10 year show cause/NCAA, Tyndall discussion (merged)

#1,851
#1,851
VolsSportsFan said:
Which proves all of jack sh**.
Click to expand...
Yep, I didn't have the appeal brief either. Told you guys I was moonlighting as a legal aid for DJ for a year explaining my absence at the beginning of my contributions to this thread (not Buzz, :lolabove:). Should have believed me.
 
#1,852
#1,852
So...

How did it go today?

Did the NCAA knock a couple years off the suspension or are they sticking to their guns?

GBO!!!
 
#1,853
#1,853
vol66 said:
So...

How did it go today?

Did the NCAA knock a couple years off the suspension or are they sticking to their guns?

GBO!!!
Click to expand...

200_s.gif
 
#1,856
#1,856
SeniorDrill said:
Yep, I didn't have the appeal brief either. Told you guys I was moonlighting as a legal aid for DJ for a year explaining my absence at the beginning of my contributions to this thread (not Buzz, :lolabove:). Should have believed me.
Click to expand...

You've yet to post the whole thing, so we wonder if you have it. All signs point to no.
 
#1,857
#1,857
All I can say is we'll find out who the best recruiter is on December 22. Both coaches have two years of recruiting under their belt. That's when the bluster ends and reality begins.
 
#1,858
#1,858
SeniorDrill said:
All I can say is we'll find out who the best recruiter is on December 22. Both coaches have two years of recruiting under their belt. That's when the bluster ends and reality begins.
Click to expand...

And knowing you, if Tennessee loses you'll be all giddy since, like Buzz, you don't care about the Vols and want to see Barnes fail.
 
#1,867
#1,867
"It helps to establish that they're involving themselves in employment decisions of a public university," Jackson said of Tyndall's appeal, "and that violates federal law." Can you say Sherman Antitrust Act?
 
Last edited:
#1,869
#1,869
calban said:
And Nuke the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Don't want to turn this into a political thing, but he never said that. In fact, he said "I would be slow and hesitant to pull the trigger." Then goes on to say "I would if I had to, but only if it had to be done."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,870
#1,870
Dallasbowlin said:
Don't want to turn this into a political thing, but he never said that. In fact, he said "I would be slow and hesitant to pull the trigger." Then goes on to say "I would if I had to, but only if it had to be done."
Click to expand...

Dang. Only reason I would have voted for him.
 
#1,872
#1,872
SeniorDrill said:
You just proved my point. "I have a plan to stop Isis."
Click to expand...

I believe it was Elizabeth Warren who made that twitter response to Trump.

Apparently clicking any one of several posted links is just too much work, eh?
 
Last edited:
#1,874
#1,874
SeniorDrill said:
Yep, I didn't have the appeal brief either. Told you guys I was moonlighting as a legal aid for DJ for a year explaining my absence at the beginning of my contributions to this thread (not Buzz, :lolabove:). Should have believed me.
Click to expand...

A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument, up to and including the deliberate use of Insane Troll Logic to confuse people.

Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:
• Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.
• Having a point repeated over and over again.
• Shouting because if your voice is louder, you seem more powerful, and powerful people always win, so you must be the winner.
• Interrupting your opponent and/or talking about nonsense purely to delay and lengthen the debate (a.k.a. "filibustering"). Common in democratic debate, but dictatorships only bother when they're too weak to silence their opposition outright.
• Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.
• Being hit rapid-fire with so many bogus arguments that you can't keep up unless you write them all down and painstakingly address them one at a time. This lets the other debater claim your failure to answer a few points as proof that you couldn't answer. Also known as a "Gish Gallop". It is named after Duane Gish, a debater who was known for using this tactic.

The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
• If you can prove the other side wrong about something, no matter how irrelevant, it makes them totally wrong and you absolutely right.
• If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing or nonsensical for the opponent to understand or respond to, it makes them wrong and you right.
• If you can make your opponent give up on arguing with you, because you appear too crazy to understand them and/or don't seem to be listening, then they must be wrong and you must be right.
• If you can make your opponent look bad, then their argument must be equally bad and therefore they must be wrong and you have to be right.

Am I right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top