Missoulians Dillon K

[cmtgrizzly]

Overall I think most people will perceive this as a biased agenda driven article full of half truths. It seems it was written to sabotage Hauck's hiring but I think in large part it may be harming the Missoulian more. It should have been written with both sides of the story i.e. what discipline was handed out in those situations and why. What was the final decision on what the misbehavior was and the punishment that went with it. Furthermore, how silly will they look when Hauck is hired (if he is) and they have to approach him for articles or not cover the football team. I wouldnt blame Hauck for having animosity toward them which they would deserve but I bet Bobby would be the bigger person and be professional. Hopefully the Missoulian would be too.

I think you are wrong. Most people are aware these things happened and that the bottom line in each case pointed out by the Missoulian that overall it was not good for the University. I think people will agree with the Missoulian that there were too many incidents that happened under Haucks term and bringing him back is not a good thing for a University that is really struggling financially due in a large part because of these negatives.

You are missing the point. The people that want to see Hauck in a negative way, will no matter what the Missoulian writes. As you say these events are already known but to report them at this time with only half the story shows a small minded agenda driven article. If Hauck was so bad then why not tell the whole story including the punishments and the results of each event such as acquittals or other legal findings and let the whole story speak for itself?

 

[The.Real.2506]

I have no relation to Kato. I am just pointing out truths that you apparently do not want to hear. I am a lifelong Griz fan, a graduate from the University of Montana, and a former student athlete at UM. What you do not seem to understand is that by focusing on the writer of the story, and the newspapers that publish the story-instead of some of the poor choices by former football players-you are reinforcing the negative views of the team that so many Missoulians already have.

They see things like what you have posted and automatically think you favor the team over justice.They think you are making excuses for the players poor choices. I am not accusing you of that. I too love the Griz, and I strongly believe they get an unfair reputation in Missoula. I am simply pointing out that an entrenched, combative attitude towards those who do not like the football team will only create more distrust and animosity from them towards the University.

You are correct-I don't have knowledge of why you posted the information, or what you think of Mr. Kato. But I do believe that in 2017 most people don't care. They already have their opinions and when they see people getting upset over what a reporter has written, they will assume you don't think the players are at fault, and they will assume you would rather see wins than student athletes with good character.

Again, I do not believe them, I do not believe this was good journalism, and I believe you have good intentions and probably some good information. But I think giving any shred of attention to the writer of this piece will only create more distrust and bad relations between the team and the city of Missoula.

I agree with you MTGRIZ. By going after the reporter people are just re-enforcing of the "win at all costs" culture. Hiring Hauck will bring to attention all the negatives that happened during his last stint whether right or wrong. His hiring will make Bodnar's job tougher. While if hired it will make those on EGRIZ happy, it is going to be a negative with a lot of people around the State. People are saying "here we go again"!

Why do they not see this?
I think hiring BH will be the final nail in the coffin of fizz football. God I hope they are that stupid.

Ha, ha. Real funny, Troll.

You guys finally have the dumpster fire about out and now you are looking for flammable material to throw in.

I love it, like I said it will be fun watching BH burn fizz football to the ground.

 

[PlayerRep]

Overall I think most people will perceive this as a biased agenda driven article full of half truths. It seems it was written to sabotage Hauck's hiring but I think in large part it may be harming the Missoulian more. It should have been written with both sides of the story i.e. what discipline was handed out in those situations and why. What was the final decision on what the misbehavior was and the punishment that went with it. Furthermore, how silly will they look when Hauck is hired (if he is) and they have to approach him for articles or not cover the football team. I wouldnt blame Hauck for having animosity toward them which they would deserve but I bet Bobby would be the bigger person and be professional. Hopefully the Missoulian would be too.

I think you are wrong. Most people are aware these things happened and that the bottom line in each case pointed out by the Missoulian that overall it was not good for the University. I think people will agree with the Missoulian that there were too many incidents that happened under Haucks term and bringing him back is not a good thing for a University that is really struggling financially due in a large part because of these negatives.

Nope, CMT is correct. These things are largely old and cold. Most people don't think that way. They know the Missoulian is biased. Anyone who looks at the articles objectively can see the mistakes and bias. Many of the "incidents" under Hauck turned out not to be true or valid. Wilson acquitted and allowed to return to UM. Things like 2d Quinn dui dropped. It's not true that the corner was thrown off team because it wouldn't talk to the LA investigators. That is total BS. Really just a lie. House burglary bad, and those guys were kicked off team. Punches by frosh when drinking, and they too were kicked off team. No sexual assault allegations in that list while Hauck was coach.

Apparently, zero problems while he was at UNLV.

Hauck wasn't the problem. He is and was a big disciplinarian. The problem was the Missoulian and some other media, and weak kneed administrators like Engstrom.

No coach at UM, at least in modern history, has been anywhere close to a win-at-all-cost coach. In fact, largely the opposite. That theme is total BS made up by some.

 

[bigsky33]

No, my posting of public info from his Facebook/Twitter does not carry any negative tone at all, and nothing negative was said. I am just pointing out info that I read about him. You have no knowledge of why I posted it, or what I think of him, but you are right that he posted incorrect information. That's crappy reporting, in my view. Yours too?

You are biased and wrong, and have misanalysed this situation.

Posting public info is not "focusing" on him. Posting pubic info will not make Griz fans look bad. You are just making yourself look biased, and bad, is my view.

Looks like you are Helena, so assume you are not Kato's dad. Are you a relative?

I have no relation to Kato. I am just pointing out truths that you apparently do not want to hear. I am a lifelong Griz fan, a graduate from the University of Montana, and a former student athlete at UM. What you do not seem to understand is that by focusing on the writer of the story, and the newspapers that publish the story-instead of some of the poor choices by former football players-you are reinforcing the negative views of the team that so many Missoulians already have.

They see things like what you have posted and automatically think you favor the team over justice.They think you are making excuses for the players poor choices. I am not accusing you of that. I too love the Griz, and I strongly believe they get an unfair reputation in Missoula. I am simply pointing out that an entrenched, combative attitude towards those who do not like the football team will only create more distrust and animosity from them towards the University.

You are correct-I don't have knowledge of why you posted the information, or what you think of Mr. Kato. But I do believe that in 2017 most people don't care. They already have their opinions and when they see people getting upset over what a reporter has written, they will assume you don't think the players are at fault, and they will assume you would rather see wins than student athletes with good character.

Again, I do not believe them, I do not believe this was good journalism, and I believe you have good intentions and probably some good information. But I think giving any shred of attention to the writer of this piece will only create more distrust and bad relations between the team and the city of Missoula.

I agree with you MTGRIZ. By going after the reporter people are just re-enforcing of the "win at all costs" culture. Hiring Hauck will bring to attention all the negatives that happened during his last stint whether right or wrong. His hiring will make Bodnar's job tougher. While if hired it will make those on EGRIZ happy, it is going to be a negative with a lot of people around the State. People are saying "here we go again"!

Oh, BS. No one is going to listen to the Missoulian this time. Bodnar has heard many positive things about Hauck, including from me.

PlayerRep your posts are usually very good. But, with this situation I think you are very wrong. You are viewing this as a rabid Griz football fan. All these incidents under Haucks stint did happen and they were a negative on the University. The Missoulian article brings that back home. If Hauck is hired, this stuff is going to be magnified even greater.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Overall I think most people will perceive this as a biased agenda driven article full of half truths. It seems it was written to sabotage Hauck's hiring but I think in large part it may be harming the Missoulian more. It should have been written with both sides of the story i.e. what discipline was handed out in those situations and why. What was the final decision on what the misbehavior was and the punishment that went with it. Furthermore, how silly will they look when Hauck is hired (if he is) and they have to approach him for articles or not cover the football team. I wouldnt blame Hauck for having animosity toward them which they would deserve but I bet Bobby would be the bigger person and be professional. Hopefully the Missoulian would be too.

I think you are wrong. Most people are aware these things happened and that the bottom line in each case pointed out by the Missoulian that overall it was not good for the University. I think people will agree with the Missoulian that there were too many incidents that happened under Haucks term and bringing him back is not a good thing for a University that is really struggling financially due in a large part because of these negatives.

Nope, CMT is correct. These things are largely old and cold. Most people don't think that way. They know the Missoulian is biased. Anyone who looks at the articles objectively can see the mistakes and bias. Many of the "incidents" under Hauck turned out not to be true or valid. Wilson acquitted and allowed to return to UM. Things like 2d Quinn dui dropped. It's not true that the corner was thrown off team because it wouldn't talk to the LA investigators. That is total BS. Really just a lie. House burglary bad, and those guys were kicked off team. Punches by frosh when drinking, and they too were kicked off team. No sexual assault allegations in that list while Hauck was coach.

Apparently, zero problems while he was at UNLV.

Hauck wasn't the problem. He is and was a big disciplinarian. The problem was the Missoulian and some other media, and weak kneed administrators like Engstrom.

No coach at UM, at least in modern history, has been anywhere close to a win-at-all-cost coach. In fact, largely the opposite. That theme is total BS made up by some.

The point isn't weather its true or not, its how many times will the Missoulian and other media print this story, and then re run it every time a player steps out of line even a fraction.

 

[PDXGrizzly]

Overall I think most people will perceive this as a biased agenda driven article full of half truths. It seems it was written to sabotage Hauck's hiring but I think in large part it may be harming the Missoulian more. It should have been written with both sides of the story i.e. what discipline was handed out in those situations and why. What was the final decision on what the misbehavior was and the punishment that went with it. Furthermore, how silly will they look when Hauck is hired (if he is) and they have to approach him for articles or not cover the football team. I wouldnt blame Hauck for having animosity toward them which they would deserve but I bet Bobby would be the bigger person and be professional. Hopefully the Missoulian would be too.

I think you are wrong. Most people are aware these things happened and that the bottom line in each case pointed out by the Missoulian that overall it was not good for the University. I think people will agree with the Missoulian that there were too many incidents that happened under Haucks term and bringing him back is not a good thing for a University that is really struggling financially due in a large part because of these negatives.

Nope, CMT is correct. These things are largely old and cold. Most people don't think that way. They know the Missoulian is biased. Anyone who looks at the articles objectively can see the mistakes and bias. Many of the "incidents" under Hauck turned out not to be true or valid. Wilson acquitted and allowed to return to UM. Things like 2d Quinn dui dropped. It's not true that the corner was thrown off team because it wouldn't talk to the LA investigators. That is total BS. Really just a lie. House burglary bad, and those guys were kicked off team. Punches by frosh when drinking, and they too were kicked off team. No sexual assault allegations in that list while Hauck was coach.

Apparently, zero problems while he was at UNLV.

Hauck wasn't the problem. He is and was a big disciplinarian. The problem was the Missoulian and some other media, and weak kneed administrators like Engstrom.

No coach at UM, at least in modern history, has been anywhere close to a win-at-all-cost coach. In fact, largely the opposite. That theme is total BS made up by some.

PR, arguing with bigsky33 and 2506 is just a waste of time. These cat trolls are like the Missoulian, they just want to see the Griz and UM burn to the ground. Some may argue that the Hauck hire (or not) is good or bad, but these clowns want nothing but ill for the program and University.

 

[Gaeilge1]

Simply cancelling your subscription or having UM pull its advertising will not be enough to stop this kind of shoddy journalism. Boycotting anyone who advertises in that paper until they at least make a full commitment to fair and accurate journalism will be necessary!

I cancelled my subscription years ago, and while I still have to support some of the paper's advertisers I make it a point to limit my patronage as much as possible.

In my mind the inference's made in the article that tie BH to incidents that occurred long after he left border on libel! The purpose of publishing this trash is meant to incite, not inform.

Regardless of your opinion of Hauck, one simply cannot justify journalism of such low quality and ineptitude.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Overall I think most people will perceive this as a biased agenda driven article full of half truths. It seems it was written to sabotage Hauck's hiring but I think in large part it may be harming the Missoulian more. It should have been written with both sides of the story i.e. what discipline was handed out in those situations and why. What was the final decision on what the misbehavior was and the punishment that went with it. Furthermore, how silly will they look when Hauck is hired (if he is) and they have to approach him for articles or not cover the football team. I wouldnt blame Hauck for having animosity toward them which they would deserve but I bet Bobby would be the bigger person and be professional. Hopefully the Missoulian would be too.

I think you are wrong. Most people are aware these things happened and that the bottom line in each case pointed out by the Missoulian that overall it was not good for the University. I think people will agree with the Missoulian that there were too many incidents that happened under Haucks term and bringing him back is not a good thing for a University that is really struggling financially due in a large part because of these negatives.

Nope, CMT is correct. These things are largely old and cold. Most people don't think that way. They know the Missoulian is biased. Anyone who looks at the articles objectively can see the mistakes and bias. Many of the "incidents" under Hauck turned out not to be true or valid. Wilson acquitted and allowed to return to UM. Things like 2d Quinn dui dropped. It's not true that the corner was thrown off team because it wouldn't talk to the LA investigators. That is total BS. Really just a lie. House burglary bad, and those guys were kicked off team. Punches by frosh when drinking, and they too were kicked off team. No sexual assault allegations in that list while Hauck was coach.

Apparently, zero problems while he was at UNLV.

Hauck wasn't the problem. He is and was a big disciplinarian. The problem was the Missoulian and some other media, and weak kneed administrators like Engstrom.

No coach at UM, at least in modern history, has been anywhere close to a win-at-all-cost coach. In fact, largely the opposite. That theme is total BS made up by some.

PR, arguing with bigsky33 and 2506 is just a waste of time. These cat trolls are like the Missoulian, they just want to see the Griz and UM burn to the ground. Some may argue that the Hauck hire (or not) is good or bad, but these clowns want nothing but ill for the program and University.

Which is exactly why I want you to hire Bobby

 

[ordigger]

Not seen Kato referenced so much since OJ

 

[PlayerRep]

I have no relation to Kato. I am just pointing out truths that you apparently do not want to hear. I am a lifelong Griz fan, a graduate from the University of Montana, and a former student athlete at UM. What you do not seem to understand is that by focusing on the writer of the story, and the newspapers that publish the story-instead of some of the poor choices by former football players-you are reinforcing the negative views of the team that so many Missoulians already have.

They see things like what you have posted and automatically think you favor the team over justice.They think you are making excuses for the players poor choices. I am not accusing you of that. I too love the Griz, and I strongly believe they get an unfair reputation in Missoula. I am simply pointing out that an entrenched, combative attitude towards those who do not like the football team will only create more distrust and animosity from them towards the University.

You are correct-I don't have knowledge of why you posted the information, or what you think of Mr. Kato. But I do believe that in 2017 most people don't care. They already have their opinions and when they see people getting upset over what a reporter has written, they will assume you don't think the players are at fault, and they will assume you would rather see wins than student athletes with good character.

Again, I do not believe them, I do not believe this was good journalism, and I believe you have good intentions and probably some good information. But I think giving any shred of attention to the writer of this piece will only create more distrust and bad relations between the team and the city of Missoula.

I agree with you MTGRIZ. By going after the reporter people are just re-enforcing of the "win at all costs" culture. Hiring Hauck will bring to attention all the negatives that happened during his last stint whether right or wrong. His hiring will make Bodnar's job tougher. While if hired it will make those on EGRIZ happy, it is going to be a negative with a lot of people around the State. People are saying "here we go again"!

Oh, BS. No one is going to listen to the Missoulian this time. Bodnar has heard many positive things about Hauck, including from me.

PlayerRep your posts are usually very good. But, with this situation I think you are very wrong. You are viewing this as a rabid Griz football fan. All these incidents under Haucks stint did happen and they were a negative on the University. The Missoulian article brings that back home. If Hauck is hired, this stuff is going to be magnified even greater.

Nope, I don't agree. Those thing are old and cold now. Many things in the article are not accurate. Does anyone really care now, or view Bobby worse, because Wilson was charged, then acquitted, then allowed back to UM, then drafted, and then played in the NFL. How does that possibly reflect poorly on Hauck. He recruited a kid, who before his senior year defended his aunt (who had been beaten unconscious by her gang guy boyfriend with a hammer and urinated on) and himself when the gang guy came at him with a gun.

Few will care if the Missoulian keeps bringing up old stuff. They will soon stop anyway. Few will want to read that now. The University, under Bodnar, will likely push back on crap like that from the Missoulian, is my guess. Can't imagine that he will be a wimp like Engstrom was.

 

['68griz]

If I were Bobby, I believe I would look at this article ... think, "Oh, yeah, the Missoulian and its agenda was one of the reasons I left UM in the first place" ... head back to San Diego.

 

[SoldierGriz]

If BH is selected, his first presser is going to be a riot :thumb:
I cant wait to watch the press burn him at the stake, Oh it will be fun to watch him lose to the Cats too :shock:

News flash: The press is not what it once was.

Anyone (everyone) with phone can have a blog and call themselves a "journalist." Many of them post here frequently. Some are very good at it.

Get ready for a new streak to commence.

I am not making any argument about the validity of the story, but it is the main sports story today, If you think bloggers will overcome the negativity, remember there will be bloggers against BH every step of the way. You have seen that there are forces already beginning the attack on him. Do you think it will stop when he is hired? How do you think they will react for every player that steps out of line no matter how minor the infraction?

These forces aligned against BH are the same ones that went after your program before, you finally have it cooled down and you are lighting the fires again. Does your program really need the distractions.

I am not saying it is fair, just that this is the world we live in today.

Win conference championships, lead deep playoff runs, curb stomp the cats, graduate athletes, run a clean program...nothing to report.

BH knows the standard. "Journalists," as we've known them are becoming insignificant. I can be a "journalist" starting today.

 

[GrizWhiz]

Gianforte pled guilty to assault, which requires a knowing and voluntary admission in open court to committing the elements of the crime. A judge will not accept a guilty plea without such an admission.

You consistently defend UM players because they did not admit to guilt, or the charges were dropped, or the accused prevailed after trial. Your asssertions in this regard are well-taken.

Gianforte, on the other hand, is an embarrassment to the State of Montana because of his actions and his guilty plea. Maybe he should have chosen to go to trial in order to try to clear his name, as did some former athletes. I doubt he would have a had a snowball's chance in hell, but it would have been fun to watch him try.

People plead guilty all the time to things they don't think they did, often because they are advised to do so under the circumstances or they want to put things behind them. Also, the question being addressed was how the physical part of the incident began, not whether assault occurred. Some witnesses, i.e. the Fox reporters, reported that they saw some punches thrown. I Assume those were when the guys were on the ground. That's also assault. The Fox woman also backed away from her original story and said she didn't know if GG had put his hands arounds the reporter's neck. You may want to get the facts straight, and note the inconsistencies. Go look through the records of the interviews. Yes, I understand inconsistencies in what GG has said. However, that doesn't mean the one you want to believe, is the correct. I think it's probably the other one, which was told to the police in the first interview. Obviously, neither one of us can know for sure.

If "neither one of us can know for sure", I suggest you refrain from questioning the "honesty" of those who disagree with you. The record shows that Gianforte did assault the reporter and he admitted it.

Below is what GG told the police, and it is what I said in this thread, in response to your saying, incorrectly, that he "beat the shit out of a reporter". He didn't, and you have zero basis for saying that. Again, my point was not about whether assault occurred or not; it was about how it started. Let the record show that I was correct in what I said, and you were wrong. I said nothing about anyone's honestly, but your posts and inaccuracies are starting to move in that direction.

"I reached out for his phone…he grabbed my wrist, he spun and we ended up on the floor…so he pulled me down on top of him.” From police recording of interview with GG following the incident.

Playerrep-you know what Gianforte ultimately admitted to and it is nothing like what he at first told police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/25/fox-news-crew-watched-in-disbelief-as-gianforte-slammed-and-punched-reporter/

 

[PlayerRep]

People plead guilty all the time to things they don't think they did, often because they are advised to do so under the circumstances or they want to put things behind them. Also, the question being addressed was how the physical part of the incident began, not whether assault occurred. Some witnesses, i.e. the Fox reporters, reported that they saw some punches thrown. I Assume those were when the guys were on the ground. That's also assault. The Fox woman also backed away from her original story and said she didn't know if GG had put his hands arounds the reporter's neck. You may want to get the facts straight, and note the inconsistencies. Go look through the records of the interviews. Yes, I understand inconsistencies in what GG has said. However, that doesn't mean the one you want to believe, is the correct. I think it's probably the other one, which was told to the police in the first interview. Obviously, neither one of us can know for sure.

If "neither one of us can know for sure", I suggest you refrain from questioning the "honesty" of those who disagree with you. The record shows that Gianforte did assault the reporter and he admitted it.

Below is what GG told the police, and it is what I said in this thread, in response to your saying, incorrectly, that he "beat the shit out of a reporter". He didn't, and you have zero basis for saying that. Again, my point was not about whether assault occurred or not; it was about how it started. Let the record show that I was correct in what I said, and you were wrong. I said nothing about anyone's honestly, but your posts and inaccuracies are starting to move in that direction.

"I reached out for his phone…he grabbed my wrist, he spun and we ended up on the floor…so he pulled me down on top of him.” From police recording of interview with GG following the incident.

Playerrep-you know what Gianforte ultimately admitted to and it is nothing like what he at first told police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/25/fox-news-crew-watched-in-disbelief-as-gianforte-slammed-and-punched-reporter/

Yes. My view is that he signed that settlement, or whatever it was, to try to put the episode with the reporter behind him, move on, and head off any claim for money. That doesn't mean that what GG said to the police was not accurate. In fact, a young intern who was there said the same thing the following day. Where's you backup for him beating the heck out of the reporter? You just made that up.

Heard things with Bobby are progressing and discussions/calls continue today, in case anyone cares about that subject.

 

[GrizWhiz]

If "neither one of us can know for sure", I suggest you refrain from questioning the "honesty" of those who disagree with you. The record shows that Gianforte did assault the reporter and he admitted it.

Below is what GG told the police, and it is what I said in this thread, in response to your saying, incorrectly, that he "beat the shit out of a reporter". He didn't, and you have zero basis for saying that. Again, my point was not about whether assault occurred or not; it was about how it started. Let the record show that I was correct in what I said, and you were wrong. I said nothing about anyone's honestly, but your posts and inaccuracies are starting to move in that direction.

"I reached out for his phone…he grabbed my wrist, he spun and we ended up on the floor…so he pulled me down on top of him.” From police recording of interview with GG following the incident.

Playerrep-you know what Gianforte ultimately admitted to and it is nothing like what he at first told police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/25/fox-news-crew-watched-in-disbelief-as-gianforte-slammed-and-punched-reporter/

Yes. My view is that he signed that settlement, or whatever it was, to try to put the episode with the reporter behind him, move on, and head off any claim for money. That doesn't mean that what GG said to the police was not accurate. In fact, a young intern who was there said the same thing the following day. Where's you backup for him beating the heck out of the reporter? You just made that up.

Heard things with Bobby are progressing and discussions/calls continue today, in case anyone cares about that subject.

Per the Fox News witness(conservative news) Gianforte was punching the reporter. I think that qualifies as beating the heck out of him. Anyway....nuff said. I don't post much on the football forum and I am sorry to have engaged in off topic posting.

 

[astutegriz]

I appreciate Kyle Sample providing some balance on Twitter, like Parks not even being a student, or discipline was quickly handed out all the time, or zero trouble at UNLV, etc. The ironic thing is I would feel more confident of having a clean program with Bobby than most any other coach. But then again, I know a lot of behind the scene facts. I hope the U has the backbone to stare down the agenda of the Missoulian and do what’s best, whatever that is. The last time an administrator (RE) wilted to them, the University nosedived and lost almost half enrollment. The Pres and AD must come out strong with a strong press conference that touts all the good. If it was Hauck, I would quote a lot of former players that testify strongly how much of a disciplinarian he is, as an example. Kinda simple, really.

 

[StittHappened]

I appreciate Kyle Sample providing some balance on Twitter, like Parks not even being a student, or discipline was quickly handed out all the time, or zero trouble at UNLV, etc. The ironic thing is I would feel more confident of having a clean program with Bobby than most any other coach. But then again, I know a lot of behind the scene facts. I hope the U has the backbone to stare down the agenda of the Missoulian and do what’s best, whatever that is. The last time an administrator (RE) wilted to them, the University nosedived and lost almost half enrollment. The Pres and AD must come out strong with a strong press conference that touts all the good. If it was Hauck, I would quote a lot of former players that testify strongly how much of a disciplinarian he is, as an example. Kinda simple, really.

Yup. Time to hit back. It's not attacking "journalism" when the Missoulian is clearly not participating in it

 

[billgrizfan]

Where was all the mention of Dow (started the gift program), Ochs (outstanding citizen and QB), Mariani (outstanding person and WR/KR) Tuff (now working for Faith Chapel in Billings), Colt Anderson ( good citizen and business man), Trumain has had no known problems while in the NFL., and so many more I won't even bother trying to list them all as I'm sure to miss somebody. Of the one's mentioned in the article they constituted a very small percentage of the approximately 240-250 members of the team during the period stated.

 

['68griz]

Where was all the mention of Dow (started the gift program), Ochs (outstanding citizen and QB), Mariani (outstanding person and WR/KR) Tuff (now working for Faith Chapel in Billings), Colt Anderson ( good citizen and business man), Trumain has had no known problems while in the NFL., and so many more I won't even bother trying to list them all as I'm sure to miss somebody. Of the one's mentioned in the article they constituted a very small percentage of the approximately 240-250 members of the team during the period stated.

This!!!!!!!

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Simply cancelling your subscription or having UM pull its advertising will not be enough to stop this kind of shoddy journalism. Boycotting anyone who advertises in that paper until they at least make a full commitment to fair and accurate journalism will be necessary!

I cancelled my subscription years ago, and while I still have to support some of the paper's advertisers I make it a point to limit my patronage as much as possible.

In my mind the inference's made in the article that tie BH to incidents that occurred long after he left border on libel! The purpose of publishing this trash is meant to incite, not inform.

Regardless of your opinion of Hauck, one simply cannot justify journalism of such low quality and ineptitude.

It ain't libel if its true.