Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The thing that always kills me moast about this bored
GrundleStiltzkin
Member Posts: 61,516 
Comments
-
Found that one odd myself. We can put DIAFF........ We can ask someone to kill themselves. but not Genocide.
-
Sounds like you feel oppressed.HuskyJW said:Found that one odd myself. We can put DIAFF........ We can ask someone to kill themselves. but not Genocide.
-
Classy rules.
Classy moderator. -
I love that the majority of people to "like" or "awesome" the rules have been banned.
It's a catch-22. To stay, you must appreciate the rules. But to appreciate the rules, you must break them and get sent to the gulag. -
LOL @ all the banned users off that link...
-
Can we call for mass shootings?
-
Is it Friday, yet?
-
I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla.
-
I guess that includes pogroms too =(Dardanus said:I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla. -
Not like a Swaye oppressed....but more of a Bruce Jenner oppressed.DerekJohnson said:
Sounds like you feel oppressed.HuskyJW said:Found that one odd myself. We can put DIAFF........ We can ask someone to kill themselves. but not Genocide.
-
I am glad this is OK though
-
golddog17 said:
I am glad this is OK though
Maybe if the people we? nuked were in wheelchairs it would be off limits...? -
-
RIP Spooge. Yeah right... fuck that creepy fag.LaZoris said:LOL @ all the banned users off that link...
-
-
Fucking Stalin.GrundleStiltzkin said:Is that we have a specific rule against calls for genocide.
-
But duck rape is totally in.
-
if I said I was Obama ... I'd be banned.
But if I say I'm Sonny Dykes everyone knows I'm full of shit.
-
Hardcore Husky is lucky Obama even posts here at alltopdawgnc said:if I said I was Obama ... I'd be banned.
But if I say I'm Sonny Dykes everyone knows I'm full of shit. -
Why would you use one tiny little word to make your case when a wall of text will be explain your position?Dardanus said:I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla.
Hi @Tequilla -
Is it still cool if we talk about Armenian genocide?
-
The Turks had t-shirts made that say: Finish!PurpleJ said:Is it still cool if we talk about Armenian genocide?
-
Sark's great grandpa brought a live Turk in a cage to practice. Guess it didn't work.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
The Turks had t-shirts made that say: Finish!PurpleJ said:Is it still cool if we talk about Armenian genocide?
-
Then Sark ate the Turk for ThanksgivingPurpleJ said:
Sark's great grandpa brought a live Turk in a cage to practice. Guess it didn't work.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
The Turks had t-shirts made that say: Finish!PurpleJ said:Is it still cool if we talk about Armenian genocide?
-
Look, I know we all want to see mass genocide, but like Petersen has said, it's hard. He's absolutely right about that. We don't have the talent at WR to execute a mass genocide. They kind of handcuff Petersen and Smith's game plan. I know some will disagree with me. That's fine. It won't be the last time I post something controversial. My hope is that even those that don't agree with me will think and care.Dardanus said:I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla.
How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.
None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.
If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.
If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.
There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.
It's a massive over reaction in my mind to say that this season is less enjoyable than pick your favorite season in the last 10-15.
There's a lot of things going right ...
The things going wrong are just major fuckups right now ... some of it coaching some of it just players finding the best way to be fucked up losers at the worst time.
What's going right this year:
36th in SRS
Points For: 240 (26.67 pts per game)
Points Against: 169 (18.77 pts per game)
Point Differential: +71
What's going wrong:
4-5 record
2-4 in conference
Failure to win close games
Offensive playcalling
The reality is that we're a young team showing positive signs but taking lumps. We're underperforming what the numbers would suggest that we should be at at this point.
In some ways, this season reminds me a bit of the 1988 season that I vaguely remember in that we lost a ton of close games finishing at 6-5 overall and 3-5 in conference. The Seniors that played on the '91 team were either true or RS Freshman on this team. Some interesting stats from that team:
25th in SRS
Points For: 254 (23.1 pts per game)
Points Against: 223 points (20.3 pts per game)
Point Differential: +31
The losses in conference that year were by 7, 1, 3, 3, and 1
The following year in 1989 saw an 8-4 record and an improvement to 5-3 in conference. SRS went from 25th to 14th and total point differential for the year increased to +107. What followed from there were 3 straight Rose Bowls and a National Championship.
There's some transformative things that need to happen in the program to continue to get things moving in the right direction. There's good reason for frustration ... but the numbers are showing positive signs and trends. -
Case closed and no, I didn't read any of it.RoadDawg55 said:
Look, I know we all want to see mass genocide, but like Petersen has said, it's hard. He's absolutely right about that. We don't have the talent at WR to execute a mass genocide. They kind of handcuff Petersen and Smith's game plan. I know some will disagree with me. That's fine. It won't be the last time I post something controversial. My hope is that even those that don't agree with me will think and care.Dardanus said:I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla.
How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.
None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.
If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.
If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.
There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.
It's a massive over reaction in my mind to say that this season is less enjoyable than pick your favorite season in the last 10-15.
There's a lot of things going right ...
The things going wrong are just major fuckups right now ... some of it coaching some of it just players finding the best way to be fucked up losers at the worst time.
What's going right this year:
36th in SRS
Points For: 240 (26.67 pts per game)
Points Against: 169 (18.77 pts per game)
Point Differential: +71
What's going wrong:
4-5 record
2-4 in conference
Failure to win close games
Offensive playcalling
The reality is that we're a young team showing positive signs but taking lumps. We're underperforming what the numbers would suggest that we should be at at this point.
In some ways, this season reminds me a bit of the 1988 season that I vaguely remember in that we lost a ton of close games finishing at 6-5 overall and 3-5 in conference. The Seniors that played on the '91 team were either true or RS Freshman on this team. Some interesting stats from that team:
25th in SRS
Points For: 254 (23.1 pts per game)
Points Against: 223 points (20.3 pts per game)
Point Differential: +31
The losses in conference that year were by 7, 1, 3, 3, and 1
The following year in 1989 saw an 8-4 record and an improvement to 5-3 in conference. SRS went from 25th to 14th and total point differential for the year increased to +107. What followed from there were 3 straight Rose Bowls and a National Championship.
There's some transformative things that need to happen in the program to continue to get things moving in the right direction. There's good reason for frustration ... but the numbers are showing positive signs and trends. -
Check the facts and metric, then get back to usRoadDawg55 said:
Look, I know we all want to see mass genocide, but like Petersen has said, it's hard. He's absolutely right about that. We don't have the talent at WR to execute a mass genocide. They kind of handcuff Petersen and Smith's game plan. I know some will disagree with me. That's fine. It won't be the last time I post something controversial. My hope is that even those that don't agree with me will think and care.Dardanus said:I like that the rule states, "No calls for genocide, etc."
The etcetera broadens the definition to include similar acts, but keeps the language concise. Take notes, Tequilla.
How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.
None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.
If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.
If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.
There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.
It's a massive over reaction in my mind to say that this season is less enjoyable than pick your favorite season in the last 10-15.
There's a lot of things going right ...
The things going wrong are just major fuckups right now ... some of it coaching some of it just players finding the best way to be fucked up losers at the worst time.
What's going right this year:
36th in SRS
Points For: 240 (26.67 pts per game)
Points Against: 169 (18.77 pts per game)
Point Differential: +71
What's going wrong:
4-5 record
2-4 in conference
Failure to win close games
Offensive playcalling
The reality is that we're a young team showing positive signs but taking lumps. We're underperforming what the numbers would suggest that we should be at at this point.
In some ways, this season reminds me a bit of the 1988 season that I vaguely remember in that we lost a ton of close games finishing at 6-5 overall and 3-5 in conference. The Seniors that played on the '91 team were either true or RS Freshman on this team. Some interesting stats from that team:
25th in SRS
Points For: 254 (23.1 pts per game)
Points Against: 223 points (20.3 pts per game)
Point Differential: +31
The losses in conference that year were by 7, 1, 3, 3, and 1
The following year in 1989 saw an 8-4 record and an improvement to 5-3 in conference. SRS went from 25th to 14th and total point differential for the year increased to +107. What followed from there were 3 straight Rose Bowls and a National Championship.
There's some transformative things that need to happen in the program to continue to get things moving in the right direction. There's good reason for frustration ... but the numbers are showing positive signs and trends.
Disagree -
All that progress Tequilla made to embrace brevity and be more readable all went down the shitter. Like an alcoholic falling off the wagon.
-
And too bad guys who like their ass stuffed with boner is off limits. Fortunately for us Tommy, you havent come clean so jokes about your sexuality is on limits. Bend over buddy:)ThomasFremont said:golddog17 said:I am glad this is OK though
Maybe if the people we? nuked were in wheelchairs it would be off limits...? -
Ohh I get it now grundle.
Also, why is Freemont immune to being banned for wheelchair jokes?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DKHSCA7srgg
