FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wanna come over to my apartment, AA, and listen to some vinyl????


    • Trump: I wanna Space Force and I want it NOW!!!


      • Kevin Yoder (KS-3) says he is skipping Trump's rally in Topeka. Yoder represents the Kansas City suburbs and the national Republican organizations have cut off his funding.


        • we are learning a lot about Monica McLean's involvenent over the last two days. Ford was staying with McLean when she wrote her initial accusation at the end of July. she is also the friend that Ford's ex boyfriend said Ford had previously coached on polygraph examinations when she was interviewing with the FBI.

          According to the WSJ, the FBI now have text messages from Ms. McLean to witness Ms. Keyser, directing her to modify statements more favorable to Ms. Ford.
          A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement regarding an alleged sexual assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Wall Street Journal report.


          • We get the Executive Summary but no the details of the Kavanaugh FBI Background Investigation:


            The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez.

            Note that it does not say that Ford's allegations are untrue, just that they aren't corroborated. I think it was talent that gave us some insight into what weight Ford's testimony should have in the circumstance of the Judiciary Committee's review of the qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the SC.

            If I have it right, members of the Judiciary Committee should be looking at whether or not Ford (like a plaintiff in a civil case) proved her testimony provided a “greater weight of the evidence” in light of Kavanaugh's testimony and the Background investigations done by the Committee and the FBI. Ford essentially has to show her allegations are credible. Kavanaugh has no such burden. The FBI investigation diminishes the value of Ford's claims against Kavanaugh

            Given the FBI report that states there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez, it seems to me that the Senators will move Kavanaugh out of committee and toward a floor vote this afternoon. Do I have the language I used and this logic right?

            On Harbaugh's expectations for M football in 2015 (NFL NETWORK): �We'd rather be about it than talk about it."


            • It's all semantic gymnastics when it comes to politics. It could have just as easily said there is no evidence to dispute the allegations. The FBI report unfortunately is a big fat nothing burger to provide cover for wavering senators.
              #MAGA -
              Morons Are Governing America


              • Ms Mitchell did a good job with her write up too. That Dr Ford's case is worse than a he said she said. It's a she said they say.
                What she has doesn't rise to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is what they use in a civil trial.


                • Originally posted by Ghengis Jon View Post
                  It's all semantic gymnastics when it comes to politics. It could have just as easily said there is no evidence to dispute the allegations. The FBI report unfortunately is a big fat nothing burger to provide cover for wavering senators.
                  Except sworn testimony from her life long friend that Dr Ford named as being present said she has never meet Kavanaugh, and has never been at a party, either with or without Dr Ford where Kavanaugh was present.

                  you know, besides that.


                  • Murkowski with a surprising vote 'no' on cloture. So she's almost certainly a no on the real vote. If I heard correctly, Manchin waited till all the other votes were in to vote "yes"?

                    Kinda sounds like Susan Collins will be the one deciding things. Manchin won't want to be the deciding vote either way.


                    • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
                      Wanna come over to my apartment, AA, and listen to some vinyl????
                      I knew AA was gay...but DSL is as welll?

                      Shut the fuck up Donny!


                      • Everybody else is wondering too, but you're the only one requesting specific confirmation. As if your need to know is greater than that of all others, or something.


                        • Collins is lit right now.


                          • Within 2 minutes of Collins finishing, Manchin releases a statement to say he too supports Kavanaugh...LOL

                            This will help him though. Some R's were saying privately that they felt that race was unwinnable if Manchin votes yes.


                            • Yeah, with Collins on board Manchin has one rationale decision. He can the race with yay!
                              Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                              Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.


                              • Manchin was always voting yes. There was no way this thing compromised man wasn't getting confirmed, this is the best of all worlds for McConnell. A hard core partisan on the bench indebted to the right. There will be no independence from Kavanaugh, Cocaine Mitch couldn't have come out of this any better.