Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[Raider]

GG, let's have some discussion about specifics, and let's use only facts. Let's see some examples of what you think Griz fans, or some Griz fans, support "at all costs". Remember, you need to stick to facts. No making stuff up. No made-up straw men.

it's a figurative term. it doesn't mean people hold a gun to someone's head to win a game. in this case it means people who only look at things that will exonerate a player or coach accused of wrongdoing. some even try to minimize a crime even after the accused admits to it. it's ok to play defense attorney, but if you take a moderate stance you get attacked. i can't imagine what playing prosecutor would do.

no, that doesn't mean i think every poster here does that. but a majority in this thread are that way.

I actually agree with you, up until that last sentence.

You need to stop painting everyone with that brush because you think it helps shape YOUR argument. You try to project the “win at all cost mentality” crap on me all the time, and I am nothing like that, at all. And stating YOUR opinion as fact doesn’t make you right either.

grizzy, if you got down off your soapbox for one second, I think you may find more common ground that you think.

 

[Raider]

Care to elaborate?

..and why did you post this comment on e-griz? There are over 20 comments on that subject. Why this one?

because it flys in the face of what everyone here is talking about, which is defending the football program at all costs. we can do things the right way and still be good, actually we'd probably be better. with dennison, foley, o'day, pflu gone we're on the right track imo. trouble is, so many are engrained in that style that it's hard to change. starting at the top was a good move. the sheep will follow.

Good god you are full of shit.

The reason you posted this comment is because it’s in line with your melodramatic agenda, period.

Other than the few, extreme “PR type” of posters, who “defends the football program at all costs”? You are clutching at straws.

You need to pay more attention. I don't defend the program at all costs--not even close. However, I defend the program when untrue or unfair things are being said about it.

I pay plenty of attention.

Maybe saying you defend the program at all costs is a bit harsh, but you are on the extreme end of things. The irritant is that whenever someone tries to reason with a poster like getgrizzy, the canned response is to get compared to you.

Maybe not entirely your fault, but annoying none-the-less.

 

[PlayerRep]

if you take a moderate stance you get attacked

On this, I agree with GG 100%. Anyone who has taken a moderate stance on any issue surrounding the crimes with the FB team, the firing of Robin and Jim, the NCAA investigation, etc have routinely gotten lambasted on this board.

I think what's important to remember is that of the 100,000 UM alumni, the 1,000 that post on this board represent a very small percentage, and they are always going to lean more toward protecting athletics. When looking at the big picture, you have to view what's posted here through that lens.

No, people like GG who frequently lie and exaggerate hear from others. I'm waiting to hear from anyone with a good example. There must be many examples to support your views, as you're acting like this happens all the time.

Okay, let's talk about the firing of Pflu and O'Day. Feel free to articulate a specific, valid and true reason for their firings. Note that it needs to be specific, true and valid. Let's hear all of the things that support their firings. Can't wait for this. Let's hear the innuendo. I'll hit those out of the ballpark.

Note that an AD and head coach have only been fired together twice: Penn St and UM, according to what I read.

the only person that knows the true reason they were released from their contracts is engstrom. all anyone else can do is speculate. you're speculation, as usual, is a defense of them. you'll say they were released from their contracts as a scapegoat. you call anyone else's speculation a lie.

you treat the people you're supporting like a lawyer would treat a client. this is why you object to anyone like me who admits they don't know. to you that has to be shot down. only people that agree with your speculation are acceptable. just like a lawyer would do in court.

Yes, I have supported and will support O'Day and Pflu. No, I don't know what was in Engstrom's head when he fired them, although I do know what he said to them and how he couldn't look them in the eye. However, while Engstrom would know things that I don't know, especially what was in his head, I know many things that Engstrom didn't and doesn't know, know more about what O'Day and Pflu had done and were doing than Engstrom did and does, and know more about some underlying facts than Engstrom did and does (as I have talked to some of the people who were involved). While I don't know for sure who may have pressured Engstrom to do this, I do know something about who Engstrom did and didn't consult with at the time. Also, they weren't released from their contracts; they were fired before their contracts were done, pushed out of the their jobs, and paid the remaining amount on their contracts.

 

[PlayerRep]

GG, let's have some discussion about specifics, and let's use only facts. Let's see some examples of what you think Griz fans, or some Griz fans, support "at all costs". Remember, you need to stick to facts. No making stuff up. No made-up straw men.

it's a figurative term. it doesn't mean people hold a gun to someone's head to win a game. in this case it means people who only look at things that will exonerate a player or coach accused of wrongdoing. some even try to minimize a crime even after the accused admits to it. it's ok to play defense attorney, but if you take a moderate stance you get attacked. i can't imagine what playing prosecutor would do.

no, that doesn't mean i think every poster here does that. but a majority in this thread are that way.

Many athletes who get charged get zero support. Absolutely zero. How is that support at all costs?

What about guys like you who bring up allegations even after they've been proven wrong, or charged dropped, or people found innocent? You're a guilty at all costs guy.

Sorry, but some "crimes" are very minor even if people admit to them. People like you try to make them out as crimes of the century, but going a few miles over the speed limit is not a big deal and should be minimized.

I knew you couldn't come up with any specifics.

i don't recall an instance where someone was charged that you didn't defend them here. not only that but you have defended guys who have admitted to crimes.

i don't recall bringing up allegations after they were "proven" wrong, but i do bring them up when "found" not guilty. there's a difference between those two things. it isn't that i think they're guilty, it's simply that i realize i don't really know for sure what happened regardless of what a jury says.
i've never tried to make a speeding ticket or any minor crime out to be the crime of the century. you're being hypersensitive and hysterical.

As usual, your recollection is faulty. You have consistently brought up and listed allegations and rumors after charges were dropped or people were acquittted or pled to a minor charge. You did that with Wilson, Quinn, Tru/Kemp and multiple others. I have often said little or nothing when athletes have gotten in trouble. Most of the time when I have defended them or the situation, I had extra information. I ended up being right in almost every situation, except for my instinct that Donaldson hadn't done it.

 

[getgrizzy]

it's a figurative term. it doesn't mean people hold a gun to someone's head to win a game. in this case it means people who only look at things that will exonerate a player or coach accused of wrongdoing. some even try to minimize a crime even after the accused admits to it. it's ok to play defense attorney, but if you take a moderate stance you get attacked. i can't imagine what playing prosecutor would do.

no, that doesn't mean i think every poster here does that. but a majority in this thread are that way.

Many athletes who get charged get zero support. Absolutely zero. How is that support at all costs?

What about guys like you who bring up allegations even after they've been proven wrong, or charged dropped, or people found innocent? You're a guilty at all costs guy.

Sorry, but some "crimes" are very minor even if people admit to them. People like you try to make them out as crimes of the century, but going a few miles over the speed limit is not a big deal and should be minimized.

I knew you couldn't come up with any specifics.

i don't recall an instance where someone was charged that you didn't defend them here. not only that but you have defended guys who have admitted to crimes.

i don't recall bringing up allegations after they were "proven" wrong, but i do bring them up when "found" not guilty. there's a difference between those two things. it isn't that i think they're guilty, it's simply that i realize i don't really know for sure what happened regardless of what a jury says.
i've never tried to make a speeding ticket or any minor crime out to be the crime of the century. you're being hypersensitive and hysterical.

As usual, your recollection is faulty. You have consistently brought up and listed allegations and rumors after charges were dropped or people were acquittted or pled to a minor charge. You did that with Wilson, Quinn, Tru/Kemp and multiple others. I have often said little or nothing when athletes have gotten in trouble. Most of the time when I have defended them or the situation, I had extra information. I ended up being right in almost every situation, except for my instinct that Donaldson hadn't done it.

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

 

[getgrizzy]

On this, I agree with GG 100%. Anyone who has taken a moderate stance on any issue surrounding the crimes with the FB team, the firing of Robin and Jim, the NCAA investigation, etc have routinely gotten lambasted on this board.

I think what's important to remember is that of the 100,000 UM alumni, the 1,000 that post on this board represent a very small percentage, and they are always going to lean more toward protecting athletics. When looking at the big picture, you have to view what's posted here through that lens.

No, people like GG who frequently lie and exaggerate hear from others. I'm waiting to hear from anyone with a good example. There must be many examples to support your views, as you're acting like this happens all the time.

Okay, let's talk about the firing of Pflu and O'Day. Feel free to articulate a specific, valid and true reason for their firings. Note that it needs to be specific, true and valid. Let's hear all of the things that support their firings. Can't wait for this. Let's hear the innuendo. I'll hit those out of the ballpark.

Note that an AD and head coach have only been fired together twice: Penn St and UM, according to what I read.

the only person that knows the true reason they were released from their contracts is engstrom. all anyone else can do is speculate. you're speculation, as usual, is a defense of them. you'll say they were released from their contracts as a scapegoat. you call anyone else's speculation a lie.

you treat the people you're supporting like a lawyer would treat a client. this is why you object to anyone like me who admits they don't know. to you that has to be shot down. only people that agree with your speculation are acceptable. just like a lawyer would do in court.

Yes, I have supported and will support O'Day and Pflu. No, I don't know what was in Engstrom's head when he fired them, although I do know what he said to them and how he couldn't look them in the eye. However, while Engstrom would know things that I don't know, especially what was in his head, I know many things that Engstrom didn't and doesn't know, know more about what O'Day and Pflu had done and were doing than Engstrom did and does, and know more about some underlying facts than Engstrom did and does (as I have talked to some of the people who were involved). While I don't know for sure who may have pressured Engstrom to do this, I do know something about who Engstrom did and didn't consult with at the time. Also, they weren't released from their contracts; they were fired before their contracts were done, pushed out of the their jobs, and paid the remaining amount on their contracts.

in other words we agree.

 

[getgrizzy]

GG, let's have some discussion about specifics, and let's use only facts. Let's see some examples of what you think Griz fans, or some Griz fans, support "at all costs". Remember, you need to stick to facts. No making stuff up. No made-up straw men.

it's a figurative term. it doesn't mean people hold a gun to someone's head to win a game. in this case it means people who only look at things that will exonerate a player or coach accused of wrongdoing. some even try to minimize a crime even after the accused admits to it. it's ok to play defense attorney, but if you take a moderate stance you get attacked. i can't imagine what playing prosecutor would do.

no, that doesn't mean i think every poster here does that. but a majority in this thread are that way.

I actually agree with you, up until that last sentence.

You need to stop painting everyone with that brush because you think it helps shape YOUR argument. You try to project the “win at all cost mentality” crap on me all the time, and I am nothing like that, at all. And stating YOUR opinion as fact doesn’t make you right either.

grizzy, if you got down off your soapbox for one second, I think you may find more common ground that you think.

i just treat people better than or equal to how they treat me. you've called me about every offensive name in the book on here. so comparing you to p.r. ... wait that is worse than all the dirty names you call me. :lol: man, i'm so sorry.

 

[PlayerRep]

Many athletes who get charged get zero support. Absolutely zero. How is that support at all costs?

What about guys like you who bring up allegations even after they've been proven wrong, or charged dropped, or people found innocent? You're a guilty at all costs guy.

Sorry, but some "crimes" are very minor even if people admit to them. People like you try to make them out as crimes of the century, but going a few miles over the speed limit is not a big deal and should be minimized.

I knew you couldn't come up with any specifics.

i don't recall an instance where someone was charged that you didn't defend them here. not only that but you have defended guys who have admitted to crimes.

i don't recall bringing up allegations after they were "proven" wrong, but i do bring them up when "found" not guilty. there's a difference between those two things. it isn't that i think they're guilty, it's simply that i realize i don't really know for sure what happened regardless of what a jury says.
i've never tried to make a speeding ticket or any minor crime out to be the crime of the century. you're being hypersensitive and hysterical.

As usual, your recollection is faulty. You have consistently brought up and listed allegations and rumors after charges were dropped or people were acquittted or pled to a minor charge. You did that with Wilson, Quinn, Tru/Kemp and multiple others. I have often said little or nothing when athletes have gotten in trouble. Most of the time when I have defended them or the situation, I had extra information. I ended up being right in almost every situation, except for my instinct that Donaldson hadn't done it.

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

 

[Raider]

GG, let's have some discussion about specifics, and let's use only facts. Let's see some examples of what you think Griz fans, or some Griz fans, support "at all costs". Remember, you need to stick to facts. No making stuff up. No made-up straw men.

it's a figurative term. it doesn't mean people hold a gun to someone's head to win a game. in this case it means people who only look at things that will exonerate a player or coach accused of wrongdoing. some even try to minimize a crime even after the accused admits to it. it's ok to play defense attorney, but if you take a moderate stance you get attacked. i can't imagine what playing prosecutor would do.

no, that doesn't mean i think every poster here does that. but a majority in this thread are that way.

I actually agree with you, up until that last sentence.

You need to stop painting everyone with that brush because you think it helps shape YOUR argument. You try to project the “win at all cost mentality” crap on me all the time, and I am nothing like that, at all. And stating YOUR opinion as fact doesn’t make you right either.

grizzy, if you got down off your soapbox for one second, I think you may find more common ground that you think.

i just treat people better than or equal to how they treat me. you've called me about every offensive name in the book on here. so comparing you to p.r. ... wait that is worse than all the dirty names you call me. :lol: man, i'm so sorry.

Truce then on the name calling.

Can we also agree that…..

1) Not everyone who disagrees with you has a “win at all cost mentality”, or “defends the program at all costs”, etc.

2) Your opinion is just that, your opinion, not fact.

 

[poorgriz]

PR has made it VERY clear over the years that when a player gets into trouble with the law, the most important thing at that point is not whether or not the player actually committed the crime, but whether or not their lawyer will be able to beat the charge. If it doesn't get proven in a court of law, it didn't happen. I'm not saying all this to slam on PR. This is a lawyer's view of the world, and it's not always a bad thing. Hell, if I committed a serious crime, this is how I'd want my lawyer to look at things. I just hate it when players get in trouble, everybody knows they did something wrong, but they get off on the charges and people pretend like they really didn't do anything wrong. Just admit that they F'd up, got off due to a good lawyer, and move on, It happens all the time.

 

[getgrizzy]

i don't recall an instance where someone was charged that you didn't defend them here. not only that but you have defended guys who have admitted to crimes.

i don't recall bringing up allegations after they were "proven" wrong, but i do bring them up when "found" not guilty. there's a difference between those two things. it isn't that i think they're guilty, it's simply that i realize i don't really know for sure what happened regardless of what a jury says.
i've never tried to make a speeding ticket or any minor crime out to be the crime of the century. you're being hypersensitive and hysterical.

As usual, your recollection is faulty. You have consistently brought up and listed allegations and rumors after charges were dropped or people were acquittted or pled to a minor charge. You did that with Wilson, Quinn, Tru/Kemp and multiple others. I have often said little or nothing when athletes have gotten in trouble. Most of the time when I have defended them or the situation, I had extra information. I ended up being right in almost every situation, except for my instinct that Donaldson hadn't done it.

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

i never once said that someone accused or acquitted ISN'T innocent or factually didn't commit the crime they were accused of. all i've ever said is that a guilty or not guilty verdict doesn't "prove" that someone is or isn't guilty or not guilty. it's a finding, not an irrefutable truth. a presumption of innocence doesn't "prove" anything either. just like we can't KNOW why engstrom release pflugrad from his contract. there's knowing something and there's going with the best evidence. they aren't the same thing.

 

[Raider]

PR has made it VERY clear over the years that when a player gets into trouble with the law, the most important thing at that point is not whether or not the player actually committed the crime, but whether or not their lawyer will be able to beat the charge. If it doesn't get proven in a court of law, it didn't happen. I'm not saying all this to slam on PR. This is a lawyer's view of the world, and it's not always a bad thing. Hell, if I committed a serious crime, this is how I'd want my lawyer to look at things. I just hate it when players get in trouble, everybody knows they did something wrong, but they get off on the charges and people pretend like they really didn't do anything wrong. Just admit that they F'd up, got off due to a good lawyer, and move on, It happens all the time.

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe "got off" due to good lawyering?

 

[griz8791]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Your front-loaded view of the process, where the most serious charge ever brought against the person hangs over them forever while you dismiss the ultimate disposition of the case as a mere technicality, is disturbing.

 

[getgrizzy]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Your front-loaded view of the process, where the most serious charge ever brought against the person hangs over them forever while you dismiss the ultimate disposition of the case as a mere technicality, is disturbing.

how is admitting that i don't know for a fact if an accused person did or didn't commit a crime considered dismissing the ultimate disposition. other than cases like the o.j. case i almost always accept a courts verdict. in fact i fully agree with the verdict of the j.j. trial. agreeing with a verdict doesn't mean i know without any doubt what happened. it's a very simple concept to grasp.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR has made it VERY clear over the years that when a player gets into trouble with the law, the most important thing at that point is not whether or not the player actually committed the crime, but whether or not their lawyer will be able to beat the charge. If it doesn't get proven in a court of law, it didn't happen. I'm not saying all this to slam on PR. This is a lawyer's view of the world, and it's not always a bad thing. Hell, if I committed a serious crime, this is how I'd want my lawyer to look at things. I just hate it when players get in trouble, everybody knows they did something wrong, but they get off on the charges and people pretend like they really didn't do anything wrong. Just admit that they F'd up, got off due to a good lawyer, and move on, It happens all the time.

Don't think I have ever said that. Feel free to call something to my attention. When "professional" policeman and prosecutors make an arrest, allegation, or bring a charge, why wouldn't or shouldn't the accused seek assistance from a professional. You act like there's something wrong with getting good or professional assistance when a person is accused. In my view, anyone who doesn't seek good advice in that situation is being very stupid. Do you also think it's wrong to get assistance from a specialist when you have a medical issue?

 

[griz8791]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Your front-loaded view of the process, where the most serious charge ever brought against the person hangs over them forever while you dismiss the ultimate disposition of the case as a mere technicality, is disturbing.

how is admitting that i don't know for a fact if an accused person did or didn't commit a crime considered dismissing the ultimate disposition. other than cases like the o.j. case i almost always accept a courts verdict. in fact i fully agree with the verdict of the j.j. trial. agreeing with a verdict doesn't mean i know without any doubt what happened. it's a very simple concept to grasp.

Do you extend the same metaphysical benefit of the doubt to those who have been convicted, or who plead to lesser charges despite believing they can win at trial, because the prosecutor is threatening to demand the maximum if the accused goes to trial and loses?

 

[PlayerRep]

As usual, your recollection is faulty. You have consistently brought up and listed allegations and rumors after charges were dropped or people were acquittted or pled to a minor charge. You did that with Wilson, Quinn, Tru/Kemp and multiple others. I have often said little or nothing when athletes have gotten in trouble. Most of the time when I have defended them or the situation, I had extra information. I ended up being right in almost every situation, except for my instinct that Donaldson hadn't done it.

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Oh please, don't start this dumb argument that someone acquitted of a crime at trial isn't innocent or hasn't been shown to be innocent. That's just plain silly. 75 will blow you out of the water on that one again. If someone is not convicted at trial, or charges are dropped or reduced, that almost always means that the charges were not correct, could not be proven, and/or should never have been brought or alleged. What's left is the presumption of innocence.

i never once said that someone accused or acquitted ISN'T innocent or factually didn't commit the crime they were accused of. all i've ever said is that a guilty or not guilty verdict doesn't "prove" that someone is or isn't guilty or not guilty. it's a finding, not an irrefutable truth. a presumption of innocence doesn't "prove" anything either. just like we can't KNOW why engstrom release pflugrad from his contract. there's knowing something and there's going with the best evidence. they aren't the same thing.

Why can't you admit, and believe, that getting arrested, accused in a newspaper, charged, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that the accuseddid what they were accused of, or that there was a valid basis for the arrest, allegation, or charge. Incorrect arrests, allegations, charges, etc. are made all the time. It's not uncommon. Charges sometimes are never brought. Charges are often dropped or reduced. People win their cases.

 

[Raider]

An example for you grizzy.

John Doe is accused of murder. He is charged, tried and found not-guilty.

I come on here and say “you know guys, there is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent.”

What would you assume I am implying by making that statement?

 

[getgrizzy]

you said "proven" wrong, not dropped, acquitted or pled to a minor charge. none of those is the same as "proven".

Your front-loaded view of the process, where the most serious charge ever brought against the person hangs over them forever while you dismiss the ultimate disposition of the case as a mere technicality, is disturbing.

how is admitting that i don't know for a fact if an accused person did or didn't commit a crime considered dismissing the ultimate disposition. other than cases like the o.j. case i almost always accept a courts verdict. in fact i fully agree with the verdict of the j.j. trial. agreeing with a verdict doesn't mean i know without any doubt what happened. it's a very simple concept to grasp.

Do you extend the same metaphysical benefit of the doubt to those who have been convicted, or who plead to lesser charges despite believing they can win at trial, because the prosecutor is threatening to demand the maximum if the accused goes to trial and loses?

saying i don't know isn't giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

 

[UMGriz75]

I just hate it when players get in trouble, everybody knows they did something wrong, but they get off on the charges and people pretend like they really didn't do anything wrong. Just admit that they F'd up, got off due to a good lawyer, and move on, It happens all the time.

And what piece of logic permits you to assume they "F'd up, got off due to a good lawyer and .... that it happens all of the time"?

Does come from the school of thought that we "can never really know," the school of thought that "we have a system that does the best it can," or the school of thought that "it doesn't matter what happens, they're guilty because of assumptions that "poorgriz" makes at the outset about the social value of the accused, and therefore his view that their guilt must be assumed because of who they are"?

That, "we really can know what happened, and if we are 'poorgriz," we actually do"?

Isn't this simply a pernicious and arrogant restatement of the "genetic fallacy," specially tailored for Griz athletes?

Don't you just hate it?