Clarification from Nighman

[Josh '99]

[quote ftyuv]I think he's referring to the first part.  He's gunning for "See you loser!  You [something]."  I doubt he knows, or cares, whether the [something] is "goon" or "lose," as long as we don't say "asshole."[/quote]Obviously that's what he's going for, but it's pretty inane to say (as he did) that that's the "traditional" chant or something like that.  Lying to us is just insulting.

[Beeeej]

[quote Josh '99][quote ftyuv]I think he's referring to the first part.  He's gunning for "See you loser!  You [something]."  I doubt he knows, or cares, whether the [something] is "goon" or "lose," as long as we don't say "asshole."[/quote]Obviously that's what he's going for, but it's pretty inane to say (as he did) that that's the "traditional" chant or something like that.  Lying to us is just insulting.[/quote]

See Hanlon's Razor.

[mha]

I wish I'd seen this in time to use it as a defense for my "harvard sucks" t-shirt.

[Rich S]

so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?

[Beeeej]

We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit.  Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.

[Rich S]

[quote Beeeej]We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit.  Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.[/quote]

Thanks Beeej.

The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place.  Feel free to understand that.  :-}

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Rich S][quote Beeeej]We were talking about a legal defense in a personal injury suit.  Feel free to join us when you've reached the same page.[/quote]

Thanks Beeej.

The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place.  Feel free to understand that.  :-}[/quote]

And Cornell never should have torn down the U-Halls.  See, non sequiturs are fun!

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?[/quote]

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun!

[Winnabago]

[quote Jordan 04][quote Winnabago][quote DL]Is it remotely possible that the lunacy coming from Noel is actually not so much his fault as it is part of his job, part of some more ridiculous doctrine handed down from much higher up?  It certainly would suck if his job depended on being an asshole, then being called for it by hundreds of fans, right on national TV.
[/quote]

There are many, many things in this world that are done for the sake of covering your own ass, and his seems like one of those times.  If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue and decides to sue the department, the defense will hinge around "oh, didn't you see the emails we sent out, and how we ejected Bob and Jill who looked like they were about to make a throwing motion with their arm while saying 'socks' in the direction of Kyle Richter?  What else do you want us to do?".  Our legal system sponsors such theater as a way out.[/quote]

If Ted Donato slips on his way to the bench, I'd imagine the defense would hinge around "you were walking on ice" and not all that other stuff.[/quote]

Ok, so he trips over some fish residue.  Same argument.

[Rich S]

[quote Beeeej][quote Rich S]so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?[/quote]

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun![/quote]

Your arrogance is appalling if not at all surprising consider the source, (a guy who gets his panties in a bunch because I wouldn't track him down at Lynah last Spring).

Incapable?  Perhaps you're the one that adjective fits best.

You guys made reference to a personal injury suit, not me.  I said the following which I'll repeat since you seemingly missed it.

"The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that."

My question asking 'So then the fish throwing is ok?' despite being a "unsportsmanlike act in the first place", meant, does the defense of his knowing it was coming make it a less unsportsmanlike act?

I think not, but hey, you're the know-it-all lawyer so feel free to continue to interpret my words any way you like.

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S][quote Beeeej][quote Rich S]so that makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok?[/quote]

Okay, I'll bite, since you're incapable of seeing how the question is unrelated to the statement it follows:

It makes Donato unable to recover in a personal injury lawsuit.

Wow, that was fun![/quote]

Your arrogance is appalling if not at all surprising consider the source, (a guy who gets his panties in a bunch because I wouldn't track him down at Lynah last Spring).

Incapable?  Perhaps you're the one that adjective fits best.

You guys made reference to a personal injury suit, not me.  I said the following which I'll repeat since you seemingly missed it.

"The suit you were talking about was in related to "If Ted Donato slips on some fish residue."

I was referring to how the fish got there in the first place. Feel free to understand that."

My question asking 'So then the fish throwing is ok?' despite being a "unsportsmanlike act in the first place", meant, does the defense of his knowing it was coming make it a less unsportsmanlike act?

I think not, but hey, you're the know-it-all lawyer so feel free to continue to interpret my words any way you like.[/quote]

If you insist.  I will even endeavour to be polite about it.

For probably 99% of readers, when you follow a statement "Y" with a question of the form "So that makes X okay?" you are understood to be using "that" to refer to "Y," the statement that preceeded it and the context in which "Y" arose.  We were in the middle of conversation about whether Donato's hypothetical lawsuit against Cornell might have merit, and I had just brought up a point that would probably be a strong defense for Cornell in that hypothetical lawsuit.  Since you responded directly to that point "Y" with a question of the form "So that makes X okay?" any rational reader would have to presume that your question arose from my point and the context in which I made it.

The answer is that one has nothing to do with the other.  If you'd asked "So that makes it more likely Cornell would be able to defend such a lawsuit successfully?" then the answer would have been "Yes."  Your question "So that makes your ... behavior ok?" just doesn't apply.  There's an enormous difference between what might serve as a successful defense in a court of law and what makes behavior "ok" in a moral sense or in terms of etiquette.

Which brings me to another point.  Your phrasing "gross display of unsportsmanship behavior" presumes that the display is gross, that the behavior is - well, "unsportsmanlike" (that would be the adjective form of the word, I believe) in the first place.  It's the worst kind of loaded, conclusory question, because it presupposes the answer.  It would be as if I asked, say, a St. Lawrence alum posting on this board, "So your moronically ignorant and deranged reply made sense?"  Well, no, it couldn't possibly - I've already stated in the question that it was moronically ignorant and deranged, so no answer that poster gives will suffice to make us believe otherwise.  Most of the time, I don't even think a question like that deserves an answer.

All that having been said, if what you actually wanted to know was whether I think the fish-tossing at the Hahvahd game is unsportsmanlike, you could have simply asked, but you didn't.  You could also have asked me whether I think it's less unsportsmanlike because Donato knew it was coming, but you didn't, though you clearly think you did.  Based on the way any rational human being would read the conversation in sequence, you asked if the fact that Ted Donato would likely lose a lawsuit against Cornell because he knew in advance of the potentially dangerous condition "makes your gross display of unsportsmanship behavior ok."

The answer - once again - is that it has nothing to do with it.

The answer to the question you think you originally asked, since you have now gone to the trouble of asking it (and whatever you may think, I do appreciate the clarification), is:  No, I don't think Donato's foreknowledge of the fish has any bearing whatsoever on whether the fish is unsportsmanlike or, if it is unsportsmanlike, how unsportsmanlike it is.

As for last year, I let that go a long time ago.  I tried at the time to make you understand why I thought your double-standard was ridiculous, but you didn't get it, so I gave up.  I fail to see why you continue to bring it up, or what it has to do with this discussion.  If it makes you feel better to think that I was offended because you didn't grace me with your presence, please feel free to continue thinking that.  I know better, and I'm completely at peace with my opinion on the matter.

My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.

[scannon]

Do you two have nothhing better to do

[Dpperk29]

[quote Beeeej]
My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.[/quote]

Thank You

[redice]

[quote scannon]Do you two have nothhing better to do[/quote]

Second  ::rolleyes::

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Dpperk29][quote Beeeej]
My sincerest and genuine wishes for Clarkson's success against St. Cloud State this weekend.[/quote]

Thank You[/quote]

LGT!