Argh!, it takes a helluva person to run down the reputation of someone that has passed away and cannot defend themselves, but I would expect nothing less from you. I knew the individual that you mentioned; I worked in his research lab and he was one of my professors. He was also ten times the individual that you are. He was a dedicated, kind person; all things you know nothing about. I suggest that in the future when you want to run someone down, it would be advisable to run down someone that has the ability to defend themself. What a giant A$$HAT!
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Krakauer getting defensive?
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
UMGriz75
Well-known member
The "reality of the situation?" About a deceased pharmacy professor? His ultimately unsuccessful battle with diabetes? A gratuitous and now ongoing attack on his character (or something)? A "fat man," whom you apparently disdained in life? For being fat?argh! said:
On a thread actually about a famous author and his ongoing attack on a football quarterback and its devastating and ongoing effect on the academic mission at the University?
You are one "class act."
Run that "reality of the situation" phrase past yourself a few times. :idea:
argh when you tried to pretend to play basketball with Derrick Pope many years ago I read your cute posts. You remember calling Dill "Sunny" and of course you joined him in his posts against the other Griz fans on the old board?
And about 10-15 years ago your posts had portions of class, humor and bites of intelligence. Seems as if U morphed into another nut case that needs to be listed on the "Do Not Read" list.
Drugs got in your way?
And about 10-15 years ago your posts had portions of class, humor and bites of intelligence. Seems as if U morphed into another nut case that needs to be listed on the "Do Not Read" list.
Drugs got in your way?
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
No reply........from one with a recent history of repeated, escalating personal attacks/counter attacks. Strange. Sounds like a plot out of the "X-Files." :?:
i agree, umista, somewhere along the way this game became more nasty and acerbic, less fun. i think that can be said for the board in general, and not just me. you certainly have had your moments of late. oh, and i didn't say i played basketball with pope, i said i lived across the hall from him and larry k in the dorms. that's not exactly a claim to fame.
as for my initial comment, the focus was meant to be that um75, with his invented 'memory' of 20 years ago, was making stuff up and trying to pass it off as knowledgeable fact - and given my familiarity with the situation, i know this for sure. had i known that someone from that era was reading the way-off topic discussion between us, i might have used different terms. oh, the stories i could tell, though. heck, i was quite the derelict myself at the time. nonetheless, when it comes to disparaging folks who can't fight back, um75 takes the cake - the alleged victims, the pharmacy dean, the um administration, the random person interviewed for the krakwhatever article.
and finally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, hammer!
as for my initial comment, the focus was meant to be that um75, with his invented 'memory' of 20 years ago, was making stuff up and trying to pass it off as knowledgeable fact - and given my familiarity with the situation, i know this for sure. had i known that someone from that era was reading the way-off topic discussion between us, i might have used different terms. oh, the stories i could tell, though. heck, i was quite the derelict myself at the time. nonetheless, when it comes to disparaging folks who can't fight back, um75 takes the cake - the alleged victims, the pharmacy dean, the um administration, the random person interviewed for the krakwhatever article.
and finally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, hammer!
I'm surprised that it's not clear to some that there's a big difference, in terms of fighting back. between someone who is dead and someone who is alive. Seems obvious that it's much harder for a dead person to fight back.
75 is one of the better posters on the board. Writes well, very knowledgeable especially in the legal subject area, and very smart. I don't notice him making up stuff in the areas in which I know the facts. I enjoy 75's posts.
75 is one of the better posters on the board. Writes well, very knowledgeable especially in the legal subject area, and very smart. I don't notice him making up stuff in the areas in which I know the facts. I enjoy 75's posts.
Same here. Its good stuff to know.PlayerRep said:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
As you began to do on the "JJ Trial" threads, you were invariably caught "making things up." This new claim is completely bogus. Firstly, you had nothing to say about the statements made -- relationship of BAC to intoxication -- which I merely interjected by way of agreeing with another poster, not making an independent point; as a "well, yes, that is what I have heard." As tnt noted, the fact is that the comment was valid.argh! said:
Your response, a chicken**** response, was not to comment on the statement made in any way. Instead you go off on some vast and unrelated attack on a professor you personally did not like, whom you thought was "fat," and disparaged his memory and his capability with odd and dark accusations that had nothing to do with any of this.
Your alleged "familiarity with the situation" somehow managed to connect "making stuff up about" about a lab session that annually tested an intoxilyzer against student intake and coordination. Odd that for, "making something up" you believed that my comments connected directly and immediately to a specific professor. Not bad considering you also believe the claim was fabricated. If false, then there was no connection to make, and certainly not by way of rebutting the statements with attacks on the professor that had nothing to do with the claims made. Nothing.
Do you "get" the difference between staying on topic and ad hominem attacks? You clearly don't. You are vile.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
How can anyone take you seriously? One of the "alleged victims" was all over the front page last week, complete with color photo, taking full advantage of biased reporting designed, as the Missoulian has become, to offer "press release" vindications in the form of news articles. Can't fight back? What world are you living in?argh! said:
Are you so bitter and twisted that reality becomes whatever you want it to be when you get caught -- as you did on this thread -- trying to claim that the Missoulian could claim it knew what the "alleged victim's" BAC was two hours before it was measured, complete with it's own legal and medical conclusions, and you knew you had blundered into another unconscionable and idiotic claim; not only an "alleged victim" fighting "back" but a media reporter fabricating medical and legal claims in her support.
Jayzuz; you do know how to get things backwards when you really want to.
Tellingly, that outright fabrication, designed to mislead the entire public, didn't bother you at all. You attempted to defend it. And you slowly, too slowly, realized you couldn't and that any effort to do so was completely idiotic because it was indefensible. That you had, once again, trapped yourself in a cage of absurdity by your base needs and agenda regarding these matters, JJ and Griz football, by an "alleged victim" not just "fighting back" with the cooperation of a compliant media, with a color photo and front page treatment, but "fighting back" with outrageous medical and legal falsehoods fabricated whole cloth by an advocacy reporter and offered on behalf of someone you claim "can't fight back."
So, you changed the subject to a mendacious personal attack on someone who once offered an opinion -- likely better informed than yours -- on BAC, and also which had nearly nothing to do with the Missoulian claim regarding BAC. Precisely because he couldn't fight back, and you needed to get this thread off of your gigantic blunder. It's what you do and who you are.
UMGriz75 said:
as i alluded to above, i regret making that personal comment in this forum. at times it is easy to forget that more than three people may read the nonsense posted on egriz. but again, you make many more personal assaults without regard to who you attacking. (as an aside, hey greenie, do you really think engstrom, the pharmacy dean, the woman interviewed in the paper et al are going to come argue with um75 on flippin' egriz?) as for the alleged victim, how did i defend her?. again, the point for me in this specific case is that there really isn't enough information to make an accurate judgement about the woman's intoxication level and cognitive status at the time of the event, pro or against. moreover, in an effort to establish the latter, you use relatively meaningless data to try to come to a negative assessment of her status. as a scientist you can surely appreciate that anecdotal evidence using self-reports from students at a pharmacy party and a relatively unreliable means of measurement (even modern breathalyzers are notoriously inaccurate) does little to enlighten one on potential levels of cognitive impairment as a function of a specific individual's bals. ergo, your overall agenda gets in the way of clear scientific thinking.
17 pages here we come!
UMGriz75 said:
Just curious, '75. Do you still stand by this statement?
You know, since we're so all-fired "truthy" and such...
UMGriz75
Well-known member
Nobody can back-pedal like you can.argh! said:
When I made that specific point, that the Missoulian reporter had no business trying to claim that a BAC TWO HOURS after the incident meant that the fabulist had, at the time of the incident, the legal and medical inability to consent, you came unglued.
It was OK when the Missoulian made the claim of a specific and absolute "judgment about the women's intoxication level and cognitive status at the time of the event," and I offered specific "examples" as to why the Missoulian could not make those legal and medical conclusions, nor make them for publication to a general audience on behalf of a likely fabulist in order to convince the public stating a false conclusion.
On behalf of the likely fabulist, getting front-page coverage, you thought that was OK.
When I pointed out that the Missoulian could not possibly make that claim, you went nuts, and are now trying to "claim" that ... no one can make a claim about it.
Do you think about what you post, or is your venomous nature toward certain posters, whom you troll on various threads to mainly post snarky comments, so great that it causes you to run into yourself at high speeds and then claim it's someone else's fault?
