collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2018-2019 SOTG


2018-19 Season SoG Tally
Howard11
S Hauser4
John4
Anim3
Chartouny2

'17-18 * '16-17 *
'15-16'14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Herro by Cheeks
[Today at 07:22:58 PM]


Recruiting as of 6/15/19 by Jay Bee
[Today at 07:19:12 PM]


UConn to BE Rumors by Herman Cain
[Today at 07:19:07 PM]


Carolyn Kieger by GooooMarquette
[Today at 06:30:19 PM]


POLL:Uconn to Big East good or bad? by brewcity77
[Today at 06:28:26 PM]


NM by Benny B
[Today at 05:50:39 PM]


GE ANKLE SURGERY by GooooMarquette
[Today at 01:08:49 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
Marquette

Madness

Date/Time: Oct 4, 2019
TV: ???
Schedule for 2018-19
24-10

Author Topic: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..  (Read 50208 times)

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9359
Re: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..
« Reply #275 on: August 16, 2010, 09:26:32 PM »
I just respond to other posters in the thread....why can't they let it go?  Why does Lenny bring it up AGAIN in a totally DIFFERENT post?  Is that weak?  Should you address it with him?  Why can't he let it go?  Honestly, selective outrage toward some and not others, seems "weak"...with all due respect.   ;)


Blackheart...it was in teal...it was sarcastic.  
You have 46 posts in this thread. This is #10 for me. I'll take a little grief for "beating the dead horse" but you've nearly wiped out Calumet Farms.

Marquette84

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
Re: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..
« Reply #276 on: August 16, 2010, 10:21:11 PM »
Like MUcam said...just walk away buddy.

Sorry--both you and MUCam made made comments borne out of your ignorance over the meaning of the word illegal in the context of a discussion of rules, and you deserve to be called on it.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal, there are two definitions for illegal:
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

Its obvious that both you and MUCam objected based on your mistaken assumptions that only definition #1 existed. 

In fact, MUCam said "In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute" 

Well guess what, genius: WE WERN'T DISCUSSING THE LAW OR THE STATUTE!!! WE WERE DISCUSSING THE NCAA OFFICIAL RULES.   THat's right--he used the WRONG DEFINITION of the word "illegal" for his entire analysis.

It should be obvious from the context of discussion, that #2 applied:  contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc..

So when NCAA says they passed a rule prohibiting side deals, any subsequent side deal would be, BY DEFINITION illegal. 

You and MUCam were either completely ignorant of definition #2, or your are intentionally misusing the first to confuse, obfuscate or support some agenda.

Furthermore, there are literally tens of thousands of of links on a google search for "illegal recruiting" that refer to various violations of NCAA rules, so any attempt by you to argue that the use of the word "illegal" in such context is uncommon or not well known is completely bogus.

The word illegal is used in reference to NCAA rules or recruiting in places like NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, ESPN, CBS, etc. etc. etc.

Its a VERY COMMON phrase when used to describe violations or potential violations of NCAA rules.

In a civil discussion, what SHOULD happen at this point is that you and MUCam will
--admit that you didn't realize there were two definitions for the word illegal,
--admit that my use was correct in the context in which it was used,
--grant that it is a VERY commonly used phrase throughout the media and the Internet to describe an NCAA rules violation,





MUCam

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
Re: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..
« Reply #277 on: August 16, 2010, 10:42:01 PM »

In a civil discussion, what SHOULD happen at this point is that you and MUCam will
--admit that you didn't realize there were two definitions for the word illegal,
--admit that my use was correct in the context in which it was used,
--grant that it is a VERY commonly used phrase throughout the media and the Internet to describe an NCAA rules violation,


This is laughable. Like wheels stuck spinning in the mud. With this, I'll sign off. Best of luck to you, Marquette84.

Jam Chowder

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
Re: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..
« Reply #278 on: August 16, 2010, 11:11:39 PM »
On a completely unrelated note (for the admins): Why in the world did my post get deleted? Was it derogatory toward anyone? Did it contain obscenity of any sort? I fail to understand why anything at all in there would have been interpreted as so inappropriate as to warrant deletion. Sorry, but there's way worse crap on this board. You allow people to openly deride the female members of the Marquette community, post links to pornographic college girl lists, condone personal jabs and attacks of all sorts, and plenty of other comments that I would personally deem far more offensive. Yet you chose to delete that post? I fail to understand the logic. It was just a suggestion that the argument is redundant and should be put to rest. Oh well.

MUScoop

  • Administrator
  • Walk-On
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
    • MUScoop - Marquette Basketball and Sports Supersite
Re: And Newbill Speaks to Rosiak..
« Reply #279 on: August 17, 2010, 01:46:45 AM »
On a completely unrelated note (for the admins): Why in the world did my post get deleted? Was it derogatory toward anyone? Did it contain obscenity of any sort? I fail to understand why anything at all in there would have been interpreted as so inappropriate as to warrant deletion. Sorry, but there's way worse crap on this board. You allow people to openly deride the female members of the Marquette community, post links to pornographic college girl lists, condone personal jabs and attacks of all sorts, and plenty of other comments that I would personally deem far more offensive. Yet you chose to delete that post? I fail to understand the logic. It was just a suggestion that the argument is redundant and should be put to rest. Oh well.

Huh?  I checked the moderation log back to June 30, I don't see that any post from "BirkieWarrior" has been touched.  While I appreciate the slam on the moderation here - are you sure you posted something?  Did you post under some other name?  Do you realize we have a "report to moderator" link on every post if you'd like to report something as offensive? 

And on that note, I think I'll lock the thread.  No more good can come from this.