Gopher Alum to continue the boycott.

Donate To GopherHole
gopherhoopsguy said:
That is correct Kaler and Coyle do not survive this! And if there gone don't think cleays does either! Only way for most to get back on board is all the above are gone. And if due process is served.
To many of the real backers out there, alumni and boosters with the money that are not happy about some part of this. And if u don't have these supporting the U u have nothing.
Click to expand...

Problem is, there aren't any real backers. Just a bunch of winers that spout off all the time and wish they were the AD. Why are all the Olympic sports successful? They have true backers. Giving money and staying out of the way.

True backers give money anonymously or put company name on it and get out of the way.

All we hear from is the vocal minority of bitchers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pompous Elitist said:
And yet you dismiss the plaintiff's much greater lack of consistency. Self-professed and documented. Her recall was atrocious. None of this would stand in legal proceeding.
Click to expand...

Much greater? Now that is debatable. All research on the subject of memory states that memory is fallible. Add in stress, alcohol, lack of sleep and physical abuse and that gets magnified. The question of her testimony shouldn't be the only question involved here any more. Confusion is not a reason to dismiss the dead and it should not be a reason to dismiss the confused living. The dead need not speak and charges get filed. We have statements of players on record. And, there were players who said that it should stop and had concern for the woman. Whatever happened to that as a reason to file? The problem with lawyers and judicial procedure is that it often leads to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons. Be that on your conscious, not mine. I have no such constraint. I am not bound by the sometimes arcane rules of the law that prevent in error justice being served. If you don't get that, maybe you should wake up from your slumber and engage your keen mind again and find why that thinking is in error. Don't refer back to the easily recalled rule. Find where the rule lacks a standard that applies to common sense and make an argument. Traditional views to a contemporary problem often need new forms of reason and a good judge to allow a new standard to be applied. Just maybe a good lawyer works for the common good instead of being a punk for the past.
 

MennoSota said:
Not even close. The racism and the kangaroo court is about to be exposed. Not everything is as simple as you make it out to be. The president who cheats at chess will be resigning when this game is done.
Click to expand...

The Players:

Kaler - University President who wields a TON of power and influence
Coyle - recently hired AD at $800k+ (you really think they are going to gas this guy?)
Lee Hutton - lawyer who is still mad he didnt become AD and now is helping lead the revolt.
Players - Made a hard line stance and then backed off it in a game of chicken with administration.

And who is going to be clamoring to get rid of Kaler and Coyle, who are both on the side of enforcing the EEOC report and protecting students and who are anti-sexual assault? The women of campus? I think I know who they will side with. I would like to know what group is going to lead the overthrow of the President and newly-minted 800K Man? Claeys? Hutton? The football players who already cried "uncle"? Those 3 are expendable pieces like it or not. Perception becomes reality and those who want Kaler and Coyle gone are standing in quicksand citing miscommunication as their major gripe. Its going to be pretty hard to go against the Pres and MC, who can easily say they are protecting the integrity of the University.
 

Billy M said:
The Players:

Kaler - University President who wields a TON of power and influence
Coyle - recently hired AD at $800k+ (you really think they are going to gas this guy?)
Lee Hutton - lawyer who is still mad he didnt become AD and now is helping lead the revolt.
Players - Made a hard line stance and then backed off it in a game of chicken with administration.

And who is going to be clamoring to get rid of Kaler and Coyle, who are both on the side of enforcing the EEOC report and protecting students and who are anti-sexual assault? The women of campus? I think I know who they will side with. I would like to know what group is going to lead the overthrow of the President and newly-minted 800K Man? Claeys? Hutton? The football players who already cried "uncle"? Those 3 are expendable pieces like it or not. Perception becomes reality and those who want Kaler and Coyle gone are standing in quicksand citing miscommunication as their major gripe. Its going to be pretty hard to go against the Pres and MC, who can easily say they are protecting the integrity of the University.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 

Billy M said:
The Players:

Kaler - University President who wields a TON of power and influence
Coyle - recently hired AD at $800k+ (you really think they are going to gas this guy?)
Lee Hutton - lawyer who is still mad he didnt become AD and now is helping lead the revolt.
Players - Made a hard line stance and then backed off it in a game of chicken with administration.

And who is going to be clamoring to get rid of Kaler and Coyle, who are both on the side of enforcing the EEOC report and protecting students and who are anti-sexual assault? The women of campus? I think I know who they will side with. I would like to know what group is going to lead the overthrow of the President and newly-minted 800K Man? Claeys? Hutton? The football players who already cried "uncle"? Those 3 are expendable pieces like it or not. Perception becomes reality and those who want Kaler and Coyle gone are standing in quicksand citing miscommunication as their major gripe. Its going to be pretty hard to go against the Pres and MC, who can easily say they are protecting the integrity of the University.
Click to expand...
Yes, the President and AD are master debaters. [emoji48] That doesn't make them truthful.
 


Dean S said:
Much greater? Now that is debatable. All research on the subject of memory states that memory is fallible. Add in stress, alcohol, lack of sleep and physical abuse and that gets magnified. The question of her testimony shouldn't be the only question involved here any more. Confusion is not a reason to dismiss the dead and it should not be a reason to dismiss the confused living. The dead need not speak and charges get filed. We have statements of players on record. And, there were players who said that it should stop and had concern for the woman. Whatever happened to that as a reason to file? The problem with lawyers and judicial procedure is that it often leads to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons. Be that on your conscious, not mine. I have no such constraint. I am not bound by the sometimes arcane rules of the law that prevent in error justice being served. If you don't get that, maybe you should wake up from your slumber and engage your keen mind again and find why that thinking is in error. Don't refer back to the easily recalled rule. Find where the rule lacks a standard that applies to common sense and make an argument. Traditional views to a contemporary problem often need new forms of reason and a good judge to allow a new standard to be applied. Just maybe a good lawyer works for the common good instead of being a punk for the past.
Click to expand...

Emotional arguments should not be the basis of a legal system. Next.
 

Billy M said:
The Players:

Kaler - University President who wields a TON of power and influence
Coyle - recently hired AD at $800k+ (you really think they are going to gas this guy?)
Lee Hutton - lawyer who is still mad he didnt become AD and now is helping lead the revolt.
Players - Made a hard line stance and then backed off it in a game of chicken with administration.

And who is going to be clamoring to get rid of Kaler and Coyle, who are both on the side of enforcing the EEOC report and protecting students and who are anti-sexual assault? The women of campus? I think I know who they will side with. I would like to know what group is going to lead the overthrow of the President and newly-minted 800K Man? Claeys? Hutton? The football players who already cried "uncle"? Those 3 are expendable pieces like it or not. Perception becomes reality and those who want Kaler and Coyle gone are standing in quicksand citing miscommunication as their major gripe. Its going to be pretty hard to go against the Pres and MC, who can easily say they are protecting the integrity of the University.
Click to expand...

The politicians will solve the EEOC side of it. The question here is whether the university will withstand legal scrutiny. It isn't a popularity contest and the masses are uneducated right now.

As an aside, I wonder how many students at the Radius feel the players are guilty. I'd love to see a straw poll.
 





Dean S said:
Much greater? Now that is debatable. All research on the subject of memory states that memory is fallible. Add in stress, alcohol, lack of sleep and physical abuse and that gets magnified. The question of her testimony shouldn't be the only question involved here any more. Confusion is not a reason to dismiss the dead and it should not be a reason to dismiss the confused living. The dead need not speak and charges get filed. We have statements of players on record. And, there were players who said that it should stop and had concern for the woman. Whatever happened to that as a reason to file? The problem with lawyers and judicial procedure is that it often leads to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons. Be that on your conscious, not mine. I have no such constraint. I am not bound by the sometimes arcane rules of the law that prevent in error justice being served. If you don't get that, maybe you should wake up from your slumber and engage your keen mind again and find why that thinking is in error. Don't refer back to the easily recalled rule. Find where the rule lacks a standard that applies to common sense and make an argument. Traditional views to a contemporary problem often need new forms of reason and a good judge to allow a new standard to be applied. Just maybe a good lawyer works for the common good instead of being a punk for the past.
Click to expand...

So, if the players remember events differently, that proves they're lying? Talk about an inference. Grab any 10 or 12 people at random, and ask them to recall specific events that happened weeks or months ago at a party. You will get 10 or 12 different stories. Are they deliberately lying - or do they just remember things differently?

I am NOT arguing that all the players are innocent. I do not believe that. I AM saying that I do not believe they are all equally culpable. One of the things the other players are arguing for is an impartial hearing where each accused player can be judged fairly as an individual. If that happens, I believe some players will still be recommended for punishment, but others may not.
 

Dean S said:
What we know is the players lied to the investigators because they each contradicted each others statements. That is a little more than an inference. It is factual. The contradiction stands in plain sight for everybody to see and read about. You can ignore that at your leisure, but the fact of that remains and credibility of the players collective stories are largely in doubt. Inference or not, that remains the elephant in the room. You can call the elephant a tree, or a snake or whatever you want. It remains an elephant.
Click to expand...

And you say nothing of her changing her story.

The fact that two people accounts don't line up can be do to the very fact they are people. Have you ever read about studies of how inaccurate eyewitness accounts of events can be??? I'm general eyewitness accounts are extremely inaccurate and highly influenced by suggestion.
 

Dean S said:
Much greater? Now that is debatable. All research on the subject of memory states that memory is fallible. Add in stress, alcohol, lack of sleep and physical abuse and that gets magnified. The question of her testimony shouldn't be the only question involved here any more. Confusion is not a reason to dismiss the dead and it should not be a reason to dismiss the confused living. The dead need not speak and charges get filed. We have statements of players on record. And, there were players who said that it should stop and had concern for the woman. Whatever happened to that as a reason to file? The problem with lawyers and judicial procedure is that it often leads to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons. Be that on your conscious, not mine. I have no such constraint. I am not bound by the sometimes arcane rules of the law that prevent in error justice being served. If you don't get that, maybe you should wake up from your slumber and engage your keen mind again and find why that thinking is in error. Don't refer back to the easily recalled rule. Find where the rule lacks a standard that applies to common sense and make an argument. Traditional views to a contemporary problem often need new forms of reason and a good judge to allow a new standard to be applied. Just maybe a good lawyer works for the common good instead of being a punk for the past.
Click to expand...

Wondering why the accused cant use alcohol as a reason they have discrepancies in their stories as well plus the fact that this happened at 3-4am after a game they were involved in I am sure there is a lost of memory by all parties but the Victim is the only one to be able to use clauses.
is she being suspended?
after reading half of the report the truth lies inbetween what she is saying and what the players are saying.
 

Discrepancies are not entirely bad. People remember things differently, even if they were all at the same event. If everyone agrees on every single detail it is likely that there is collusion involved in creating a story. If everyone agrees on everything it is likely that a major lie is being shared.
 



UpnorthGo4 said:
Let's keep the facts straight. There was only ONE player who was charged even though he wasn't present at the apartment during the gang bang. EOAA said he lied about his whereabouts and thereby obstructed their investigation - see my above post.
Click to expand...

That's not true, but glad you have made up your mind and can confirm that. Proud of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dean S said:
What we know is the players lied to the investigators because they each contradicted each others statements. That is a little more than an inference. It is factual. The contradiction stands in plain sight for everybody to see and read about. You can ignore that at your leisure, but the fact of that remains and credibility of the players collective stories are largely in doubt. Inference or not, that remains the elephant in the room. You can call the elephant a tree, or a snake or whatever you want. It remains an elephant.
Click to expand...

I would expect the stories of 10 people weeks after an incident occurred to be inconsistent with each other.
 

I guess I forgot Kaler hired Teague! Enough is enough he needs to be gone!
 

You all act like you know that the EOAA report was 100% accurate and truthful. To me, it's opinionated, full of he said she said statements. And we don't even see the transcripts of the interviews the EOAA did. What if they some how misled some of the players into making mistakes? If any of these players are really innocent, i hope they bring down the people responsible, including the EOAA office.

A person pleads the 5th under oath because they don't want what they say to one day incriminate them. That's pretty telling right there.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom