insurance. Hell, maybe my shitty heart will give out when I'm sleeping and solve other people's problems. Who knows.
Now you are going to piss off Spark again too?
-
Now you are going to piss off Spark again too?
I don't know. It's whatever.
-
Some suggestions for Tempo's Spark Shrine:
*A picture of Spark Mandrill (or Spark Mandriller, as Robb once called him).
*Jobu from Major League (appearing to be dead of course).
*Reggie (as in Reggie Jackson), Jobu's "son."
*A picture of Trubisky as a Bear. And Payton Manning, since, per Tempo, Spark compared Trubisky favorably to Manning. (I think I have that right.)
*A picture of Khalil Mack as a Bear.
*Terrence Shannon Jr. in prison garb.
Anything else?
Spark’s impressive collection of woke vocabulary like cis-whatever and pronouns!
-
I don't know how many people on here have gone to bed, and said a prayer, and told God that you don't care if you wake up.
Then, sometimes, you say the prayer that says God, I don't want to wake up, and just take me. But you wake up.
Some days are better than others. Some days are amazing. Some days are bad. Sometimes you can't tell the difference.
I don't know. My childhood was pretty much fucked. I had to get away from my parents, so I signed up for the Air Force.
I couldn't get on the officer track, so I went the NCO route. That's how I ended up as an airman in Wyoming. Eventually became a missile training instructor.
Then, finished my degree. Now, I have a good leadership position in a top company in my field. So, it's been really good. I've had to work insanely hard to get to where I am, and making what I'm making. And, for the most part I'm happy. For the most part. But sometimes, I still don't feel like I want to wake up. Even though I always do.
-
Spark’s impressive collection of woke vocabulary like cis-whatever and pronouns!
Spark can seriously go fuck himself.
-
All I did was needle his ass in a couple of posts about the power run game. Like two posts. I even said I’m sorry I did it because I read the post where he said I was probably right after I’d already given him a little shit. I apologized. I’ll do it again. I regret giving Jobu shit about the run game. Didn’t know I’d spark an international incident. No pun intended.
-
All I did was needle his ass in a couple of posts about the power run game. Like two posts. I even said I’m sorry I did it because I read the post where he said I was probably right after I’d already given him a little shit. I apologized. I’ll do it again. I regret giving Jobu shit about the run game. Didn’t know I’d spark an international incident. No pun intended.
All because you were white knighting for Spark....SMDH.
-
Lol
-
Spark’s impressive collection of woke vocabulary like cis-whatever and pronouns!
As always, the worst thing a person can do on this board: be a decent human being.
You’ve cultivated that atmosphere perfectly here, to where the most mockery is reserved for those with a conscience.
-
As always, the worst thing a person can do on this board: be a decent human being.
You’ve cultivated that atmosphere perfectly here, to where the most mockery is reserved for those with a conscience.
You were really a decent human being and had a conscience when it came to Terrence Shannon Jr.....
-
Yep, I was. I wanted to let the process play out, let the evidence come out, not just declare his guilt or innocence one way or the other because I like the college basketball team he was on.
What's funny is how many times I said something in that thread, got hammered for it, and then watched calvin come in and say the same thing to crickets. It's almost like you were reacting to the source, not the content!
That you are not intelligent enough to even understand what I was saying during the Shannon situation isn't really my problem. If you want to go after the people who reacted without conscience to that situation, look at the people who immediately doxxed his accuser the day he was acquitted. Look at the people (mostly from other schools) who were screaming to throw him in jail as soon as he was accused. Look at the people who called her a slut because of the college basketball team he played on.
Nope, you picked out the guy who said let the process play out, let the evidence they have or don't have come out before you claim firmly that he was guilty or innocent. Kind of proving my point for me here bud.
-
Yep, I was.
What's funny is how many times I said something in that thread, got hammered for it, and then watched calvin come in and say the same thing to crickets. It's almost like you were reacting to the source, not the content!
That you are not intelligent enough to even understand what I was saying during the Shannon situation isn't really my problem. If you want to go after the people who reacted without conscience to that situation, look at the people who immediately doxxed his accuser the day he was acquitted. Look at the people (mostly from other schools) who were screaming to throw him in jail as soon as he was accused. Look at the people who called her a slut because of the college basketball team he played on.
Nope, you picked out the guy who said let the process play out, let the evidence they have or don't have come out before you claim firmly that he was guilty or innocent. Kind of proving my point for me here bud.
No, you were not, you lying piece of shit.
-
No, you were not, you lying piece of shit.
Lie about me all you want bud. It fits with the complete moral void you've become in the last few years. The thread's all still there, we can all see what I said and didn't say.
-
Lie about me all you want bud. It fits with the complete moral void you've become in the last few years. The thread's all still there, we can all see what I said and didn't say.
It certainly is, you piece of crap.
-
It certainly is, you piece of crap.
I assume you can find ample evidence to prove my lack of conscience regarding TSJ, then.
And if you can't, which I think we both know is the case, that's pretty telling too. Basically what you have is "spark thought Shannon should've been held out with a pending felony rape charge". Yep, true - I don't make those sorts of decisions based on whether the person plays for a sports team I like.
There were certainly a few times I was wrong about how something would be ruled - in particular, I thought (and still think) the judge ruling that allowed him to play was crazy, and obviously I wasn't alone in that. But that's not what you're trying to sell here, so I invite you to prove your claim.
-
I assume you can find ample evidence to prove my lack of conscience regarding TSJ, then.
And if you can't, which I think we both know is the case, that's pretty telling too. Basically what you have is "spark thought Shannon should've been held out with a pending felony rape charge". Yep, true - I don't make those sorts of decisions based on whether the person plays for a sports team I like.
There were certainly a few times I was wrong about how something would be ruled - in particular, I thought (and still think) the judge ruling that allowed him to play was crazy, and obviously I wasn't alone in that. But that's not what you're trying to sell here, so I invite you to prove your claim.
GMAFB you lying piece of shit. In addition to claiming that Shannon should be denied due process and sucking Whitman's cock after his speech, I know you said no lawyer would allow their client under indictment participate in a Title IX investigation before the criminal trial. Yet Shannon did allow himself to be interviewed.
-
The guy who was basically wrong about the whole damn case, the role of the DNA, the Title IX investigation, Illinois' following its own processes, blah blah blah, now claims he was fair to Shannon....How fucking pathetic for even a know-it-all like Spark.
-
Next he will tell us he was right about the Mack trade....
-
Sounds like you couldn't find any evidence for your claim.
I'm shocked.
I bet you found at least a few different times I said I hadn't seen any evidence that'd lead me to convict him, though.
-
Well, this thread took on a life of its own. Lol
-
Sounds like you couldn't find any evidence for your claim.
I'm shocked.
I bet you found at least a few different times I said I hadn't seen any evidence that'd lead me to convict him, though.
After it was over, you lying asshole. Up to that point, you said he should not be allowed to play, the judge was an idiot, the DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him, no one would participate in a Title IX investigation when criminal proceedings were pending, etc. Everything you were wrong about is in that thread.
-
Well, this thread took on a life of its own. Lol
Like Tempo, he cannot admit to being wrong.
-
Like Tempo, he cannot admit to being wrong.
Yeah, lol. Ironic given the thread title.
Anyway, carry on. I'm gonna grab some popcorn.
-
I've been BEGGING you to go find the evidence of your claim to prove me wrong, and you refuse to. Go find a post or two where I operated without conscience regarding the TSJ case - should be extremely easy, since I'm such a lying piece of shit. Something where I called him a rapist, or where I said he should be locked up, etc. I'm all ears.
I think you and I both know the reason for your refusal, it's just funny to watch you try to keep up the charade.
-
I've been BEGGING you to go find the evidence of your claim to prove me wrong, and you refuse to. Go find a post or two where I operated without conscience regarding the TSJ case - should be extremely easy, since I'm such a lying piece of shit. Something where I called him a rapist, or where I said he should be locked up, etc. I'm all ears.
I think you and I both know the reason for your refusal, it's just funny to watch you try to keep up the charade.
Nice Tempo routine. You have said so much bullshit you cannot even remember it. I went through and read it. It was after the verdict you said there was not enough evidence to convict him.
You are a fraud. I repeated all the shit you were wrong about. You were wrong then. You are wrong now. You are a disingenuous weasel who has no character. Talk about a charade.
-
After it was over, you lying asshole. Up to that point, you said he should not be allowed to play, the judge was an idiot, the DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him, no one would participate in a Title IX investigation when criminal proceedings were pending, etc. Everything you were wrong about is in that thread.
You're lying about a number of my positions here, which I suppose you have to to keep up the act.
I said the university should have the right to choose who represents them, and if they don't want someone with a pending felony rape charge on the court that should be their prerogative - yes. That was a unanimous opinion until it happened to OUR best player, which is surely just a coincidence and not that complete moral void I've been talking about.
I didn't say the judge was an idiot, but I've acknowledged a number of times I was shocked that she granted the TRO. From what I saw, most people with even a layman's knowledge of the law were surprised by it. I also said over and over it doesn't matter what I think, the judge's ruling is what mattered - once the ruling came down, I was fine with him playing (and in fact, it was the only possible choice).
I have no idea where you even got the third claim about me saying DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him. I took umbrage with the ridiculous slutshaming that stemmed from the pointed release of the DNA report, but said over and over in that thread that if the vaginal swab wasn't a match then it shouldn't even go to trial - it did, but they reached the correct verdict.
I said that no lawyer is going to present their client's evidence at some University OSCR panel, and no lawyer did. They interviewed Shannon, and then they dropped the case as soon as the season was over because - who'da thunk it - they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt or innocence, nothing from the accuser, nothing from the police. I said I thought it was a crazy precedent that he had to be determined to be guilty by a University panel before they could suspend him, because that panel would necessarily not have the evidence they'd need to make that determination - and then when they dropped the case for that exact, explicit reason you started ranting about how wrong I was for being exactly right.
Just lie after lie after lie. But when your base-level point is a lie, you have to lie about the evidence too to pretend to win.
-
I really fucking love it when people say "oh go back and find where I said that. Provide evidence of me saying that." Knowing full well it's damn near impossible to search back and find old shit on here without spending an inordinate amount of time on it.
Like I always say. Do your own fucking research.
-
What's funny is how many times I said something in that thread, got hammered for it, and then watched calvin come in and say the same thing to crickets. It's almost like you were reacting to the source, not the content!
Calvin will state his opinion or take with a lot of clarity. I don't recall him posting anything like this:
That you are not intelligent enough to even understand what I was saying during the Shannon situation isn't really my problem.
-
Nice Tempo routine. You have said so much bullshit you cannot even remember it. I went through and read it. It was after the verdict you said there was not enough evidence to convict him.
You are a fraud. I repeated all the shit you were wrong about. You were wrong then. You are wrong now. You are a disingenuous weasel who has no character. Talk about a charade.
No, it wasn't after the verdict. You're lying. I said I hadn't seen the evidence I'd need to vote to convict multiple times:
Here's one from May 2nd:
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg124946.html#msg124946
Here's one from May 17th:
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125493.html#msg125493
He was acquitted on June 13th.
Just lies on lies on lies. And I even have evidence, rather than "just pretend with me".
-
Nichi just fucked Spark in the ass. Lol
-
Calvin will state his opinion or take with a lot of clarity. I don't recall him posting anything like this:
You must've blocked out when he called the way you guys were acting "pitchfork carrying dipshittery", or when he called a tweet you all latched onto "Illini homerism masquerading as legal analysis", or when he called the way people here were acting about the accuser "fucking ridiculous".
You, in particular, vacillated wildly from "she made it all up" to "it was someone else and she misidentified him" and back again.
-
Nichi just fucked Spark in the ass. Lol
Very few people showed their ass more thoroughly during the TSJ situation than nichi. On this particular board, only JJ and Custard that I remember.
-
I really fucking love it when people say "oh go back and find where I said that. Provide evidence of me saying that." Knowing full well it's damn near impossible to search back and find old shit on here without spending an inordinate amount of time on it.
Like I always say. Do your own fucking research.
I already did, and I know he's full of shit. It took 10 minutes to read through the two threads about it.
I love how you're projecting that onto me - the person saying "if your claim is true there should be evidence, you should provide it" and not the person making a claim and refusing to provide evidence supporting it.
-
Very few people showed their ass more thoroughly during the TSJ situation than nichi. On this particular board, only JJ and Custard that I remember.
Eh. Basically, TSJ got fucked, and you were there for it. That's pretty much what it boils down to. I'll admit, my first thought was that he fucked up. I have since learned to not jump to conclusions about shit like that.
-
Very few people showed their ass more thoroughly during the TSJ situation than nichi. On this particular board, only JJ and Custard that I remember.
How dare you call me JJ! You don’t know me like that! Calling people things they don’t wanna be called! That’s not my name! How sensitive of you!
-
I already did, and I know he's full of shit. It took 10 minutes to read through the two threads about it.
I love how you're projecting that onto me - the person saying "if your claim is true there should be evidence, you should provide it" and not the person making a claim and refusing to provide evidence supporting it.
I'm not projecting shit. Was just making an observation. Tempo loves doing that kind of shit too.
You guys are butt buddies with regard to how you argue shit lol
-
How dare you call me JJ! You don’t know me like that! Calling people things they don’t wanna be called! That’s not my name! How sensitive of you!
Yeah. Call him Judy, or Judge. You don't know him like that.
-
Eh. Basically, TSJ got fucked, and you were there for it. That's pretty much what it boils down to. I'll admit, my first thought was that he fucked up. I have since learned to not jump to conclusions about shit like that.
There for what?
I never once jumped to the conclusion that he was guilty, so sounds like maybe you were more 'there for it' than I was.
-
I'm not projecting shit. Was just making an observation. Tempo loves doing that kind of shit too.
You guys are butt buddies with regard to how you argue shit lol
Yes - we ask for evidence supporting claims, especially inflammatory personal claims about ourselves.
God, what a couple morons!
-
How dare you call me JJ! You don’t know me like that! Calling people things they don’t wanna be called! That’s not my name! How sensitive of you!
I've been told fuck your feelings, I'll call you what I want - isn't that the worldview you subscribe to?
-
I've been told fuck your feelings, I'll call you what I want - isn't that the worldview you subscribe to?
So you AREN’T any better than anyone else?! Maybe you should start a thread called that!
-
So you AREN’T any better than anyone else?! Maybe you should start a thread called that!
Just trying to not be so self-righteous by treating people decently and how they want to be treated, like you've been saying for years.
Now you want to change your mind and come after me for taking your advice?
Ignoring, of course, the stupidity of your argument here.
Should I use the names/pronouns you want me to use for you, or should I say 'fuck that' and call you what I want? I'll let you choose, but you have to exhibit the same behavior.
-
Just trying to not be so self-righteous by treating people decently and how they want to be treated, like you've been saying for years.
Now you want to change your mind and come after me for taking your advice?
Ignoring, of course, the stupidity of your argument here.
Should I use the names/pronouns you want me to use for you, or should I say 'fuck that' and call you what I want? I'll let you choose, but you have to exhibit the same behavior.
Typical gaslighting…
-
Typical gaslighting…
Go ahead and pick! I'm happy to abide by whichever you choose, as long as you do too.
Should I call people by the names and pronouns they want to be called by? Or should I say fuck them and call them whatever I want?
-
Go ahead and pick! I'm happy to abide by whichever you choose, as long as you do too.
Should I call people by the names and pronouns they want to be called by? Or should I say fuck them and call them whatever I want?
I wanna be called Spark’s daddy. What would you like to be called?
-
Sure!
Just spark mandrill or spark is fine with me. And make sure you also call others the names and pronouns they want to be called, if you’re going to be particular about yours.
-
You, in particular, vacillated wildly from "she made it all up" to "it was someone else and she misidentified him" and back again.
Those were both valid "reasonable doubts."I didn't think you lacked the intelligence to grasp that.
I believed he was innocent based on what I know about his character. The accusations didn't fit. Proving if beyond a reasonable doubt was another thing.
The job of his defense was to create one or more reasonable doubts. "She made it up" and "she misidentified him" were both reasonable theories supported by evidence -- along with an inadequate investigation, the attempt by the prosecution to misrepresent the DNA evidence, etc.
The charges should never have been brought..
I never vacillated on anything.
-
You're lying about a number of my positions here, which I suppose you have to to keep up the act.
I said the university should have the right to choose who represents them, and if they don't want someone with a pending felony rape charge on the court that should be their prerogative - yes. That was a unanimous opinion until it happened to OUR best player, which is surely just a coincidence and not that complete moral void I've been talking about.
I didn't say the judge was an idiot, but I've acknowledged a number of times I was shocked that she granted the TRO. From what I saw, most people with even a layman's knowledge of the law were surprised by it. I also said over and over it doesn't matter what I think, the judge's ruling is what mattered - once the ruling came down, I was fine with him playing (and in fact, it was the only possible choice).
I have no idea where you even got the third claim about me saying DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him. I took umbrage with the ridiculous slutshaming that stemmed from the pointed release of the DNA report, but said over and over in that thread that if the vaginal swab wasn't a match then it shouldn't even go to trial - it did, but they reached the correct verdict.
I said that no lawyer is going to present their client's evidence at some University OSCR panel, and no lawyer did. They interviewed Shannon, and then they dropped the case as soon as the season was over because - who'da thunk it - they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt or innocence, nothing from the accuser, nothing from the police. I said I thought it was a crazy precedent that he had to be determined to be guilty by a University panel before they could suspend him, because that panel would necessarily not have the evidence they'd need to make that determination - and then when they dropped the case for that exact, explicit reason you started ranting about how wrong I was for being exactly right.
Just lie after lie after lie. But when your base-level point is a lie, you have to lie about the evidence too to pretend to win.
Bullshit. You are fucking lying. For example, you said no one was going to participate in the Title IX investigation while criminal charges were pending. We all know Shannon allowed himself to be interviewed.
You are lying about the DNA of other people being found not playing a role in the case...
The judge is an idiot, blah blah blah.
You are a fraud. Go crawl back into your hole.
-
Those were both valid "reasonable doubts."I didn't think you lacked the intelligence to grasp that.
I believed he was innocent based on what I know about his character. The accusations didn't fit. Proving if beyond a reasonable doubt was another thing.
The job of his defense was to create one or more reasonable doubts. "She made it up" and "she misidentified him" were both reasonable theories supported by evidence -- along with an inadequate investigation, the attempt by the prosecution to misrepresent the DNA evidence, etc.
The charges should never have been brought..
I never vacillated on anything.
And now Shannon is suing people over the case....
-
As always, the worst thing a person can do on this board: be a decent human being.
You’ve cultivated that atmosphere perfectly here, to where the most mockery is reserved for those with a conscience.
Surprised he hasn’t changed the name to XQ!
-
Yep, I was. I wanted to let the process play out, let the evidence come out, not just declare his guilt or innocence one way or the other because I like the college basketball team he was on.
What's funny is how many times I said something in that thread, got hammered for it, and then watched calvin come in and say the same thing to crickets. It's almost like you were reacting to the source, not the content!
That you are not intelligent enough to even understand what I was saying during the Shannon situation isn't really my problem. If you want to go after the people who reacted without conscience to that situation, look at the people who immediately doxxed his accuser the day he was acquitted. Look at the people (mostly from other schools) who were screaming to throw him in jail as soon as he was accused. Look at the people who called her a slut because of the college basketball team he played on.
Nope, you picked out the guy who said let the process play out, let the evidence they have or don't have come out before you claim firmly that he was guilty or innocent. Kind of proving my point for me here bud.
I think Spark has zeroed in on something here!
-
Those were both valid "reasonable doubts."
I din't think you lacked the intelligence to grasp that.
I believed he was innocent based on what I know about his character. The accusations didn't fit. Proving if beyond a reasonable doubt was another thing.
The job of his defense was to create one or more reasonable doubts. "She made it up" and "she misidentified him" were both reasonable theories supported by evidence -- along with an inadequate investigation, the attempt by the prosecution to misrepresent the DNA evidence, etc.
The charges should never have been brought..
I never vacillated on anything.
No one had to prove he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not how the courts work.
I don’t think it was reasonably in doubt that you guys were being pitchfork carrying dipshits, that you were beholden to Illini homers masquerading as legal analysts, etc. so no issue with that from me.
I suppose there’s “reasonable doubt” whether PAMan wasn’t smart enough to understand what I was saying, or if he was and continues to just lie about what I was saying. Fair enough.
Yes, you absolutely did vacillate multiple times throughout the case. You were sure it was made up. Then you were sure it was Arterio Morris. Whatever the Illini homers masquerading as legal analysts told you to believe that day. Pretend away if it makes you feel better.
-
Surprised he hasn’t changed the name to XQ!
I would have gone with XQ2, but a good one nonetheless, Tempo.
-
And now Shannon is suing people over the case....
I doubt he wins, but hope he does - and fully support his lawsuit. It’s going to be a hard thing to prove even to a preponderance of the evidence, barring evidence we haven’t seen yet, though. Sound familiar?
-
Just trying to not be so self-righteous by treating people decently and how they want to be treated, like you've been saying for years.
you are hands down the most self righteous bitch I've seen on this site at least
takes you about one or two posts before you start insulting people's intelligence
-
Lie about me all you want bud. It fits with the complete moral void you've become in the last few years. The thread's all still there, we can all see what I said and didn't say.
I avoided that thread (hard to believe, huh?!). No way I’m going back and reading it. Calvin? You here? I’d trust your version!
-
you are hands down the most self righteous bitch I've seen on this site at least
takes you about one or two posts before you start insulting people's intelligence
It rarely takes more than one before you start showing your corresponding lack.
-
I avoided that thread (hard to believe, huh?!). No way I’m going back and reading it. Calvin? You here? I’d trust your version!
You posted in this thread....
-
Next he will tell us he was right about the Mack trade....
Hey…hey…hey…now you’re just being ridiculous!
-
The two biggest guys who rely on the "find a post where I said that," knowing the Search function here is really lacking, are Tempo and Spark. No similarities there at all....
-
Like Tempo, he cannot admit to being wrong.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahhahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahaha.
-
I avoided that thread (hard to believe, huh?!). No way I’m going back and reading it. Calvin? You here? I’d trust your version!
You really think I was in there denigrating TSJ, saying he was guilty or should be locked up? You know me better than that.
What they’re right about is that I thought (and still think) that university athletic departments should be able to suspend a player even without a criminal conviction. But again that was a unanimous opinion right up until the day our best player was charged. End of the day, no matter how crazy it is it doesn’t matter what I think - the judge made the ruling.
-
I’m going to need a ruling from Calvin.
-
I haven't heard Spark's opinion yet on power football concepts.
Actually, fuck that. Don't want it.
Keep on with the rape stuff and whatever. I'm just munching on popcorn over here. There's a place in Peoria that will fill a 5 gallon bucket with popcorn for 5 dollars. I get one of those once a week. Sweet deal.
Carry on...
-
Very few people showed their ass more thoroughly during the TSJ situation than nichi. On this particular board, only JJ and Custard that I remember.
II took the time to read everything, informed myself, wrapped my brain around it, and I'll admit to being correct this time. Not just about the ultimate outcome, but every step of the way. I didn't have any special insight. I simply trusted the sources that are usually right.
-
The two biggest guys who rely on the "find a post where I said that," knowing the Search function here is really lacking, are Tempo and Spark. No similarities there at all....
You’re really going to try to turn around the fact that no evidence supports your claim onto me, because I asked for evidence supporting your claim?
The threads aren’t that long, and they’re still up. You can easily take 10 minutes and go find every single time I acted without conscience regarding TSJ, and yet you’ve spent more than 10 minutes avoiding it and trying to project onto me something I never said or did. It’s extremely telling!
-
II took the time to read everything, informed myself, wrapped my brain around it, and I'll admit to being correct this time. Not just about the ultimate outcome, but every step of the way. I didn't have any special insight. I simply trusted the sources that are usually right.
In the same way that Truth has been right about everything for years, sure.
If you just pretend you were right all those times you weren’t, you were right every time.
-
II took the time to read everything, informed myself, wrapped my brain around it, and I'll admit to being correct this time. Not just about the ultimate outcome, but every step of the way. I didn't have any special insight. I simply trusted the sources that are usually right.
I like how Spark tries to turn you being right about the DNA issue into something negative. Right out of the GOP Playbook.
-
II took the time to read everything, informed myself, wrapped my brain around it, and I'll admit to being correct this time. Not just about the ultimate outcome, but every step of the way. I didn't have any special insight. I simply trusted the sources that are usually right.
Spark trusted the victim and the Douglas county DA.
-
Did you guys hear me about that popcorn deal? Seriously, it's a great deal.
-
I like how Spark tries to turn you being right about the DNA issue into something negative. Right out of the GOP Playbook.
Was the whole thing made up? Or was she a sexual assault victim who misidentified the perpetrator?
nichi made both claims, so surely he wasn’t right about EVERYTHING.
I legitimately don’t even know what you’re talking about regarding DNA. If he said the lack of a match on an anal DNA swab exonerated Shannon then he was wrong about that too, but I don’t remember if he did or didn’t.
-
You’re really going to try to turn around the fact that no evidence supports your claim onto me, because I asked for evidence supporting your claim?
The threads aren’t that long, and they’re still up. You can easily take 10 minutes and go find every single time I acted without conscience regarding TSJ, and yet you’ve spent more than 10 minutes avoiding it and trying to project onto me something I never said or did. It’s extremely telling!
What is telling is how wrong you were about the case (until it was obvious it was a sham prosecution), and now claim victory. Even to the point of going after Nichi, who was AOTC on the DNA issue. Typical. You do lack any character. What a fraud.
-
They only do it on Saturdays tho.
-
Spark trusted the victim and the Douglas county DA.
How so?
I trusted the evidence. And said multiple times, including 6 weeks before the trial, that I hadn’t seen any evidence that’d lead me to convict. That never changed, and when he was acquitted I said that was the correct verdict.
-
They only do it on Saturdays tho.
Not going to help you today. Hopefully it is still fresh when you meet ChickenGeo for a beer.
-
Was the whole thing made up? Or was she a sexual assault victim who misidentified the perpetrator?
nichi made both claims, so surely he wasn’t right about EVERYTHING.
I legitimately don’t even know what you’re talking about regarding DNA. If he said the lack of a match on an anal DNA swab exonerated Shannon then he was wrong about that too, but I don’t remember if he did or didn’t.
If TSJ can fuck a gal in the ass in a bar in Lawrence, KS, with a bunch of other people around, he has more talents than just playing basketball.
-
What is telling is how wrong you were about the case (until it was obvious it was a sham prosecution), and now claim victory. Even to the point of going after Nichi, who was AOTC on the DNA issue. Typical. You do lack any character. What a fraud.
You are simply lying. Nothing else to be said.
You've got a willing group of absolute morons who behaved disgustingly throughout the trial, so I'm sure you feel great about your opinion - after all, if the guy who thought the accuser should be put in prison because Shannon was acquitted is on your side, how could you be wrong!? - but I have asked over and over for evidence of anything showing how wrong I was about the case (outside of the TRO), how clearly my lack of conscience showed, how unfair I was to Shannon, etc. and you have exactly 0 evidence supporting that.
-
How so?
I trusted the evidence. And said multiple times, including 6 weeks before the trial, that I hadn’t seen any evidence that’d lead me to convict.
But you didn't want him to play. See, there's the rub.
-
You are simply lying. Nothing else to be said.
You've got a willing group of absolute morons who behaved disgustingly throughout the trial, so I'm sure you feel great about your opinion - after all, if the guy who thought the accuser should be put in prison because Shannon was acquitted is on your side, how could you be wrong!? - but I have asked over and over for evidence of anything showing how wrong I was about the case (outside of the TRO), how clearly my lack of conscience showed, how unfair I was to Shannon, etc. and you have exactly 0 evidence supporting that.
Obviously this is a "whatever helps you sleep at night" situation for you....
-
But you didn't want him to play. See, there's the rub.
There's that. And the judge was an idiot!
-
But you didn't want him to play. See, there's the rub.
Correct.
I think the University AD should be within their rights to suspend a player even if he hasn't been convicted of a crime. Just like you did in 100% of situations like this previous to it happening to YOUR team. I still think that should be within the University AD's rights, but the judge disagreed - and the judge's opinion, not mine, is what matters.
UI fans have mocked Iowa for the Pierre Pierce thing for two decades, and I don't remember one single solitary person, even once, complaining that he was having his civil rights violated. Not once.
That is extremely different than your original claim, though.
-
Obviously this is a "whatever helps you sleep at night" situation for you....
For one of us, anyway.
One of us has evidence supporting them. The other doesn't.
If the person who doesn't wants to claim some victory, have at it - they're still wrong. It's the same strategy Trump uses constantly.
-
Correct.
I think the University AD should be within their rights to suspend a player even if he hasn't been convicted of a crime. Just like you did in 100% of situations like this previous to it happening to YOUR team. I still think that should be within the University AD's rights, but the judge disagreed - and the judge's opinion, not mine, is what matters.
That is extremely different than your original claim, though.
It was the judge applying the fucking law to the facts. Again, you don't give a shit about due process or the law, but you are soooooooo conscientious. You are a joke.
-
For one of us, anyway.
One of us has evidence supporting them. The other doesn't.
If the person who doesn't wants to claim some victory, have at it - they're still wrong. It's the same strategy Trump uses constantly.
Sooooo conscientious that you do not have to care what the law actually says.....
-
I've been BEGGING you to go find the evidence of your claim to prove me wrong, and you refuse to. Go find a post or two where I operated without conscience regarding the TSJ case - should be extremely easy, since I'm such a lying piece of shit. Something where I called him a rapist, or where I said he should be locked up, etc. I'm all ears.
I think you and I both know the reason for your refusal, it's just funny to watch you try to keep up the charade.
I had a recent experience. I even told him (and Custard?) to give me your best summary of what it is you THINK I said, it yielded no real answer.
-
I had a recent experience. I even told him (and Custard?) to give me your best summary of what it is you THINK I said, it yielded no real answer.
We have ad nauseum. It gets us nowhere. You are like an insurance company...deny, deny, deny....
-
Correct.
I think the University AD should be within their rights to suspend a player even if he hasn't been convicted of a crime. Just like you did in 100% of situations like this previous to it happening to YOUR team. I still think that should be within the University AD's rights, but the judge disagreed - and the judge's opinion, not mine, is what matters.
UI fans have mocked Iowa for the Pierre Pierce thing for two decades, and I don't remember one single solitary person, even once, complaining that he was having his civil rights violated. Not once.
That is extremely different than your original claim, though.
Did you see Steve Alford, and how he acted throughout that Pierre Pierce thing? He tried to silence the victim himself, for fuck's sake. That's way different than this situation.
I will admit, I thought the worst when I heard about the charges. I was actually railing on TSJ for being a rapist and a dumbshit at first. PAman actually came on and told me that I don't know what happened, and maybe slow your roll a little bit, if I recall correctly.
Basically, Whitman and the UI fucked up. They suspended him without following their process. At the end of the day, the kid did nothing wrong. He should have been allowed to play. I was wrong (gasp I did it again!).
-
By the way, I believe Pierre Pierce did fucking prison time for that shit he pulled. He was...guilty. Not the same.
-
I will admit, I thought the worst when I heard about the charges. I was actually railing on TSJ for being a rapist and a dumbshit at first. PAman actually came on and told me that I don't know what happened, and maybe slow your roll a little bit, if I recall correctly.
I dare you to prove that I was reasonable!
-
I dare you to prove that I was reasonable!
Do your own fucking research. It only takes 10 minutes.
-
Yes, you absolutely did vacillate multiple times throughout the case. You were sure it was made up. Then you were sure it was Arterio Morris.
If Rodney Jones or Shelley Clark had been charged with something like this, I might have believed it. Terrence Shannon? It didn't seem consistent.
I should have said proving it is another thing. But all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. The prosecution had to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I never definitely said it was this or that. That would be idiotic. I don't have sufficient evidence to know that. She could have made up it. It could have been Morris. It appears alternative theories were never pursued by investigators.
You step over the line when you tell me what I was really thinking. I tell you what I think. That is how dialogue works.
-
Do your own fucking research. It only takes 10 minutes.
ThePAMan = Big10Man is a match.
-
There's that. And the judge was an idiot!
I didn't agree with the judge. Most people with even a layman's knowledge of the law were surprised by it.
Since you seem to take these things better coming from calvin than me, here's what he said when the TRO was filed:
" kind of like that they did this if his version is anywhere near the truth, but I'd be really surprised if a court granted this. I'm not sure local state courts can order universities to keep a kid on a sports team, and the Kansas court could just alter his bail conditions and it'd be moot fairly quickly.
Again I'd caution people that things like an internet search by the victim read great to people who believe one set of facts and poorlly when framed by someone making a different base assumption."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg112948.html#msg112948
and
"" The harm that I will suffer from an immediate suspension can never be undone, and I will never have this opportunity to further my collegiate career or fulfill my lifelong dream to play in the NBA."
Very much not true and to the extent he loses money by not being a lottery pick, his grievance should be with the NBA's collusive collective bargaining agreement and to a lesser extent the victim and the State of Kansas. I fully encourage him to fight the system, but UIUC is his friend, not his enemy, and its hands are tied.
I have concerns about the advice he's getting if they advised him this was a good idea. He needs to keep his ass out of jail before he talks about the lottery."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg112982.html#msg112982
and
"I think the only way he's back this season is if he pleas to a misdemeanor and the university is 100% behind him that it was a bogus charge that never should've been filed."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114093.html#msg114093
And here's what he said after it was granted:
"I stand corrected. Terrible legal result, great basketball result!"
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114226.html#msg114226
and
"Yup. This is just harm, most of which is speculative and not irreparable. He has adequate remedies of law for much of the harm. And this sidesteps that he doesn't have a protected right to play college basketball in the first place."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114237.html#msg114237
Here's what he said about the OSCR panel (in agreement with me saying "I think it seems absolutely crazy to tell a university they need to determine the likelihood of someone's guilt in a courtroom before they suspend him, but here we are.") :
"No criminal defense attorney really wants their client testifying at such a thing, either."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114247.html#msg114247
But it doesn't matter whether I or Calvin agree with a judge at all. The judge's interpretation is the only thing that counts. Maybe I should just match my name and profile pic to calvin's, and then you guys will actually listen to what I say instead of just making shit up.
-
I'm not projecting shit. Was just making an observation. Tempo loves doing that kind of shit too.
You guys are butt buddies with regard to how you argue shit lol
I guess we could just scream vulgar shit at them and tell people to go do my homework for me.
-
You’ve cultivated that atmosphere perfectly here, to where the most mockery is reserved for those with a conscience.
Thanks for noticing!!!
-
I didn't agree with the judge. Most people with even a layman's knowledge of the law were surprised by it.
Since you seem to take these things better coming from calvin than me, here's what he said when the TRO was filed:
" kind of like that they did this if his version is anywhere near the truth, but I'd be really surprised if a court granted this. I'm not sure local state courts can order universities to keep a kid on a sports team, and the Kansas court could just alter his bail conditions and it'd be moot fairly quickly.
Again I'd caution people that things like an internet search by the victim read great to people who believe one set of facts and poorlly when framed by someone making a different base assumption."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg112948.html#msg112948
and
"" The harm that I will suffer from an immediate suspension can never be undone, and I will never have this opportunity to further my collegiate career or fulfill my lifelong dream to play in the NBA."
Very much not true and to the extent he loses money by not being a lottery pick, his grievance should be with the NBA's collusive collective bargaining agreement and to a lesser extent the victim and the State of Kansas. I fully encourage him to fight the system, but UIUC is his friend, not his enemy, and its hands are tied.
I have concerns about the advice he's getting if they advised him this was a good idea. He needs to keep his ass out of jail before he talks about the lottery."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg112982.html#msg112982
and
"I think the only way he's back this season is if he pleas to a misdemeanor and the university is 100% behind him that it was a bogus charge that never should've been filed."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114093.html#msg114093
And here's what he said after it was granted:
"I stand corrected. Terrible legal result, great basketball result!"
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114226.html#msg114226
and
"Yup. This is just harm, most of which is speculative and not irreparable. He has adequate remedies of law for much of the harm. And this sidesteps that he doesn't have a protected right to play college basketball in the first place."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114237.html#msg114237
Here's what he said about the OSCR panel (in agreement with me saying "I think it seems absolutely crazy to tell a university they need to determine the likelihood of someone's guilt in a courtroom before they suspend him, but here we are.") :
"No criminal defense attorney really wants their client testifying at such a thing, either."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1102.msg114247.html#msg114247
But it doesn't matter whether I or Calvin agree with a judge at all. The judge's interpretation is the only thing that counts. Maybe I should just match my name and profile pic to calvin's, and then you guys will actually listen to what I say instead of just making shit up.
Looks like Calvin was wrong too. He's not here, for example, telling Nichi he's an idiot for being right.
-
Thanks for noticing!!!
Custard = Elon
-
Did you guys hear me about that popcorn deal? Seriously, it's a great deal.
Do you ever go to Streator? If so, is the root beer place still there?
-
I guess we could just scream vulgar shit at them and tell people to go do my homework for me.
Now you're getting it. Took you long enough.
-
By the way, I believe Pierre Pierce did fucking prison time for that shit he pulled. He was...guilty. Not the same.
He was suspended immediately, for a full season, on being charged with third degree sexual battery, something that you guys now insist was a violation of his civil rights. He pled down to a misdemeanor and served no jail time and received a deferred judgment (so the charge was erased from his record after probation).
He was then allowed back on the team and granted a redshirt year. Four years later, he was dismissed outright from the team before he was even charged with anything, after police confirmed he was the target of an investigation. Neither time he was arrested did they wait until he was convicted to suspend him from basketball, and no one anywhere that I can tell took umbrage with that or thought his civil rights were being violated.
-
Do you ever go to Streator? If so, is the root beer place still there?
Haha, no. I have absolutely no reason to visit the fine village of Streator.
As far as the root beer place, probably. Those things tend to survive.
-
They only do it on Saturdays tho.
Is there a long line?
-
Looks like Calvin was wrong too. He's not here, for example, telling Nichi he's an idiot for being right.
You also don't follow him around like an angry terrier screaming about what a piece of shit and liar he is for not agreeing with the judge's ruling. You don't view his disagreement with the ruling as a lack of conscience, or attack him personally for it.
Probably a coincidence.
-
He was suspended immediately, for a full season, on being charged with third degree sexual battery, something that you guys now insist was a violation of his civil rights. He pled down to a misdemeanor and served no jail time and received a deferred judgment (so the charge was erased from his record after probation).
He was then allowed back on the team and granted a redshirt year. Four years later, he was dismissed outright from the team before he was even charged with anything, after police confirmed he was the target of an investigation. Neither time he was arrested did they wait until he was convicted to suspend him from basketball, and no one anywhere that I can tell took umbrage with that or thought his civil rights were being violated.
Ok, well, you can see how much of a fuck I give about Pierre Pierce. Which is zero.
Him and Steve Alford are both pieces of shit. I'll stand behind that one.
He was convicted of a crime, yeah? Was TSJ?
-
You also don't follow him around like an angry terrier screaming about what a piece of shit and liar he is for not agreeing with the judge's ruling. You don't view his disagreement with the ruling as a lack of conscience, or attack him personally for it.
Probably a coincidence.
He's not a fucking jackass piece of shit like you are. So there is that.
-
Is there a long line?
Sometimes. I try to get there right when they open, to beat the crowd.
-
Ok, well, you can see how much of a fuck I give about Pierre Pierce. Which is zero.
Him and Steve Alford are both pieces of shit. I'll stand behind that one.
He was convicted of a crime, yeah? Was TSJ?
Neither had been convicted of a crime when they were suspended. You're trying to conflate the ultimate outcome of the case, which we did not know when we were discussing whether UI should be able to suspend him and the TRO was granted, with whether the AD should've had the right to suspend him from basketball.
If it was a violation of TSJ's civil rights to suspend him from basketball pre-conviction, then it was a violation of Pierre Pierce's civil rights when Iowa did it too, whether he was guilty or not.
-
Sometimes. I try to get there right when they open, to beat the crowd.
Ah smart
-
Dan Bernstein is pretty much a piece of shit, but I will give him credit for going after Steve Alford. Dan actually did a great job on that.
-
He's not a fucking jackass piece of shit like you are. So there is that.
He just says all the same stuff I say that makes you call me a fucking jackass piece of shit, with none of the rage-spittle reaction.
-
Maybe Pierre Pierce needed better lawyers....
-
He just says all the same stuff I say that makes you call me a fucking jackass piece of shit, with none of the rage-spittle reaction.
No, he does not. Again with the lies. No one here believes that Calvin is the sanctimonious, self-serving, lying fraud that you are.
-
You also don't follow him around like an angry terrier screaming about what a piece of shit and liar he is for not agreeing with the judge's ruling. You don't view his disagreement with the ruling as a lack of conscience, or attack him personally for it.
Probably a coincidence.
Probably because he also doesn’t come on here and have a complex like you either, Spark…
-
Neither had been convicted of a crime when they were suspended. You're trying to conflate the ultimate outcome of the case, which we did not know when we were discussing whether UI should be able to suspend him and the TRO was granted, with whether the AD should've had the right to suspend him from basketball.
If it was a violation of TSJ's civil rights to suspend him from basketball pre-conviction, then it was a violation of Pierre Pierce's civil rights when Iowa did it too, whether he was guilty or not.
At the time, Steve Alford was going after the victim and trying to get her to drop it. When he was unsuccessful, Iowa pretty much had their hands tied.
Again, not the same situation. Iowa, Pierre, Steve, and everyone else knew what the fuck was up. Steve was trying to strong arm the victim into dropping it, and bringing up Jesus and all kinds of crazy bullshit.
TSJ was in a bar supposedly fingering a chic and fucking her in the ass. Looking back on it, seems unlikely, but your hero the Douglas county DA pushed it, so therefore, TSJ needed to not play.
-
No, he does not. Again with the lies. No one here believes that Calvin is the sanctimonious, self-serving, lying fraud that you are.
You said that I acted without conscience regarding the TSJ trial. I asked for evidence, you provided none.
I posted evidence of calvin saying all the same things that you were claiming meant I had no conscience, but that doesn't precede a 6-year-old meltdown.
You get mad because it's me, and because you don't have any arguments to make against me. It obviously eats at you that you cannot prove that I was wrong and awful about TSJ, because the evidence of that doesn't exist - so you lash out like a kid instead.
-
Ah smart
I have my moments. I don't fuck around when it comes to popcorn.
-
Spark has a history and has shown many examples of that complex. Calvin does/has not.
-
You said that I acted without conscience regarding the TSJ trial. I asked for evidence, you provided none.
I posted evidence of calvin saying all the same things that you were claiming meant I had no conscience, but that doesn't precede a 6-year-old meltdown.
You get mad because it's me, and because you don't have any arguments to make against me. It obviously eats at you that you cannot prove that I was wrong and awful about TSJ, because the evidence of that doesn't exist - so you lash out like a kid instead.
I have already laid it out. You were wrong, yet continue to claim you were not. What eats at me is you are a piece of shit who calls everyone else a piece of shit. You are a self-righteous braying jackass.
-
At the time, Steve Alford was going after the victim and trying to get her to drop it. When he was unsuccessful, Iowa pretty much had their hands tied.
Again, not the same situation. Iowa, Pierre, Steve, and everyone else knew what the fuck was up. Steve was trying to strong arm the victim into dropping it, and bringing up Jesus and all kinds of crazy bullshit.
TSJ was in a bar supposedly fingering a chic and fucking her in the ass. Looking back on it, seems unlikely, but your hero the Douglas county DA pushed it, so therefore, TSJ needed to not play.
Is fucking in the ass just a Jobuism? He wasn't accused of anything like that, just for clarity.
Is it a violation of a college basketball player's civil rights to suspend him without a criminal conviction? It should be a pretty simply yes or no question, but you keep trying to obfuscate it. If yes, then it was a violation of both players' civil rights. If no, then it wasn't a violation of either's civil rights.
I think personally it's a crazy precedent to set that a suspension from an extra-curricular activity violates someone's civil rights unless they're convicted of a crime or determined to be guilty by some OSCR panel without the necessary evidence to make that call, but it doesn't matter what I think. The judge said yes.
-
Spark has a history and has shown many examples of that complex. Calvin does/has not.
I've pointed out when you act like a moron so many times you just make shit up about me, and you think that makes ME look bad. A chef's kiss.
-
I've pointed out when you act like a moron so many times you just make shit up about me, and you think that makes ME look bad. A chef's kiss.
Example 5,437. Carry on…
-
You claim to have a conscious, except when you were ready to convict people based on police reports.
-
Is fucking in the ass just a Jobuism? He wasn't accused of anything like that, just for clarity.
Is it a violation of a college basketball player's civil rights to suspend him without a criminal conviction? It should be a pretty simply yes or no question, but you keep trying to obfuscate it. If yes, then it was a violation of both players' civil rights. If no, then it wasn't a violation of either's civil rights.
I think personally it's a crazy precedent to set that a suspension from an extra-curricular activity violates someone's civil rights unless they're convicted of a crime or determined to be guilty by some OSCR panel without the necessary evidence to make that call, but it doesn't matter what I think. The judge said yes.
Welp, there you go. The judge said yes. So shut the fuck up then.
-
Example 5,437. Carry on…
But Calvin does this too! Uh, wait, hmmmm.
-
I have already laid it out. You were wrong, yet continue to claim you were not. What eats at me is you are a piece of shit who calls everyone else a piece of shit. You are a self-righteous braying jackass.
You laid it out that I was wrong? I've asked for evidence over and over and you have uniformly refused to provide any - and then you expect me to believe you just don't want to go look for it, rather than what we both know is the truth which is the evidence doesn't exist.
I've acknowledged I didn't think the TRO would be granted, and that I don't agree with the precedent it set. You seem to find that a moral failing in me, but not in someone with a different name and profile picture than me - because it's not about the content, it's about me. I was wrong about the TRO being granted, and don't agree with the decision, which is simply an opinion and doesn't actually matter because a judge ruled to grant it.
You've lied about what I said regarding the OSCR panel, which was identical to what calvin said, but you find that to be a moral failing in me, just not in someone with a different name and profile picture than me - because it's not about the content, it's about me.
You have made up so many lies about me in this thread that it seems like you even believe them yourself despite having contrary evidence, and no supporting evidence - that's a pretty ugly look, which you obviously don't care about.
-
But Calvin does this too! Uh, wait, hmmmm.
Nobody is calling Calvin, a Spark…
-
Welp, there you go. The judge said yes. So shut the fuck up then.
Nah, I'm good. I'm allowed, just like the other lawyer on this board who agreed with me but got 0 of the vitriol from unhinged lunatics, to disagree with the judge.
-
You're also allowed to fuck up the quote function. Nice job.
-
Ah, you fixed it. Nothing gets past ol Sparky.
-
But Calvin does this too! Uh, wait, hmmmm.
Yep. He called Judy a pitchfork carrying dipshit, which you'd know if you took the 10 minutes to go prove your raging emotions wrong.
-
You're also allowed to fuck up the quote function. Nice job.
Another lack of morals and display of my lack of conscience, no doubt.
-
I AM a fucking Judge, so fuck all y'all!
-
Nah, I'm good. I'm allowed, just like the other lawyer on this board who agreed with me but got 0 of the vitriol from unhinged lunatics, to disagree with the judge.
Most people here have said that Calvin is approachable and believable. You, on the other hand are a prick. So, pretty much there you go I guess.
-
Another lack of morals and display of my lack of conscience, no doubt.
At least you figured that part out. Good job.
-
I AM a fucking Judge, so fuck all y'all!
If I have to stand before a judge, I sure hope it's in Coles County.
-
Most people here have said that Calvin is approachable and believable. You, on the other hand are a prick. So, pretty much there you go I guess.
Yep - when he calls you pitchfork carrying dipshits you don't care, but when I say the same thing half the board hangs off my nuts for six hours.
You guys imply that it's a me problem, and yet..
-
You laid it out that I was wrong?
I've acknowledged I didn't think the TRO would be granted, and that I don't agree with the precedent it set. You seem to find that a moral failing in me, but not in someone with a different name and profile picture than me - because it's not about the content, it's about me. I was wrong about the TRO being granted, and don't agree with the decision, which is simply an opinion and doesn't actually matter because a judge ruled to grant it.
You've lied about what I said regarding the OSCR panel, which was identical to what calvin said, but you find that to be a moral failing in me, just not in someone with a different name and profile picture than me - because it's not about the content, it's about me.
You have made up so many lies about me in this thread that it seems like you even believe them yourself despite having contrary evidence, and no supporting evidence - that's a pretty ugly look, which you obviously don't care about.
Again, the moral failing is that you are self-righteous and call everyone else morons, despite your lying about your being wrong about the investigation, Nichi and the DNA. Now you are hitching your wagon to "Calvin said the same [wrong] stuff!" No, Calvin has not called everyone morons like you have. This is just sad at this point. At some point you may get it. Doubtful.
-
Yep. He called Judy a pitchfork carrying dipshit, which you'd know if you took the 10 minutes to go prove your raging emotions wrong.
Looks like I was right though on the situation…
-
Yep - when he calls you pitchfork carrying dipshits you don't care, but when I say the same thing half the board hangs off my nuts for six hours.
You guys imply that it's a me problem, and yet..
Yeah, I don't know. Maybe people just don't like you. *shrugs*
-
Looks like I was right though on the situation…
Yes, the guy who thought TSJ's acquittal meant the accuser should go straight to jail definitely had his finger on the pulse of things.
-
Yeah, I don't know. Maybe people just don't like you. *shrugs*
The misanthropes on this board who think calling someone a retard is the height of comedy certainly don't, and I'm totally okay with that.
-
The misanthropes on this board who think calling someone a retard is the height of comedy certainly don't, and I'm totally okay with that.
What do you have against retards?
-
Again, the moral failing is that you are self-righteous and call everyone else morons, despite your lying about your being wrong about the investigation, Nichi and the DNA. Now you are hitching your wagon to "Calvin said the same [wrong] stuff!" No, Calvin has not called everyone morons like you have. This is just sad at this point. At some point you may get it. Doubtful.
Only one of us is lying, but it isn't me. I provided plenty of evidence of that to counter your complete lack of evidence, you just don't care because your hate-boner is in charge.
It clearly makes you mad that I DIDN'T lie, and that in fact to paint me as a liar you have to lie yourself, but that's not really my issue.
-
Only one of us is lying, but it isn't me. I provided plenty of evidence of that to counter your complete lack of evidence, you just don't care because your hate-boner is in charge.
It clearly makes you mad that I DIDN'T lie, and that in fact to paint me as a liar you have to lie yourself, but that's not really my issue.
You were WRONG about the whole case until even you figured out is was a sham prosecution.
-
You were WRONG about the whole case until even you figured out is was a sham prosecution.
In what way was I wrong about the whole case?
Be specific.
From the beginning, I said "wait to see the evidence". I waited to see the evidence. I never saw any that would lead me to vote to convict, and said that explicitly multiple times in the 6 weeks leading up to the trial. That didn't change, he was acquitted, and I said it was the correct verdict.
Which part was I wrong about?
What you're really saying is that I didn't get my pitchfork out, I didn't slut shame the accuser, I didn't declare "HE'S INNOCENT!" without having the actual evidence one way or the other.
-
I mean, people can't help it when chromosomes are all fucked up...
-
You get an odd sequence thrown in. A certain gene that is expressing...
-
You decide it's a good idea to drive Ubers full time...
-
Yes, the DNA indicates she had contact with up to 5 other men (at least 2). If you think that means he's exonerated or has any relevance whatsoever to the allegation then yes, you're wrong and stupid. It doesn't.
Score: Nichi 1 Spark 0
-
Score: Nichi 1 Spark 0
Does the fact that what I said was objectively true not factor into the scoring?
If she'd been with 10000 men in the last 2 weeks, it wouldn't have meant anything to the TSJ case.
-
It's almost like Spark really wanted TSJ to get nailed for this.
-
It's almost like Spark really wanted TSJ to get nailed for this.
You're projecting.
I wanted the evidence to play out. To wait and see what evidence there was, and wasn't. It did, no evidence came out that implicated him beyond a reasonable doubt (which I stated multiple times before the trial), and I agreed completely with the verdict.
-
You're projecting.
I wanted the evidence to play out. To wait and see what evidence there was, and wasn't. It did, no evidence came out that implicated him beyond a reasonable doubt (which I stated multiple times before the trial), and I agreed completely with the verdict.
"9. It has recently come to the attention of the defense that a female patron at the same bar involved in Mr. Shannon’s Complaint alleges that she was present at the bar on August 26, 2023, when a black male (“3rd party”) sexually assaulted her in the “corner” of a room at the bar by grabbing her vagina. (Counsel for the State has confirmed the date and general location of the alleged assault by the 3rd party. Counsel for Mr. Shannon inquired of the State if the August assault took place in the “corner” of the Martini room. Counsel for the State refused to provide this information.) Unlike M.N., the victim was wearing pants at the time, such that the perpetrator was not able to touch her under her clothing.
10. This victim reported the allegations to University of Kansas Police and ultimately—after September 9, 2023--the 3rd party was charged with raping the victim at different location on the same night as the alleged assault in the bar. Those charges were subsequently dismissed.
11. Counsel has recently determined that the 3rd party identified as responsible for the August sexual assault (less than 2 weeks prior to incident in which Mr. Shannon is allegedly involved) was present at the bar, in the room, and in the same vicinity around the time that M.N. was allegedly assaulted."
Arterio Morris is the 3rd party .
Nichi was correct in how this played out at trial. Spark, not so much.
-
Nichi was correct in how this played out at trial. Spark, not so much.
Maybe if you just keep repeating how wrong I was, it'll BECOME true despite the evidence.
As a reminder, this post from nichi was after months of complaining about the accuser. As soon as his lawyers put out the Arterio Morris story he (and many others) changed their narrative from "she made it up" to "she's a victim of sexual assault who misidentified the perpetrator". Even AFTER that last thing you tried to 'stick me' on, where the implication was she's a slut who couldn't be trusted.
There was no look-in-the-mirror moment where they realized, man it's really fucked up how I slut-shamed and accused this woman of lying for money and now I'm arguing she's actually the victim of a sexual assault. That never happened, and yet you've still found a way for me to the be the bad guy for pointing out that it was objectively fucked up. And this sort of thing could've been avoided if, you know, they would've just waited for the evidence to come out before they started slut shaming people etc.
Hell, spark's daddy himself latched onto the Morris story, and then STILL wanted the woman thrown in jail without a trial.
-
She seemed to be a fucking slut. Let's call a spade a spade.
-
Maybe if you just keep repeating how wrong I was, it'll BECOME true despite the evidence.
As a reminder, this post from nichi was after months of complaining about the accuser. As soon as his lawyers put out the Arterio Morris story he (and many others) changed their narrative from "she made it up" to "she's a victim of sexual assault who misidentified the perpetrator". Even AFTER that last thing you tried to 'stick me' on, where the implication was she's a slut who couldn't be trusted.
There was no look-in-the-mirror moment where they realized, man it's really fucked up how I slut-shamed and accused this woman of lying for money and now I'm arguing she's actually the victim of a sexual assault. That never happened, and yet you've still found a way for me to the be the bad guy for pointing out that it was objectively fucked up. And this sort of thing could've been avoided if, you know, they would've just waited for the evidence to come out before they started slut shaming people etc.
Hell, spark's daddy himself latched onto the Morris story, and then STILL wanted the woman thrown in jail without a trial.
Have we shifted from "she's a slut and a liar who made it all up and they should throw her in jail" to "she's a victim of a sexual assault but she accused the wrong guy"?
Nichi wins.
-
She doesn’t even know who did it. Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty big deal when she blames someone…
Judge Judy 1 Spark 0
-
Nichi wins.
The answer was yes. The narrative DID change from "she's a lying slut who made it all up for money" to "she's the victim of a sexual assault and just misidentified the perpetrator". And never was there a point where he (and the others who did the same thing) did a little self-reflection and realized, maybe if I now think this woman was the victim of a sexual assault, maybe it was fucked up that I said all those awful things about her?
-
Judge Judy 1 Spark 0
Which she didn't. Including at trial.
You're an awful scorekeeper. Then again, I'm pretty sure even you don't believe the nonsense you're trying to sell. Your emotions are fully in charge here.
-
Spark says you can just swap out Spark's name for Calvin on all the posts.....
You've so thoroughly shown your ass about this. You look like an absolute abject moron, and an awful person. Nothing anybody who'd interacted with you before didn't already know, obviously, but man have your wild narrative shifts made you look like a total jackass here.
-
Nah. She was a slut.
-
We have ad nauseum. It gets us nowhere. You are like an insurance company...deny, deny, deny....
You provided nothing other than the most vague of generalities. Still waiting on you to give the specifics on how I’m anti-free speech and my plan to get rid of MAGA.
-
The friend's dollar sign text emojis destroyed this Spark narrative....
Thats obviously an extremely different discussion. I’ve never proclaimed that TSJ was guilty, that’s for sure - but others here have proclaimed that he’s definitely innocent, and that she’s definitely a lying crack whore who made it up to extort him. Those people obviously have not come off very well.
-
Spark says you can just swap out Spark's name for Calvin on all the posts.....
You keep posting these things I was right about (the narrative shift and how gross it was), and saying "see he was wrong!"
-
This didn't age well...
Theres not really a way the people who have been saying “we don’t have nearly enough information to know, the evidence is totally opaque to us, don’t rush to judgment because of the basketball team he plays for, don’t attack the accuser who you know nothing about” are going to come out of this looking bad.
-
I've pointed out when you act like a moron so many times you just make shit up about me, and you think that makes ME look bad. A chef's kiss.
You’re in the club too, eh?
-
The friend's dollar sign text emojis destroyed this Spark narrative....
So was she a money grubbing slut, or the victim of a sexual assault by a misidentified culprit?
This post here, in particular, totally undercuts your continued insinuations that I claimed he was guilty or should go to prison. I did not, that was a lie, and I appreciate you showing a post from a month before the trial to prove it.
-
Again, Spark says you can just swap his name with Calvin's on these posts....
She has never said she doesn’t know if it’s him. You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
If she was a victim of sexual assault (which still is not a given by any means!) you obviously owe her an apology for all the awful stuff you said about her. You called her a slut and said she should be put in jail. I know you won’t apologize - when you look awful you lash out and attack me instead of reflecting on how your own behavior resulted in you looking like a moron and an awful person - but you should.
It’s just not that hard or that much to ask not to jump to conclusions, not to pretend you know shit you have no way of knowing, not to attack people personally that you know nothing whatsoever about. At least, it’s not that hard for intelligent, decent people.
-
And, the slut didn't exactly back off when she knew it was a potential NBA player. Even when she knew that she didn't know who did it.
And, 5 guys DNA in her panties. Yeah, not a slut.
-
This didn't age well...
Yep. Those people's views didn't age poorly at all, except to people who are willing to blatantly lie to win some argument on a message board.
“we don’t have nearly enough information to know, the evidence is totally opaque to us, don’t rush to judgment because of the basketball team he plays for, don’t attack the accuser who you know nothing about”
There is nothing controversial here to any decent person.
-
Five Guys should hire this bitch as a spokesperson
-
Again, Spark says you can just swap his name with Calvin's on these posts....
calvin actually chimed in on this one a bit later - what'd he say?
-
The law did not change, nor the interpretation given the Purdue case from 2019
The law didn’t change though.
What changed is that this judge interpreted it in a way that means a college athletic department cannot suspend a kid anymore. Which is obviously an extremely different scenario than literally every other instance of a college athlete being arrested in history. Every one of them has been suspended on arrest, and not one single time has anyone thought that’s unfair or unreasonable or a violation of his rights, not once - until it was OUR best player.
One year ago lots of Illini fans were angry that Alabama didn’t suspend a player who wasn’t even arrested or charged with anything. We mocked Iowa for years over the Pierre Pierce thing, but now you’re telling me we should’ve been angry about the violation of his rights.
It’s pretty ugly stuff IMO, but doesn’t matter what I think about it.
Score: ThePATheyHerSheXe 1 Spark 0
-
I know you won't post it, so here's what he said:
"They don't quote her testimony at all in the motion. They don't really need to for a discovery motion IMO, but you can't take it as a verbatim representation.
""I believe it was this person" is suspicion with some degree of uncertainty" is not accurate. The criminal law uses "reasonably believes" as a standard for self-defense force and reads out conscious uncertainty.
More generally, the law permits reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, so there's not a distinction between knowledge and belief when it comes to what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you wake up and you walk outside and the ground is wet and there are puddles in the road, you can reasonably infer it rained from circumstantial evidence. You have no real knowledge that it rained and nothing based on direct evidence. You believe it rained the same way a woman at a bar can put a, b, and c together and believe the identity of who assaulted her based on circumstantial evidence."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125563.html#msg125563
and
"It's not. She obviously had some reason to believe it was him, went home, and identified him that night. Eyewitness testimony isn't foolproof, but it's admissible evidence and could support a conviction."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125564.html#msg125564
-
The law did not change, nor the interpretation given the Purdue case from 2019
Score: ThePATheyHerSheXe 1 Spark 0
LOL.
This is some extremely desperate flailing.
You obviously didn't find any evidence of your claim, so you post a bunch of random shit and say "see its evidence!"
-
Nichi with a knockout
She has never said she doesn’t know if it’s him. You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
5. M.N. testified that she was assaulted from behind as she stared straight ahead. She testified that the hand she believed touched her came from the man standing to her left. She testified as to her belief that the man next to her was Mr. Shannon.
6. DNA analysis conducted by the State and reviewed by a defense expert does not reveal evidence that Mr. Shannon ever had physical contact with M.N., though male DNA is present in some samples taken from her person.
7. M.N. decided that the man standing next to her was Terrence Shannon because she went home that evening and searched the internet for photos of athletes from the University of Kansas and University of Illinois and found that Mr. Shannon’s roster photo looked like a man she saw in the bar and who she believed—though she did not see--was attached to the hand that touched her.
8. Other than M.N.’s statement that she believed Mr. Shannon was the person who touched her, there is no evidence supporting this contention.
source: TERRENCE SHANNON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
-
Nichi with a knockout
Keep posting shit that proves me right if you'd like. I'm not going to respond to every one, because it's clear you came up empty on the evidence you were looking for.
You're supposedly a lawyer, so you obviously know I was right in this one. You just cannot admit that I was right, because it undercuts you completely.
-
I even called Spark out for being a moron at the time.
She has never said she doesn’t know if it’s him. You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
The kid in Alabama was not suspended because they claimed they did not have enough information to deem it suspension worthy. He was not even criminally charged.
Plus, this is what you got out of this? That is an extremely poor, I'll say it, lazy reading of the decision and the law. The judge relied on a 7th Circuit case involving a guy out of Purdue who sued after he felt he got railroaded in the process. So it is not like suspensions have never been overturned before.
They had a policy. Due Process required them to follow it. They did not follow it. Blame your guy Guenther Jr. for fucking it up (which is understandable given the logistical issues here), not the judge.
-
Was the whole thing made up? Or was she a sexual assault victim who misidentified the perpetrator?
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
Either / both create reasonable doubt.
nichi made both claims, so surely he wasn’t right about EVERYTHING.
Nope. Never claimed either one happened. They are alternative theories for which there is evidence, but were just never investigated.
I legitimately don’t even know what you’re talking about regarding DNA. If he said the lack of a match on an anal DNA swab exonerated Shannon then he was wrong about that too, but I don’t remember if he did or didn’t.
I am having brain fog and badly need to do some sitting meditation.
I would have to review details. My immediately recollection is the prosecution tried to pull a fast one. I am thinking there was male DNA that could not be identified. They were going to try to confuse the jury by saying that is what would be expected if Shannon did what he was accused of doing -- implying to the jurors that the unidentified male DNA was Shannon's. TJ's attorneys put a stop to that. I may be misremembering. Might be?
-
I'm guessing she fucked at least 3 dudes that night. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. Could be more.
-
Quote from: spark mandrill on May 17, 2024, 12:36:45 PM
You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
Said without a hint of irony....you may want to re-read the judge's opinion. The law has not changed and schools can still suspend students (as long as they follow the processes and procedures they have put in place).
LOL.
-
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
Either / both create reasonable doubt.
Nope. Never claimed either one happened. They are alternative theories for which there is evidence, but were just never investigated.
quote]
I legitimately don’t even know what you’re talking about regarding DNA. If he said the lack of a match on an anal DNA swab exonerated Shannon then he was wrong about that too, but I don’t remember if he did or didn’t.
I am having brain fog and badly need to do some sitting meditation.
I would have to review details. My immediately recollection is the prosecution tried to pull a fast one. I am thinking there was male DNA that could not be identified. They were going to try to confuse the jury by saying that is what would be expected if Shannon did what he was accused of doing -- implying to the jurors that the unidentified male DNA was Shannon's. TJ's attorneys put a stop to that. I may be misremembering. Might be?
Of course it matters, when half the Illini fanbase starts doxxing her and slut-shaming her and calling her a money grubbing whore because of one of those theories, when the other one (which they also claim!) undercuts it. You'd think that'd cause someone to self-reflect a little bit, but the people who behave like that would never.
Which was, of course, the exact disgusting behavior that I was calling out that earned me such ire from the people perpetrating it.
We're in agreement regarding reasonable doubt. I never saw any evidence that'd lead me to convict, and stated as much explicitly multiple times (not that that matters to the people trying to lie about me now). There was more than a bit of reasonable doubt, and as I said the day it happened, the jury reached the correct verdict IMO.
-
Everyone is an idiot but Spark....I guess his lawyer friends had not read the Purdue case.
It required a strange reading of the law from a judge that pretty much every lawyer I know was kind of in awe of, citing Shannon's NBA draft prospects and his loss of income. It doesn't matter that I think that's nuts, that's what the judge said and that's what needed to be abided by - but the idea that you cannot suspend a kid from an extracurricular activity before giving him some sham 'trial' in front of some University panel who has none of the evidence whatsoever to make a determination of his guilt, is a new one. Certainly no Illini fans have applied that logic to any previous athlete who was charged with a crime to my knowledge.
-
I would have to review details. My immediately recollection is the prosecution tried to pull a fast one. I am thinking there was male DNA that could not be identified. They were going to try to confuse the jury by saying that is what would be expected if Shannon did what he was accused of doing -- implying to the jurors that the unidentified male DNA was Shannon's. TJ's attorneys put a stop to that. I may be misremembering. Might be?
I don't know if I'd frame it like that, but I believe they had DNA from one of the swabs that was inconclusive and the prosecution wanted to introduce it. That's not really "pulling a fast one" though, that's the prosecution's job.
-
Tell me where the law has changed, Spark. It has not, in this instance. Illinois set up this process, they did not follow it. It is an administrative University proceeding; not a court proceeding. Title IX did not apply because this was an off-campus incident involving a non-student. How much Illinois incorporated Title IX processes in its policy was up to Illinois. I would think some of the same processes would apply for Due Process reasons. But, we did see people complain that Obama's changes to Title IX (which were revoked by Trump) allowed these proceedings to become "Star Chamber"-like.
There were extreme logistical issues here. She was not a student and she was out-of-state. Was she willing to cooperate with Illinois in its investigation? Was she even asked?
You are just talking out of your ass at this point.
Read her opinion again. She walks through it all.
-
Spark quotes federal regs...
It was just April, 2024 the feds issued new Title IX regs. They did not apply to Shannon's case.
This is just getting embarrassing for Spark at this point and I am only at May, 2024.
-
Spark quotes federal regs...
This is just getting embarrassing for Spark at this point and I am only at May, 2024.
You showing your ass and occasionally showing that I was correct doesn't embarrass me at all, actually.
You have yet to show any evidence supporting your claim, just claimed victory.
-
Does the fact that what I said was objectively true not factor into the scoring?
If she'd been with 10000 men in the last 2 weeks, it wouldn't have meant anything to the TSJ case.
You mean when the defense pointed out that his DNA was not found and cross examined the cops to fucking shreds about how they did not look into the other men? LOL.
Give it up, Spark. Admit you were wrong.
-
You mean when the defense pointed out that his DNA was not found and cross examined the cops to fucking shreds about how they did not look into the other men? LOL.
Give it up, Spark. Admit you were wrong.
This has zero to do with how many men's DNA was found in her swabs. You're trying to move the goalposts to pretend to be right (which is basically the entirety of this meltdown).
"Yes, the DNA indicates she had contact with up to 5 other men (at least 2). If you think that means he's exonerated or has any relevance whatsoever to the allegation then yes, you're wrong and stupid. It doesn't."
^^ this was true, and is still true. No one else's DNA could exonerate TSJ, nor was it relevant to whether he was guilty of the crime he was accused of. Which, I assume, you know.
The lack of his DNA was relevant, as I said in that thread (even saying if the vaginal swab also didn't have a conclusive match to TSJ it wouldn't even go to trial, which I was wrong about) - you just are trying to paint a false portrayal of what I said at the time.
-
I don't know if I'd frame it like that, but I believe they had DNA from one of the swabs that was inconclusive and the prosecution wanted to introduce it. That's not really "pulling a fast one" though, that's the prosecution's job.
It's not the prosecution's job to bring inconclusive DNA and frame it like it was TSJ's. I mean, they could try that, but the defense would immediately discredit it, and basically show that the prosecutor is a lying piece of shit. So yeah, that's interesting.
Glad you're not a prosecutor in real life. Fuck man.
-
You showing your ass and occasionally showing that I was correct doesn't embarrass me at all, actually.
You have yet to show any evidence supporting your claim, just claimed victory.
LOL. Now you are projecting. Nichi smoked you. The defense attorneys shredded the cops on their investigation and the DNA of the other men you said did not matter...
-
So was she a money grubbing slut, or the victim of a sexual assault by a misidentified culprit?
Yes. Two very possible scenarios. I lean 70/30 at this point. New evidence could move the needle.
-
It's not the prosecution's job to bring inconclusive DNA and frame it like it was TSJ's. I mean, they could try that, but the defense would immediately discredit it, and basically show that the prosecutor is a lying piece of shit. So yeah, that's interesting.
Glad you're not a prosecutor in real life. Fuck man.
It is amazing. The defense shredded the cops on their investigation and the DNA.
-
Which she didn't. Including at trial.
You're an awful scorekeeper. Then again, I'm pretty sure even you don't believe the nonsense you're trying to sell. Your emotions are fully in charge here.
Dude, they did not bring her back on re-direct because she was destroyed on cross and could not identify him. That and her internet search history and the dollar sign text emojis.
You really want to die on this hill. Very Tempo-like!
-
It's not the prosecution's job to bring inconclusive DNA and frame it like it was TSJ's. I mean, they could try that, but the defense would immediately discredit it, and basically show that the prosecutor is a lying piece of shit. So yeah, that's interesting.
Glad you're not a prosecutor in real life. Fuck man.
It's absolutely the prosecution's job to present evidence to lead the jury to conclude the defendant committed the crime. If they were presenting it as a match to TSJ, then that's different, but they were not.
I don't think it's very GOOD evidence, given the lack of a conclusive match, but it's evidence that's the prosecutor's job to try to get introduced. It's also evidence that a good defense attorney should, and did, get tossed.
-
Dude, they did not bring her back on re-direct because she was destroyed on cross and could not identify him. That and her internet search history and the dollar sign text emojis.
You really want to die on this hill. Very Tempo-like!
Neither the search history nor the emoji from an uninvolved party is relevant to whether TSJ was guilty.
I don't blame the defense for letting the jury make their own inferences from that information - again, that's their job, to introduce reasonable doubt - but neither thing is some evidence that she was a money grubber out to get money.
And anyway, wasn't it Arterio Morris?
-
I know you won't post it, so here's what he said:
"They don't quote her testimony at all in the motion. They don't really need to for a discovery motion IMO, but you can't take it as a verbatim representation.
""I believe it was this person" is suspicion with some degree of uncertainty" is not accurate. The criminal law uses "reasonably believes" as a standard for self-defense force and reads out conscious uncertainty.
More generally, the law permits reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, so there's not a distinction between knowledge and belief when it comes to what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you wake up and you walk outside and the ground is wet and there are puddles in the road, you can reasonably infer it rained from circumstantial evidence. You have no real knowledge that it rained and nothing based on direct evidence. You believe it rained the same way a woman at a bar can put a, b, and c together and believe the identity of who assaulted her based on circumstantial evidence."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125563.html#msg125563
and
"It's not. She obviously had some reason to believe it was him, went home, and identified him that night. Eyewitness testimony isn't foolproof, but it's admissible evidence and could support a conviction."
https://illinihq2.com/index.php/topic,1122.msg125564.html#msg125564
He really was wrong on this when trial proceeded, wasn't he? She got destroyed on cross so badly they did not bring her back for re-direct AND Shannon testified in his defense.
-
LOL. Now you are projecting. Nichi smoked you. The defense attorneys shredded the cops on their investigation and the DNA of the other men you said did not matter...
Again, you either totally misunderstood all my posts over a period of months, or you're desperately trying to misrepresent them now as something that they aren't. I'm pretty confident it's the second thing, because even though you can't really find any evidence of it, you just WANT me to have been wrong about this so, so badly.
You know you're doing it, obviously. You posted multiple things I was just objectively correct about.
-
LOL.
This is some extremely desperate flailing.
You obviously didn't find any evidence of your claim, so you post a bunch of random shit and say "see its evidence!"
The Purdue case was decided in 2019. The judge followed it. The law did not change. I typed slowly so you could hopefully understand. Does not look like it worked.
-
It's absolutely the prosecution's job to present evidence to lead the jury to conclude the defendant committed the crime. If they were presenting it as a match to TSJ, then that's different, but they were not.
I don't think it's very GOOD evidence, given the lack of a conclusive match, but it's evidence that's the prosecutor's job to try to get introduced. It's also evidence that a good defense attorney should, and did, get tossed.
So why bring the evidence if they weren't presenting it as a match? They had TSJ's fucking DNA. They could match the "inconclusive" DNA to him. There was no reason to bring that evidence if they weren't trying to say it was his. If they weren't saying it was his, then it makes her look like even more of a slut.
If TSJ's DNA were in there, it wouldn't have been inconclusive. They would have found it. That's how DNA works.
-
Keep posting shit that proves me right if you'd like. I'm not going to respond to every one, because it's clear you came up empty on the evidence you were looking for.
You're supposedly a lawyer, so you obviously know I was right in this one. You just cannot admit that I was right, because it undercuts you completely.
You were wrong the whole time. Nichi was right. He's smarter than you are. But you do have over him thinking you are genius who is never wrong.
-
So why bring the evidence if they weren't presenting it as a match? They had TSJ's fucking DNA. They could match the "inconclusive" DNA to him. There was no reason to bring that evidence if they weren't trying to say it was his. If they weren't saying it was his, then it makes her look like even more of a slut.
If TSJ's DNA were in there, it wouldn't have been inconclusive. They would have found it. That's how DNA works.
Uh, what?
There wasn't enough DNA for a conclusive match to anyone - it stated as much clearly in the lab report, even explicitly saying they didn't test it further because there wasn't enough to match it to anyone. But the partial DNA still belonged to someone, it didn't just appear out of nowhere - THAT'S how DNA works. It's not like they found enough DNA to get a full match on SOMEONE, and it just wasn't TSJ - that's what they found on the OTHER swabs.
The prosecution wanted to introduce it and try to tie it to TSJ in court - the idea being, just because the other swabs precluded him, this one didn't. Again, that's their job.
And it's the defense's job to say no, there's no connection to TSJ, and it should get tossed.
-
This has zero to do with how many men's DNA was found in her swabs. You're trying to move the goalposts to pretend to be right (which is basically the entirety of this meltdown).
"Yes, the DNA indicates she had contact with up to 5 other men (at least 2). If you think that means he's exonerated or has any relevance whatsoever to the allegation then yes, you're wrong and stupid. It doesn't."
^^ this was true, and is still true. No one else's DNA could exonerate TSJ, nor was it relevant to whether he was guilty of the crime he was accused of. Which, I assume, you know.
The lack of his DNA was relevant, as I said in that thread (even saying if the vaginal swab also didn't have a conclusive match to TSJ it wouldn't even go to trial, which I was wrong about) - you just are trying to paint a false portrayal of what I said at the time.
LOL. You got smoked by Nichi. Nichi may have been advising the defense counsel on this issue....
-
Glad you're not a prosecutor in real life. Fuck man.
No shit. Shit, I hope he isn't a garbage man. That garbage would be all over the alleys.
-
LOL. You got smoked by Nichi. Nichi may have been advising the defense counsel on this issue....
Just pretend with me guys.
-
Uh, what?
There wasn't enough DNA for a conclusive match to anyone - it stated as much clearly in the lab report. But the partial DNA still belonged to someone, it didn't just appear out of nowhere - THAT'S how DNA works.
The prosecution wanted to introduce it and try to tie it to TSJ in court - the idea being, just because the other swabs precluded him, this one didn't. Again, that's their job.
And it's the defense's job to say no, there's no connection to TSJ, and it should get tossed.
Oh, bullshit. They can get your DNA by you touching a fucking doorknob. It doesn't take much anymore. Like, hardly anything and your DNA is present.
They didn't have TSJ's DNA and they knew it. If that lab said it was inconclusive because they didn't have have enough of a sample, then it's a shitty, or corrupt lab.
This isn't 1983. They can get DNA from a very small sample.
-
Neither the search history nor the emoji from an uninvolved party is relevant to whether TSJ was guilty.
I don't blame the defense for letting the jury make their own inferences from that information - again, that's their job, to introduce reasonable doubt - but neither thing is some evidence that she was a money grubber out to get money.
And anyway, wasn't it Arterio Morris?
This is great. Again, the credibility of the prosecution case was so destroyed that they did not bring the accuser back for re-direct. They knew it was over because of all this shit the defense drudged up about her and her friend.
-
Oh, bullshit. They can get your DNA by you touching a fucking doorknob. It doesn't take much anymore. Like, hardly anything and your DNA is present.
They didn't have TSJ's DNA and they knew it. If that lab said it was inconclusive because they didn't have have enough of a sample, then it's a shitty, or corrupt lab.
This isn't 1983. They can get DNA from a very small sample.
Here's what the lab report said:
Uncertainties Whether the Samples Contain "Male DNA" (1.6 and 1.7 underwear)
"Two samples tested were reported as "due to an insufficient amount of male DNA, this sample was not selected for further testing at this time": 1.6, swabs from inside crotch of underwear and 1.7, swabs from outside crotch of underwear.
Given that these samples exhibiting the possible presence of male DNA fall well under the documented dynamic range for this quantitation kit, without further analysis to confirm the presence of male DNA (repeat quantitation) or attempted Y-STR analysis to possibly establish even partial haplotype profile, these quantitation values alone cannot be considered conclusive evidence of male DNA on these items."
-
This is great. Again, the credibility of the prosecution case was so destroyed that they did not bring the accuser back for re-direct. They knew it was over because of all this shit the defense drudged up about her and her friend.
You act like I'm somehow on the side of the prosecutor, despite my repeated statements both before and after the trial that I hadn't seen any evidence that'd lead me to convict and that they reached the correct verdict.
I agree! It would've been a miscarriage of justice if he'd been convicted based on the evidence they presented!
It wasn't because she'd slept with other men, or because her friend sent her an emoji though. It was because they did not have evidence - video evidence, DNA evidence, etc. - supporting a conviction.
-
Shitty lab then. But it's Kansas, so it's whatever.
-
Spark, I'm sorry TSJ wasn't guilty. I know you really needed that to happen.
-
The DA did not even want to touch this one. She made her underling try the case and then he quit right after it. But Spark was right the whole time about the evidence, the Illinois investigatory process, etc.
-
Those prosecutors fucked Spark over.
-
Spark, I'm sorry TSJ wasn't guilty. I know you really needed that to happen.
I always hate when a jury reaches a verdict I agree with.
-
Spark, I'm sorry TSJ wasn't guilty. I know you really needed that to happen.
He is slam dunking now. Imagine the slam dunking by Spark if he had been found guilty.
-
I always hate when a jury reaches a verdict I agree with.
It's just too bad he didn't really do it.
-
He is slam dunking now. Imagine the slam dunking by Spark if he had been found guilty.
If he'd been found guilty based on the evidence they presented, I'd have been furious.
-
Those prosecutors fucked Spark over.
The Spark!...The Lawrence DA failed Spark Mandrill.
-
If he'd been found guilty based on the evidence they presented, I'd have been furious.
I don't believe that for a second.
-
It's just too bad he didn't really do it.
A fucked up attitude, but not that surprising I guess.
-
I don't believe that for a second.
Why?
I'd made it extremely clear to that point that I hadn't seen any evidence that'd lead me to vote to convict, and that I didn't through the trial. Why wouldn't I be pissed if they convicted him anyway? That'd have been extremely fucked up.
-
A fucked up attitude, but not that surprising I guess.
No, lol, I'm glad he didn't really do it. What I was saying is that it's too bad for you that he didn't really do it. Because then you would have been right.
Oh well.
-
No, lol, I'm glad he didn't really do it. What I was saying is that it's too bad for you that he didn't really do it. Because then you would have been right.
Oh well.
Right about what, exactly?
Are you pretending I said he did it?
-
Why?
I'd made it extremely clear to that point that I hadn't seen any evidence that'd lead me to vote to convict, and that I didn't through the trial. Why wouldn't I be pissed if they convicted him anyway? That'd have been extremely fucked up.
It's just too bad that they didn't have the evidence you expected them to have. Sucks, man.
-
Right about what, exactly?
Are you pretending I said he did it?
You needed that to happen. It didn't tho.
-
It's just too bad that they didn't have the evidence you expected them to have. Sucks, man.
Dude, what are you talking about? Evidence I expected them to have?
I didn't have any expectations regarding the evidence. I formed my opinion based on the evidence that actually did exist.
-
You needed that to happen. It didn't tho.
Uh, okay.
-
It's just too bad that they didn't have the evidence you expected them to have. Sucks, man.
All his lawyer friends, who are real lawyers, had him convicted.
-
Dude, what are you talking about? Evidence I expected them to have?
I didn't have any expectations regarding the evidence. I formed my opinion based on the evidence that actually did exist.
Haha, yeah. Ok.
-
All his lawyer friends had him convicted.
I actually didn't see any person anywhere who knew what evidence did and didn't exist think he should've been convicted. Certainly not me. You guys are lying about me.
-
Haha, yeah. Ok.
(https://media.tenor.com/pNFqGBftNHEAAAAM/nick-confused.gif)
-
I actually didn't see any person anywhere who knew what evidence did and didn't exist think he should've been convicted. Certainly not me. You guys are lying about me.
The Douglas county DA brought the case. So, that's one.
-
Anyway, this has been fun. I'm getting off here for tonight. Carry on all. Again Spark, sorry TSJ didn't do it. You could have dunked on all of us.
-
Spark, I'm sorry TSJ wasn't guilty. I know you really needed that to happen.
Comments like this seem to validate Calvin’s take of “Illini homerism masquerading as legal evidence!”
-
Comments like this seem to validate Calvin’s take of “Illini homerism masquerading as legal evidence!”
At the end of the day the case lacked legal evidence.
-
Comments like this seem to validate Calvin’s take of “Illini homerism masquerading as legal evidence!”
It's not really homerism this time. They just don't like me, and are happy to tell inflammatory lies about someone they don't like.
-
At the end of the day the case lacked legal evidence.
Which fully jibes with everything I have been saying since months before the trial (which you initially tried to lie about, before I proved it), and yet you insist I was wrong about the WHOLE case.
I know something making sense isn't really a factor here, but that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
-
It's not really homerism this time. They just don't like me, and are happy to tell inflammatory lies about someone they don't like.
Hmmmm, feel like I’ve seen this before.
-
At the end of the day the case lacked legal evidence.
So Illini homerism IS reliable as legal evidence!
-
I wonder if the same conclusions would have been made and vigorously defended had it been a Duke player or Fran McCaffery’s kid.
-
White Knight Tempo is a little late to the rescue.
-
White Knight Tempo is a little late to the rescue.
Rigged jury.
-
Rigged jury.
I laughed out loud.
-
The case badly lacked evidence but none of us knew that until we actually had the victim's testimony and the DNA results, and it got annoying watching the orange-est quarter of the fanbase call the victim a ho based on the tiniest morsels of nothing-news. That said, people - and particularly younger black males - get convicted on as little evidence all the time. Like the Duke lacrosse thing it's a silver platter example of a conservative state prosecutor going way overboard in abusing discretion (see also the ongoing human rights violation that is the YSL trial). Not sure what exactly spark's involvement in that was.
-
I cannot believe you read enough of that to even chime in.
Sorry for bringing your name into it.
-
I cannot believe you read enough of that to even chime in.
Sorry for bringing your name into it.
You should be because you are a fucking asshole douchebag moron.
-
My brain fog lifted a little. Based on the the released police report, the case looked weak from the start. Insiders assured us it was even weaker than it looked. They also thought there was a good chance TSJ would return.
There were a handful or so who were certain TSJ's career at UI was over. They were also fairly confident that prosecutors had more strong evidence we hadn't seen yet.
It turned out not only was their case weak, the undisclosed evidence was far more exculpatory than not.
-
Spark breathlessly rushed to moral high ground, found the exact center of the fence to sit on, and then castigated all that he deemed to be below him; all while openly rooting for an upstanding young black man to have everything he has worked his entire life for broken on the rocks of Lawrence, Kansas DA fuckery just to wait and see if some sketchy bar skank was telling a truth that anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knew she wasn’t telling.
He THEN relentlessly insisted he’s the good guy for doing it while labeling everyone else a meatball moron for calling out bullshit when they see it.
This is a perfect example of how bleeding heart people who seem to believe there are no bad actors—just misunderstood ones—unwittingly end up on the wrong side of a heinous situation simply because they couldn’t bring themselves to accept the info and evidence staring them directly in the fucking face because it *might* later force them to admit someone is actually a piece of shit.
When a person becomes so consumed with virtue signaling self-righteousness that they cannot see the forest from the trees, I have to question just how great of a person they truly are.
Terrence Shannon, Jr. deserved better from you, spark.
-
Spark breathlessly rushed to moral high ground, found the exact center of the fence to sit on, and then castigated all that he deemed to be below him; all while openly rooting for an upstanding young black man to have everything he has worked his entire life for broken on the rocks of Lawrence, Kansas DA fuckery just to wait and see if some sketchy bar skank was telling a truth that anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knew she wasn’t telling.
He THEN relentlessly insisted he’s the good guy for doing it while labeling everyone else a meatball moron for calling out bullshit when they see it.
This is a perfect example of how bleeding heart people who seem to believe there are no bad actors—just misunderstood ones—unwittingly end up on the wrong side of a heinous situation simply because they couldn’t bring themselves to accept the info and evidence staring them directly in the fucking face because it *might* later force them to admit someone is actually a piece of shit.
When a person becomes so consumed with virtue signaling self-righteousness that they cannot see the forest from the trees, I have to question just how great of a person they truly are.
Terrence Shannon, Jr. deserved better from you, spark.
Extremely ironic to come here and try to castigate me for "taking the moral high ground", while doing the same thing - even though you were exactly the type of fan calvin was talking about who slut-shamed this girl with zero information about her. Disgusting, but expected.
Your claim that I openly rooted for TSJ to have his life broken is absolute horseshit, a disgraceful lie unbecoming of any decent person. I openly rooted for justice and for the truth to come out. What I didn't do is act like a jackass, which is what you seem to demand - I didn't slut-shame the accuser like you gleefully did, I didn't doxx her, I didn't call her a money grubbing whore. I also didn't assume he did it, I didn't call him a rapist, and I didn't advocate for him to be thrown in prison without evidence - something at least a handful of your buddies here did regarding his accuser, with zero condemnation from you. I waited for the evidence to come out like a fucking adult - something you call "fence riding" to avoid acknowledging that it's actually just acting like I've graduated junior high - the worst offense possible in this atmosphere you've cultivated. You're high and mighty about the fact that I did not jump to conclusions and waited for the evidence to come out before I made a judgment, something well adjusted people learn to do when they're adolescents.
Yes, you were a meatball moron! You slut-shamed someone who as far as we know was sexually assaulted, and you did it because of fucking college basketball. If you don't see how absolutely god damn reprehensible that is you're too deep down the well to even see the light.
It's not virtue signalling self-righteousness to call out despicable behavior, but it's often pretended to be by people acting despicably - as we see here. It's a way to get the discussion OFF how you and the people on the board you run slut-shamed and doxxed a likely sexual assault victim, and onto the "self-righteousness" of those who might dare to point out how gross it is to both allow that to happen on your board and to actively participate in it. You seem to have built a large part of your worldview based on this notion - I have to join in with the people who behave disgustingly, because those people who point out how gross I'm acting just come off as self-righteous!
Your female family members deserve better than the behavior you displayed and condoned here, but you don't give a shit.
Do I feel awful for Shannon, and glad that he wasn't convicted without any evidence? God yes! Of course I do. And if the girl was sexually assaulted, I feel awful for her too! That shit sucks, because that means the person who did that will not face justice for it! You guys act like I was "openly rooting" against TSJ even though you know that's a lie, because otherwise you'd have to actually examine your own behavior.
-
tl:dr undoubtedly filled with lies anyway
-
I cannot believe you read enough of that to even chime in.
Sorry for bringing your name into it.
I asked for him to chime in. I figured he was easily the most credible voice to lend perspective.
-
Spark breathlessly rushed to moral high ground, found the exact center of the fence to sit on, and then castigated all that he deemed to be below him; all while openly rooting for an upstanding young black man to have everything he has worked his entire life for broken on the rocks of Lawrence, Kansas DA fuckery just to wait and see if some sketchy bar skank was telling a truth that anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knew she wasn’t telling.
He THEN relentlessly insisted he’s the good guy for doing it while labeling everyone else a meatball moron for calling out bullshit when they see it.
This is a perfect example of how bleeding heart people who seem to believe there are no bad actors—just misunderstood ones—unwittingly end up on the wrong side of a heinous situation simply because they couldn’t bring themselves to accept the info and evidence staring them directly in the fucking face because it *might* later force them to admit someone is actually a piece of shit.
When a person becomes so consumed with virtue signaling self-righteousness that they cannot see the forest from the trees, I have to question just how great of a person they truly are.
Terrence Shannon, Jr. deserved better from you, spark.
Because he played ball at Illinois.
-
Extremely ironic to come here and try to castigate me for "taking the moral high ground", while doing the same thing - even though you were exactly the type of fan calvin was talking about who slut-shamed this girl with zero information about her. Disgusting, but expected.
Your claim that I openly rooted for TSJ to have his life broken is absolute horseshit, a disgraceful lie unbecoming of any decent person. I openly rooted for justice and for the truth to come out. What I didn't do is act like a jackass, which is what you seem to demand - I didn't slut-shame the accuser like you gleefully did, I didn't doxx her, I didn't call her a money grubbing whore. I also didn't assume he did it, I didn't call him a rapist, and I didn't advocate for him to be thrown in prison without evidence - something at least a handful of your buddies here did regarding his accuser, with zero condemnation from you. I waited for the evidence to come out like a fucking adult - something you call "fence riding" to avoid acknowledging that it's actually just acting like I've graduated junior high - the worst offense possible in this atmosphere you've cultivated. You're high and mighty about the fact that I did not jump to conclusions and waited for the evidence to come out before I made a judgment, something well adjusted people learn to do when they're adolescents.
Yes, you were a meatball moron! You slut-shamed someone who as far as we know was sexually assaulted, and you did it because of fucking college basketball. If you don't see how absolutely god damn reprehensible that is you're too deep down the well to even see the light.
It's not virtue signalling self-righteousness to call out despicable behavior, but it's often pretended to be by people acting despicably - as we see here. It's a way to get the discussion OFF how you and the people on the board you run slut-shamed and doxxed a likely sexual assault victim, and onto the "self-righteousness" of those who might dare to point out how gross it is to both allow that to happen on your board and to actively participate in it. You seem to have built a large part of your worldview based on this notion - I have to join in with the people who behave disgustingly, because those people who point out how gross I'm acting just come off as self-righteous!
Your female family members deserve better than the behavior you displayed and condoned here, but you don't give a shit.
Do I feel awful for Shannon, and glad that he wasn't convicted without any evidence? God yes! Of course I do. And if the girl was sexually assaulted, I feel awful for her too! That shit sucks, because that means the person who did that will not face justice for it! You guys act like I was "openly rooting" against TSJ even though you know that's a lie, because otherwise you'd have to actually examine your own behavior.
I have to say this all seems reasonable to me.
-
I purposely avoided the Shannon thread/debate, because sometimes I see the writing on the wall, and heed the wise lesson of the movie WarGames that “the only winning move is not to play.”
-
Tempo's white knighting for Spark so he has someone to beat in arguments around here is so cute.
-
Because he played ball at Illinois.
The fact he was innocent is part of it.
-
The fact he was innocent is part of it.
No one here knew that.
-
Tempo's white knighting for Spark so he has someone to beat in arguments around here is so cute.
ThePAMan is on brand here.
-
No one here knew that.
Anyone who followed it closely had a high degree of certainty.
Then it turned out the case against him was even weaker than anyone thought.
-
Ahhhhh yes, word of mouth from insiders and internet gossip.
-
Again, if it had been Fran McCaffery’s kid this place probably would have skewered him.
-
Ahhhhh yes, word of mouth from insiders and internet gossip.
When someone is consistently ahead of the curve, a smart person learns to trust them.
I am not going to apologize for being loyal to Illini players when they deserve it.
There was no Internet, but back in the day, when the idiot Rodney Jones got in trouble, nobody rushed to his defense.
if Fran McCaffery’s kid had been accused of the same thing in the same circumstances, I think most would be dubious.
-
Ahhhhh yes, word of mouth from insiders and internet gossip.
Actual lawyers who followed it very closely and explained their findings in great detail on social media.
-
Actual lawyers who followed it very closely and explained their findings in great detail on social media.
You would think Mr. Twotter would have been all over it.
-
Again, if it had been Fran McCaffery’s kid this place probably would have skewered him.
You mean just like you have skewered ChickenGeo based solely on his screen name?
-
You mean just like you have skewered ChickenGeo based solely on his screen name?
That doesn't count.
-
You mean just like you have skewered ChickenGeo based solely on his screen name?
It wasn’t just that. But it was long enough ago that I don’t remember the details and I’ve retracted it several times now.
-
It wasn’t just that. But it was long enough ago that I don’t remember the details and I’ve retracted it several times now.
You were for it before you were against it!
*Yes, I know it is a gratuitous cheap shot!
-
Unlike you, who would just continue to run with your accusation anyway.
-
Unlike you, who would just continue to run with your accusation anyway.
I guess I should edit my earlier comment!
-
It wasn’t just that. But it was long enough ago that I don’t remember the details and I’ve retracted it several times now.
Oh, come on with that bullshit. If you felt so strongly about him, which you did to call him a racist, you can't come back and say "durr I don't remember."
Fuck that, man. I'm tired of that bullshit. Come up with something, or apologize to him for being a dick. Don't be a fucking asshole.
-
Oh, come on with that bullshit. If you felt so strongly about him, which you did to call him a racist, you can't come back and say "durr I don't remember."
Fuck that, man. I'm tired of that bullshit. Come up with something, or apologize to him for being a dick. Don't be a fucking asshole.
He retracted it!
-
Hey PA man, you're a fucking racist piece of shit that hates blacks and Chinese.
-
Oh wait. I retract that.
-
I'm not going to apologize. I'm going to retract it. I said something shitty, but by me retracting it, it's like it didn't happen. So, it's retracted.
-
I'm going to try this tonight with my wife.
"Hey, cunt. What's for dinner?"
"What the fuck? Why would you say that?"
"You heard me, cunt. Make my dinner."
"Acutally, I retract that. What's for dinner?"
Yeah, I think that should work out just fine.
-
I'm going to try this tonight with my wife.
"Hey, cunt. What's for dinner?"
"What the fuck? Why would you say that?"
"You heard me, cunt. Make my dinner."
"Acutally, I retract that. What's for dinner?"
Yeah, I think that should work out just fine.
Plan on getting your blowjob…
-
Plan on getting your blowjob…
Well, yeah. Because I retracted the part where I called her a cunt. So, it's like it didn't happen. So yes, the blowjob is still 100% in play.
If I left the cunt out there, without the retraction, then I guess I'm jerking off in front of the mirror.
-
Seems simple, really. What a great life, where you can just say, Oh I retract that! So, ha! Retracted.
-
So, I have another idea. Maybe I'll go out and fuck some other bitch tonight. Then come home, and say, "honey, I fucked some other bitch tonight, but I retract that."
She'll be like, well shit, you retracted it. Cool. Doesn't mean anything then.
-
This actually could make life a lot easier.
-
Hall pass time!
-
Hall pass time!
Nope. It's not that. A hall pass is something you ask for ahead of time. In this case, do it, then retract it. No hall pass needed.
-
Hey Spark. You ok with your buddy Tempo calling another poster on here a racist with basically no evidence? You know, since evidence is so important to you.
Let us know.
-
At least TSJ was innocent.
Tempo?! Not so much…
-
Nope. It's not that. A hall pass is something you ask for ahead of time. In this case, do it, then retract it. No hall pass needed.
My bad…
Wait 💡 I retract that commment!
-
My bad…
Wait 💡 I retract that commment!
Hey, we're all learning! All good.
So yeah. You can say horrible shit about someone, and just retract it! It's like magic.
-
Hey, we're all learning! All good.
So yeah. You can say horrible shit about someone, and just retract it! It's like magic.
I’ll admit that I was wrong by saying Hall pass too! This feels good!
-
I’ll admit that I was wrong by saying Hal pass too! This feels good!
Just retract it.
-
Christ, fellas, pages of this, despite a whole internet full of pornography to explore.
I suppose it is a bye week.
-
Can only jerk off so much Calvin
-
Since Jobu mentioned the Chinese somewhere, how many Chinese spies has the UofI admitted? Can we top Michigan's 5?
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-chinese-nationals-charged-covering-visit-military-site-1962991
-
Guess scUM adheres to the Nichi/alum school of thought that non-white people can’t do anything nefarious
-
Guess scUM adheres to the Nichi/alum school of thought that non-white people can’t do anything nefarious
FFS, when did we say that?
-
weird
-
(https://s.faketrumptweet.com/m1sn9zv3_1hhos86_sx2cbw.png) (https://faketrumptweet.com/fake-tweet/m1sn9zv3_1hhos86_sx2cbw) (https://faketrumptweet.com)
-
Can only jerk off so much Calvin
Yeah, if you’re dialed in you can have that wrapped up in 8-12 minutes.
-
Vanderbilt sure seems to know how to power run from the shotgun
-
,
-
The "we are lucky to have Bielema" crowd should be posting on this thread and admitting their errors.
-
I’m in the middle. I’m in the “We could definitely do worse than Bielema” crowd.
-
I’m in the middle. I’m in the “We could definitely do worse than Bielema” crowd.
It has taken you this long to figure out Eberlose sucks
-
It has taken you this long to figure out Eberlose sucks
It took you like 2 games. We can’t all be such quick studies.
-
It took you like 2 games. We can’t all be such quick studies.
Exactly
-
I’m in the middle. I’m in the “We could definitely do worse than Bielema” crowd.
and we have
-
and we have
Worse than him is our average. Or normal, more accurately.
-
Worse than him is our average. Or normal, more accurately.
The fucking clowns in ECI know how to pick 'em.
-
Illinois should hire the UL Monroe OL Coach. He'll get some damn results or else.