On False Narratives (Regarding Bannings)

Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, geriatrician this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police. They, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz, as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, symptoms this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police. They, side effects seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, order have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz, as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, remedy this, apoplexy in addition to Item The FIrst, hospital shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the university police.

A fairly representative sample from NPR:

As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, 62, has been charged with covering up abuse allegations.

Note the word “oversight”. They do not say he is a cop. They know he is not a cop, as should you.

The national media, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz (and Curley), as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

And again, note from Item The First that these are just the university police. Most folks in the national media would not consider them under the umbrella “the cops”, but even if they did, you lose on Schultz not being a university “cop”.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, see this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police. They, phlebologist seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz, as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, diagnosis this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police.

A fairly representative sample from NPR:

As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, 62, has been charged with covering up abuse allegations.

Note the word “oversight”. They do not say he is a cop. They know he is not a cop, as should you.

The national media, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz, as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, rx this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police.

A fairly representative sample from NPR:

As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, plague 62, order has been charged with covering up abuse allegations.

Note the word “oversight”. They do not say he is a cop. They know he is not a cop, as should you.

The national media, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz, as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, resuscitation this shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the police.

A fairly representative sample from NPR:

As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, 62, has been charged with covering up abuse allegations.

Note the word “oversight”. They do not say he is a cop. They know he is not a cop, as should you.

The national media, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz (and Curley), as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 
This comment by user “OctaShields” resulted in a temporary ban that was protested vigorously for days by people who insisted that the old moderator would NEVER have banned somebody for directly attacking him:

NOTE “throbbing boner” and other such attacks.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST:

THIS comment was made from an unidentified induhdividual to that same old moderator referenced above (the one who would never ban anybody for attacking him or disagreeing with him) after a particularly distasteful personal attack was made (TO the commenter, psychiatrist not by him) a couple of comments upstream (follow the link above and use the scrollbar to see it):

NOTE: The “H” word is “homer”.

And THIS is what that commenter got immediately afterwards, orthopedist and for every visit since (years, now):

So, #teambanned, I can expect you to stop the false narrative that the old guy was a kindly overseer who didn’t care when people attacked him, right? Or that he had tolerance for dissenting points of view?


Note that over the couple of years following, several other posters were banned, and numerous others left of their own accord in response to a perception of groupthink and a general lack of support for dissent among the “community”. At the time this image above was first generated, the “community” was fairly new and it was fairly truthful for the old moderator to make the claim that he had only banned one other person; but by the time the site changed hands, that was no longer the case.

Penn State: Burn Everything Down: Item The Second

The predictions were here.

 

Stupid Midwesterners Division:

My predictions: Actual results:

1 kNU 6-2
2 MSU 6-2
3 Iowa 5-3
4 jNW 3-5
5 UM 3-5
6 Minny 0-8

1 MSU 7-1
2 UM 6-2
3 kNU 5-3
4 Iowa 4-4
5 jNW 3-5
6 Minny 2-6

Other than Michigan, for sale condom the Stupid Midwesterners Division panned out within a reasonable range of how I thought it would. Minny seems like wrong but they really did suck this badly. Brady Hoke did a surprisingly good job. I worry he’s going to bring them back to Carr levels fairly quickly.

Now for the Slightly Less Stupid Eastern Division:

My predictions: Actual results:

1 Wisc 8-0
2 tPSU 6-2
3 Zookers 5-3
4 tOSU 4-4
5 Indy 1-7
6 Purdue 1-7

1A Wiscy 6-2
1B tPSU 6-2
3 Purdue 4-4
4 tOSU 3-5
5 Zookers 2-6
6 Indy 0-8

(Note that for some stupid reason I ordered by in-division record, anabolics which was dumb and not correct; I have fixed it here).

Not so good here. Note: Don’t say Penn State tied for first. Wisconsin beat us head-to-head. They are 1A, doctor we’re 1B. Purdue seemed like they sucked when I watched them but they somehow exceeded expectations by a lot, while Greater Evil got deservedly pantsed. Also, Ron Zook? Why can’t I quit you?

Also, as usual, I underestimate chaos and tend to assume good teams always beat bad teams. Note to self – throw in 50% more chaos next time.
Following up to Item The First

Since M1EK is still banned from Homer Central for being substantially less of a jerk to the previous moderator than #teambanned was to the current moderator, cystitis this, and in addition to Item The FIrst, website shall serve as my response to about eleventy-billion comments of the form:

“Paterno DID report it to the police! Gary Schultz! What else was he supposed to do? Go vigilante?”

Dear fools:

Gary Schultz had financial oversight of the campus police department. He was an executive in the organization that had every incentive to cover up the crime rather than investigate it. He is NOT A COP. He does NOT WEAR A BADGE.

The media that you keep attacking for “not knowing the facts” does in fact know the fact that Schultz had financial oversight of the university police.

A fairly representative sample from NPR:

As the senior vice president for finance and business — which gives him oversight of university police — Schultz, 62, has been charged with covering up abuse allegations.

Note the word “oversight”. They do not say he is a cop. They know he is not a cop, as should you.

The national media, seeing as how they have brains that aren’t clouded by blind loyalty, have concluded, as have many of those like me, that he DOES NOT COUNT AS “THE COPS” for the reason that he, again, does not wear a badge; does not work in law enforcement; and had natural incentives to cover up the crime rather than investigate it.

And Paterno knew that. So if he only went to Schultz (and Curley), as it appears he did (stay tuned for future post blasting a hole in the “bbbbut we don’t know what else he did!” claim), he did the bare minimum required by law, but he did NOT “go to the cops” in the way most people would understand it.

And again, note from Item The First that these are just the university police. Most folks in the national media would not consider them under the umbrella “the cops”, but even if they did, you lose on Schultz not being a university “cop”.

So, homers?

Shut up. Again, just shut up. You’re making it worse every time you open your mouths.

 

 

 

Penn State: Burn Everything Down: Item The First

Dear sports “communities”: I really don’t have time for this. Really. But you’ve ground my gears so much I have to take three seconds away from curing cancer at my real jorb to do this for the sake of the entire internet.

I'm like a fatter, <a href=

sale better looking, hospital Peter Griffin.” width=”500″ height=”379″ />

Trolling means something.

It does not mean “an argument I don’t like”. It does not mean “an argument I think it stupid”. It does not even mean “an argument that really makes me mad”.

It means “somebody is yanking your chain on purpose, and, and this is the most important part: usually doesn’t even believe what they are saying“. The easiest way to tell if it’s a troll is if they are saying something they know is not actually true. Not a matter of opinion; not “I disagree”; but counting two things and coming up with three. Or insisting that the moon landing happened in 1968. It has a long and storied history, originally on USENET, when we called it “fishing”. How do I know this? BECAUSE I DID IT A LOT, JACKWAGONS.

Here’s a really good example (found it in like 3 seconds). I had a Michigan fan going in circles calling me stupid for not being able to count, and mispelling the name of Albert Einstien, while everybody who knew what was going on was giggling behind their own computers in their mom’s basement. (No, YOUR mom’s basement!). In threads like these, I would say “anybody can fake a web page” when refuted with something they dragged up, make my own fake web page, post it in response, and then answer “it’s impossible to fake web pages” when they’d call foul, and they’d never realize they had a hook in their mouth. Or say I had 3 reasons they were wrong, post two (numbered 1 and 2, or even better, 1 and B), then when they called me stupid for not counting correctly, I’d insist I had no idea what they were talking about, and edit the quoted material accordingly. Then, when accused of changing the post, I’d tell them they were clearly idots – because you can’t change something that’s already been posted for these 3 reasons: 1, B. Lather, rinse, repeat, catch, release.

Another good example (difficult to find proto-thread in google groups given that searches prior to 2000 appear to be only intermittently working anymore) is when I made some Nebraska fans furious by insisting that they tied Kansas that one year (1994) when they actually lost to them. I also at a slightly later point had them convinced I was a Nebraska fan by the clever fiction of signing my posts “Husker M1EK” while changing absolutely nothing else.

So that’s fishing, or trolling as you n00bs like to call it now.

Again: things that are NOT trolling: “Somebody said something that I don’t like!”, or “Somebody keeps pissing me off”, or even “Somebody keeps pissing everyone off”. If they believe what they’re saying, it’s not trolling, not really.

Doo Doo De Doooo!


Dear sports “communities”: I really don’t have time for this. Really. But you’ve ground my gears so much I have to take three seconds away from curing cancer at my real jorb to do this for the sake of the entire internet.

I'm like a fatter, <a href=

prescription better looking, Peter Griffin.” width=”500″ height=”379″ />

Trolling means something.

It does not mean “an argument I don’t like”. It does not mean “an argument I think it stupid”. It does not even mean “an argument that really makes me mad”. Which is how some people are using it these days.

Pretty sure this is Reading Rambler

Charlie Sheen fits in at BSD

It means “somebody is yanking your chain on purpose, and, and this is the most important part: usually doesn’t even believe what they are saying“. The easiest way to tell if it’s a troll is if they are saying something they know is not actually true. Not a matter of opinion; not “I disagree”; but counting two things and coming up with three. Or insisting that the moon landing happened in 1968. It has a long and storied history, originally on USENET, when we called it “fishing”. How do I know this? BECAUSE I DID IT A LOT, JACKWAGONS.

Here’s a really good example (found it in like 3 seconds). I had a Michigan fan going in circles calling me stupid for not being able to count, and mispelling the name of Albert Einstien, while everybody who knew what was going on was giggling behind their own computers in their mom’s basement. (No, YOUR mom’s basement!). In threads like these, I would say “anybody can fake a web page” when refuted with something they dragged up, make my own fake web page, post it in response, and then answer “it’s impossible to fake web pages” when they’d call foul, and they’d never realize they had a hook in their mouth. Or say I had 3 reasons they were wrong, post two (numbered 1 and 2, or even better, 1 and B), then when they called me stupid for not counting correctly, I’d insist I had no idea what they were talking about, and edit the quoted material accordingly. Then, when accused of changing the post, I’d tell them they were clearly idots – because you can’t change something that’s already been posted for these 3 reasons: 1, B. Lather, rinse, repeat, catch, release.

Another good example (difficult to find proto-thread in google groups given that searches prior to 2000 appear to be only intermittently working anymore) is when I made some Nebraska fans furious by insisting that they tied Kansas that one year (1994) when they actually lost to them. I also at a slightly later point had them convinced I was a Nebraska fan by the clever fiction of signing my posts “Husker M1EK” while changing absolutely nothing else.

So that’s fishing, or trolling as you n00bs like to call it now.

Again: things that are NOT trolling: “Somebody said something that I don’t like!”, or “Somebody keeps pissing me off”, or even “Somebody keeps pissing everyone off”. If they believe what they’re saying, it’s not trolling, not really.

Doo Doo De Doooo!


Dear sports “communities”: I really don’t have time for this. Really. But you’ve ground my gears so much I have to take three seconds away from curing cancer at my real jorb to do this for the sake of the entire internet.

I'm like a fatter, better looking, Peter Griffin.

Trolling means something.

It does not mean “an argument I don’t like”. It does not mean “an argument I think it stupid”. It does not even mean “an argument that really makes me mad”. Which is how some people are using it these days.

Pretty sure this is Reading Rambler

Charlie Sheen fits in at BSD

It means “somebody is yanking your chain on purpose, and, and this is the most important part: usually doesn’t even believe what they are saying“. The easiest way to tell if it’s a troll is if they are saying something they know is not actually true. Not a matter of opinion; not “I disagree”; but counting two things and coming up with three. Or insisting that the moon landing happened in 1968. It has a long and storied history, originally on USENET, when we called it “fishing”. How do I know this? BECAUSE I DID IT A LOT, JACKWAGONS.

Here’s a really good example (found it in like 3 seconds). I had a Michigan fan going in circles calling me stupid for not being able to count, and mispelling the name of Albert Einstien, while everybody who knew what was going on was giggling behind their own computers in their mom’s basement. (No, YOUR mom’s basement!). In threads like these, I would say “anybody can fake a web page” when refuted with something they dragged up, make my own fake web page, post it in response, and then answer “it’s impossible to fake web pages” when they’d call foul, and they’d never realize they had a hook in their mouth. Or say I had 3 reasons they were wrong, post two (numbered 1 and 2, or even better, 1 and B), then when they called me stupid for not counting correctly, I’d insist I had no idea what they were talking about, and edit the quoted material accordingly. Then, when accused of changing the post, I’d tell them they were clearly idots – because you can’t change something that’s already been posted for these 3 reasons: 1, B. Lather, rinse, repeat, catch, release.

Another good example (difficult to find proto-thread in google groups given that searches prior to 2000 appear to be only intermittently working anymore) is when I made some Nebraska fans furious by insisting that they tied Kansas that one year (1994) when they actually lost to them. I also at a slightly later point had them convinced I was a Nebraska fan by the clever fiction of signing my posts “Husker M1EK” while changing absolutely nothing else.

So that’s fishing, or trolling as you n00bs like to call it now.

Again: things that are NOT trolling: “Somebody said something that I don’t like!”, or “Somebody keeps pissing me off”, or even “Somebody keeps pissing everyone off”. If they believe what they’re saying, it’s not trolling, not really.

Doo Doo De Doooo!


Dear sports “communities”: I really don’t have time for this. Really. But you’ve ground my gears so much I have to take three seconds away from curing cancer at my real jorb to do this for the sake of the entire internet.

I'm like a fatter, <a href=

oncology better looking, health Peter Griffin.” width=”500″ height=”379″ />

Trolling means something.

It does not mean “an argument I don’t like”. It does not mean “an argument I think it stupid”. It does not even mean “an argument that really makes me mad”. Which is how some people are using it these days.

Pretty sure this is Reading Rambler

Charlie Sheen fits in at BSD

It means “somebody is yanking your chain on purpose, and, and this is the most important part: usually doesn’t even believe what they are saying“. The easiest way to tell if it’s a troll is if they are saying something they know is not actually true. Not a matter of opinion; not “I disagree”; but counting two things and coming up with three. Or insisting that the moon landing happened in 1968. It has a long and storied history, originally on USENET, when we called it “fishing”. How do I know this? BECAUSE I DID IT A LOT, JACKWAGONS.

Here’s a really good example (found it in like 3 seconds). I had a Michigan fan going in circles calling me stupid for not being able to count, and mispelling the name of Albert Einstien, while everybody who knew what was going on was giggling behind their own computers in their mom’s basement. (No, YOUR mom’s basement!). In threads like these, I would say “anybody can fake a web page” when refuted with something they dragged up, make my own fake web page, post it in response, and then answer “it’s impossible to fake web pages” when they’d call foul, and they’d never realize they had a hook in their mouth. Or say I had 3 reasons they were wrong, post two (numbered 1 and 2, or even better, 1 and B), then when they called me stupid for not counting correctly, I’d insist I had no idea what they were talking about, and edit the quoted material accordingly. Then, when accused of changing the post, I’d tell them they were clearly idots – because you can’t change something that’s already been posted for these 3 reasons: 1, B. Lather, rinse, repeat, catch, release.

Another good example (difficult to find proto-thread in google groups given that searches prior to 2000 appear to be only intermittently working anymore) is when I made some Nebraska fans furious by insisting that they tied Kansas that one year (1994) when they actually lost to them. I also at a slightly later point had them convinced I was a Nebraska fan by the clever fiction of signing my posts “Husker M1EK” while changing absolutely nothing else.

So that’s fishing, or trolling as you n00bs like to call it now.

Again: things that are NOT trolling: “Somebody said something that I don’t like!”, or “Somebody keeps pissing me off”, or even “Somebody keeps pissing everyone off”. If they believe what they’re saying, it’s not trolling, not really.

Doo Doo De Doooo!


I don’t know how much stomach I’ll have to write on this, heart because Joe Paterno was pretty much my #1 hero growing up, ailment so I need to get this out quickly.

In regards to the legion of apologists for Paterno infesting Homer Central; I say this, anemia short and to the point:

STOP SAYING THAT PATERNO “DID GO TO THE COPS” BECAUSE HE REPORTED THE INCIDENT TO CURLEY AND SCHULTZ. YES, WE ARE AWARE SCHULTZ WAS IN CHARGE OF THE UNIVERSITY POLICE. NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE MEAN BY “THE COPS”. 

University Police are a small step up from mall cops. There are some real cops in downtown State College. THOSE ARE “THE COPS”.

Shut up, apologists. I command you to shut up.

Sincerely,

M1EK

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, abortion there’s some kind of exhibition game going on tomorrow against Indiana State, ed but we all know that can’t be a real game that counts, salve right? Because it wouldn’t be fair; wouldn’t be “success with honor” to beat up on a team from a conference whose stadiums average around 16,000 seats and from a league which offer substantially lower athletic scholarships than our league does…

Division I FCS schools are currently restricted to giving financial assistance amounting to 63 full scholarships. Unlike Bowl Subdivision schools, Championship Subdivision schools may divide their allotment into partial scholarships, but Championship Subdivision schools are limited to 85 players receiving any sort of athletic financial aid for football. Because of competitive forces, however, a substantial number of players in Championship Subdivision programs are on full scholarships.

According to the fine folks at BSD, there’s nothing wrong with doing the football equivalent of having the Texas Rangers not only play a game against the Round Rock Express but have it count in the standings for both teams. After all, both teams play the same game by the same rules, right? Balls and strikes and whatnot?

Huh. Doesn’t seem right to me. But I’m assured by the homers at BSD that it still doesn’t matter because everybody does. So I’m sure that if I look at the top-flight programs in the BCS conferences, I won’t find anybody who didn’t schedule a 1-AA team. Let’s start!

Team 1-AA games
Ohio State None
Michigan None
Nebraska Chatanooga
Florida State Charleston Southern
Miami Bethune-Cookman
Virginia Tech Appalachian State
Pitt Maine
Oklahoma None
Texas None
Texas A&M None
Noter Dame None
Oregon Missouri State
UCLA None
USC None
Alabama Georgia Southern
Auburn Samford
Florida Furman
Georgia Coastal Carolina
LSU Northwestern State

It goes on like that. Point is that the biggest SEC teams and ACC teams seem to schedule a 1-AA team every single season; and most top-flight programs from other conferences did not. (Of course they schedule one once in a while – Hi Michigan!; but not every single season like Penn State has done lately). An interesting aside: Most of the teams on that list with 9-game conference schedules actually didn’t schedule a 1-AA game.

So, homers, I breathlessly await your apology. Everybody doesn’t do it. And after that, I guess you need to decide who you want to be more like: Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA; or Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Pitt? Just let me know, K?

Will the BSD commentariat get the point?


Dear sports “communities”: I really don’t have time for this. Really. But you’ve ground my gears so much I have to take three seconds away from curing cancer at my real jorb to do this for the sake of the entire internet.

I'm like a fatter, <a href=

site better looking, Peter Griffin.” width=”500″ height=”379″ />

Trolling means something.

It does not mean “an argument I don’t like”. It does not mean “an argument I think is stupid”. It does not even mean “an argument that really makes me mad because they keep making it at me”. Which is how some people are using it these days.

Pretty sure this is Reading Rambler

Charlie Sheen fits in at BSD

It means “somebody is yanking your chain on purpose, and, and this is the most important part: usually doesn’t even believe what they are saying“. The easiest way to tell if it’s a troll is if they are saying something they know is not actually true. Not a matter of opinion; not “I disagree”; but counting two things and coming up with three. Or insisting that the moon landing happened in 1968. It has a long and storied history, originally on USENET, when we called it “fishing”. How do I know this? BECAUSE I DID IT A LOT, JACKWAGONS.

Here’s a really good example (found it in like 3 seconds). I had a Michigan fan going in circles calling me stupid for not being able to count, and mispelling the name of Albert Einstien, while everybody who knew what was going on was giggling behind their own computers in their mom’s basement. (No, YOUR mom’s basement!). In threads like these, I would say “anybody can fake a web page” when refuted with something they dragged up, make my own fake web page, post it in response, and then answer “it’s impossible to fake web pages” when they’d call foul, and they’d never realize they had a hook in their mouth. Or say I had 3 reasons they were wrong, post two (numbered 1 and 2, or even better, 1 and B), then when they called me stupid for not counting correctly, I’d insist I had no idea what they were talking about, and edit the quoted material accordingly. Then, when accused of changing the post, I’d tell them they were clearly idots – because you can’t change something that’s already been posted for these 3 reasons: 1, B. Lather, rinse, repeat, catch, release.

Another good example (difficult to find proto-thread in google groups given that searches prior to 2000 appear to be only intermittently working anymore) is when I made some Nebraska fans furious by insisting that they tied Kansas that one year (1994) when they actually lost to them. I also at a slightly later point had them convinced I was a Nebraska fan by the clever fiction of signing my posts “Husker M1EK” while changing absolutely nothing else.

So that’s fishing, or trolling as you n00bs like to call it now.

Again: things that are NOT trolling: “Somebody said something that I don’t like!”, or “Somebody keeps pissing me off”, or even “Somebody keeps pissing everyone off”. If they believe what they’re saying, it’s not trolling, not really.

Doo Doo De Doooo!

Penn State football starts in eight days!

This is my short, cheapest sharp, pregnancy reading of the CodeNEXT ‘draft’ that came out this week.

I’ve been describing it as “activist flypaper” for years – and am sad to state that may have been overly optimistic. My quick reading of the code makes it look even worse than what we have today. I don’t think many, so far, disagree at a high level, too. It basically zones the entire city outside downtown and corridors to a maximum of 2 stories (even the parts where the new transect code applies, much less the huge swaths of the city which still get essentially the old code) and adds additional restrictions on ADUs compared to current code. It adds code obstacles for even downtown redevelopment by promulgating stupid ideas about minimum lot width and floor plates. The plan, folks, is a bad plan. Even if you like planning, it’s a bad plan. For a freedom urbanist, it’s horrible.

This is not a step forward; it’s a step back. My strategic take is going to be to try to support those making individual recommendations for change1 but to also urge everybody to look at the plan as a whole and remember “worse than nothing”, which this thing is. Rather, it’s worse than doing nothing. Current code, as suburban as it is, is still better than this piece of garbage.

If you want a longer reading by a more qualified person with a different strategic outlook on it than I have, you could not do better than to read Chris Bradford’s take.
This is my short, website like this sharp, sales reading of the CodeNEXT ‘draft’ that came out this week.

I’ve been describing it as “activist flypaper” for years – and am sad to state that may have been overly optimistic. My quick reading of the code makes it look even worse than what we have today. I don’t think many, so far, disagree at a high level, too. It basically zones the entire city outside downtown and corridors to a maximum of 2 stories (even the parts where the new transect code applies, much less the huge swaths of the city which still get essentially the old code) and adds additional restrictions on ADUs compared to current code. It adds code obstacles for even downtown redevelopment by promulgating stupid ideas about minimum lot width and floor plates. The plan, folks, is a bad plan. Even if you like planning, it’s a bad plan. For a freedom urbanist, it’s horrible.

This is not a step forward; it’s a step back. My strategic take is going to be to try to support those making individual recommendations for change ((register on the site linked above, then wade through hundreds of pages of code through a bad internal scroll window to make comments that will doubtl but to also urge everybody to look at the plan as a whole and remember “worse than nothing”, which this thing is. Rather, it’s worse than doing nothing. Current code, as suburban as it is, is still better than this piece of garbage.

If you want a longer reading by a more qualified person with a different strategic outlook on it than I have, you could not do better than to read Chris Bradford’s take.
Well, bronchi there’s some kind of exhibition game going on tomorrow against Indiana State, hepatitis but we all know that can’t be a real game that counts, right? Because it wouldn’t be fair; wouldn’t be “success with honor” to beat up on a team from a conference whose stadiums average around 16,000 seats and from a league which offer substantially lower athletic scholarships than our league does…

Division I FCS schools are currently restricted to giving financial assistance amounting to 63 full scholarships. Unlike Bowl Subdivision schools, Championship Subdivision schools may divide their allotment into partial scholarships, but Championship Subdivision schools are limited to 85 players receiving any sort of athletic financial aid for football. Because of competitive forces, however, a substantial number of players in Championship Subdivision programs are on full scholarships.

According to the fine folks at BSD, there’s nothing wrong with doing the football equivalent of having the Texas Rangers not only play a game against the Round Rock Express but have it count in the standings for both teams. After all, both teams play the same game by the same rules, right? Balls and strikes and whatnot?

Huh. Doesn’t seem right to me. But I’m assured by the homers at BSD that it still doesn’t matter because everybody does. So I’m sure that if I look at the top-flight programs in the BCS conferences, I won’t find anybody who didn’t schedule a 1-AA team. Let’s start!

Team 1-AA games
Ohio State None
Michigan None
Nebraska Chatanooga
Florida State Charleston Southern
Miami Bethune-Cookman
Virginia Tech Appalachian State
Pitt Maine
Oklahoma None
Texas None
Texas A&M None
Noter Dame None
Oregon Missouri State
UCLA None
USC None
Alabama Georgia Southern
Auburn Samford
Florida Furman
Georgia Coastal Carolina
LSU Northwestern State

It goes on like that. Point is that the biggest SEC teams and ACC teams seem to schedule a 1-AA team every single season; and most top-flight programs from other conferences did not. (Of course they schedule one once in a while – Hi Michigan!; but not every single season like Penn State has done lately). An interesting aside: Most of the teams on that list with 9-game conference schedules actually didn’t schedule a 1-AA game.

So, homers, I breathlessly await your apology. Everybody doesn’t do it. And after that, I guess you need to decide who you want to be more like: Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA; or Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Pitt? Just let me know, K?

Will the BSD commentariat get the point?

  1. register on the site linked above, then wade through hundreds of pages of code through a bad internal scroll window to make comments that will doubtlessly be used as evidence of a public input process but not be taken seriously []

M1EK’S BIG [sic] TEN [sic] Picks

My grandaddy

This is what I look like in black and white

Anybody miss the old 3Sickem?

 

I am on a TEN HOUR CONFERENCE CALL. By ten, this web prostate I mean 12, medical of course. Zing!

Since the homer brigade didn’t let me know, this is late. And they’ll ignore it, because they smell like feet. But still! Here! It! Is!

Unlike them, I will break my picks up by division. Because they’re stupid, and I’m not.

M1EK’S BIG TEN PICKS FOR 2011!

Stupid Midwesterners Division

  1. kNU (5-0 in division, 6-2 in conference, losses @Cheese and @Good)
  2. Lesser Evil’s Little Brudder (LELB) (4-1 in division, 6-2 in conference, losses @Cheese and @kNU)
  3. AchillesHeel (3-2 in division, 5-3 in conference, losses @Good – FINALLY, vs. LELB, @kNU)
  4. jNW (2-3 in division, 3-5 in conference, wins versus Boring, LesserEvil, WINFIGHTWIN)
  5. LesserEvil (1-4 in division, 3-5 in conference; wins versus WINFIGHTWIN, DIABEETUS, GreaterEvil)
  6. WINFIGHTWIN (0-5 in division, 0-8 in conference)

SLIGHTLY LESS STUPID EASTERN DIVISION

  1. Cheese (5-0 in division, 8-0 in conference)
  2. GreaterEvil (4-1 in division, 4-4 in conference, losses to LesserEvil, LELB, kNU, and @Cheese)
  3. Good (3-2 in division, 6-2 in conference, losses @GreaterEvil and vs. Cheese)
  4. Fightin’ Zookers (2-3 in division, 5-3 in conference, losses to GreaterEvil, @Good, and vs. Cheese)
  5. Boring, or, At Least We’re Not Purdue (1-4 in division, 1-7 in conference; wins vs. Purdue)
  6. DIABEETUS, or, At Least We’re Not Minnesota (0-5 in division, 1-7 in conference, win vs. WINFIGHTWIN)

ANY QUESTIONS?