Zoom call details that were new to me

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
USUallyAGGrIvatEd
Posts: 75
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USUallyAGGrIvatEd » December 26th, 2020, 5:22 pm

This was new to me. Sorry if it’s already been covered here in the board some where.

Heard from a reliable source that after the comment about Maile’s religion and background from Cockett that the players on the council each took their turn and individually introduced themselves, detailed their own personal religion, geographic location, and support for Coach Maile with individual reasoning why they thought he would be a great HC.

At that point she had to have known she was in HUGE trouble.
These users thanked the author USUallyAGGrIvatEd for the post:
flying_scotsman2.0



Thelonius
Posts: 156
Joined: December 1st, 2010, 7:07 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by Thelonius » December 26th, 2020, 9:34 pm

WHITE MORMONS-like yourself-led the charge. Just stop.



User avatar
TheAKAggie
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY
Posts: 6072
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:21 pm
Location: Hyde Park, UT
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 438 times
Contact:

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by TheAKAggie » December 26th, 2020, 9:35 pm

Yeah, weird for her to say in a room full of Polynesian Mormons from Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hail Aggies!

User avatar
JSHarvey
Posts: 1866
Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
Location: Sandy, UT
Has thanked: 1061 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by JSHarvey » December 26th, 2020, 9:42 pm

The mistake was agreeing to the call in the first place. The was nothing she could have said, or nothing she could have omitted saying, that would have changed one student's mind. Anything she did, or didn't, say would be twisted to the worst possible angle. These were/are (spoiled) men that were pissed at not getting their way, they threw a collective (misled/guided) temper tantrum, and they found an enabler who hopes to make a lot of bucks off of their anger.

I blame the players and Frank for blowing this way out of proportion, but I also blame the administration for holding the meeting.

It is a sad circumstance that would be best left in the rear view mirror ASAP!
These users thanked the author JSHarvey for the post (total 5):
USU78NowhereLandAggie3rdGenAggieNavyBlueAggieLKGates


"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford

taniataylor
Posts: 2114
Joined: June 24th, 2016, 9:21 am
Location: Monrovia, Ca
Has thanked: 253 times
Been thanked: 1327 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by taniataylor » December 26th, 2020, 10:06 pm

Thelonius wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 9:34 pm
WHITE MORMONS-like yourself-led the charge. Just stop.
Whooaaa whoaaa whoaa
These users thanked the author taniataylor for the post:
GA_Aggie


Jordan Nathan's #1 Fan Copyright pending due to YBAs shenanigans

GameFAQSAggie
Posts: 5931
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:10 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by GameFAQSAggie » December 26th, 2020, 10:11 pm

JSHarvey wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 9:42 pm
The mistake was agreeing to the call in the first place. The was nothing she could have said, or nothing she could have omitted saying, that would have changed one student's mind. Anything she did, or didn't, say would be twisted to the worst possible angle. These were/are (spoiled) men that were pissed at not getting their way, they threw a collective (misled/guided) temper tantrum, and they found an enabler who hopes to make a lot of bucks off of their anger.

I blame the players and Frank for blowing this way out of proportion, but I also blame the administration for holding the meeting.

It is a sad circumstance that would be best left in the rear view mirror ASAP!
One thing that I think she could have done is simply explained to the players that the new coach is NOT for them to decide, just like how she doesn't let faculty decide who takes over as the next dean or department head, or let staff decide who the next vice president is, or for instance, how the campus police officers did NOT get to decide who the next chief would be either of the last two times we had an opening(and won't get to decide any other time in the future we have an opening)
These users thanked the author GameFAQSAggie for the post:
JSHarvey



User avatar
The Truth
Posts: 126
Joined: January 18th, 2011, 11:03 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by The Truth » December 27th, 2020, 12:23 am

The truth is no one knows what was said or in what context it was said. so far we don't even know if cockett said anything derogatory at all. it has just been assumed and practically adopted and pushed forward as truth by the media because one party has cried foul as part of what increasingly looks like an orchestrated effort to destroy the careers of a couple of people that the players weren't happy with over not hiring their guy.

there has already been discussion about this and the reason the players shared their info during the meeting is because cockett asked them to do so. she was likely making the point that they were all from different places, each with different backgrounds and yet all ended up at USU. the fact that frank is poly or from utah didn't play into most of their decisions to come to USU, yet these were the main reasons they were lobbying for him to be the next HC.
These users thanked the author The Truth for the post (total 3):
USU78JSHarveyflying_scotsman2.0



Imakeitrain
Posts: 7534
Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 421 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by Imakeitrain » December 27th, 2020, 12:55 am

A. It sounds like a listening session. I’ve had like 7 of these at work- 1 with the client, 2 with my account group, 2 with the entire firm and 2 with my principal all in response to anti-racism sjw demands. Screw cockett for listening to those that were there talk about their experiences with prejudice and why they wanted maile

B. You’re a little late. It sounds like your source just ripped it off the Sltrib.


“If at first you don’t succeed, do not try skydiving”

Aggie formerly in Hawaii
Posts: 4416
Joined: October 22nd, 2016, 1:06 am
Has thanked: 328 times
Been thanked: 772 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by Aggie formerly in Hawaii » December 27th, 2020, 10:18 am

The Truth wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:23 am
The truth is no one knows what was said or in what context it was said. so far we don't even know if cockett said anything derogatory at all. it has just been assumed and practically adopted and pushed forward as truth by the media because one party has cried foul as part of what increasingly looks like an orchestrated effort to destroy the careers of a couple of people that the players weren't happy with over not hiring their guy.

there has already been discussion about this and the reason the players shared their info during the meeting is because cockett asked them to do so. she was likely making the point that they were all from different places, each with different backgrounds and yet all ended up at USU. the fact that frank is poly or from utah didn't play into most of their decisions to come to USU, yet these were the main reasons they were lobbying for him to be the next HC.
The truth has spoken.
These users thanked the author Aggie formerly in Hawaii for the post:
PIGSKINAGGIE



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9238
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USU78 » December 27th, 2020, 10:46 am

The Truth wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:23 am
The truth is no one knows what was said or in what context it was said. so far we don't even know if cockett said anything derogatory at all. it has just been assumed and practically adopted and pushed forward as truth by the media because one party has cried foul as part of what increasingly looks like an orchestrated effort to destroy the careers of a couple of people that the players weren't happy with over not hiring their guy.

there has already been discussion about this and the reason the players shared their info during the meeting is because cockett asked them to do so. she was likely making the point that they were all from different places, each with different backgrounds and yet all ended up at USU. the fact that frank is poly or from utah didn't play into most of their decisions to come to USU, yet these were the main reasons they were lobbying for him to be the next HC.
Such a good comment. I'm reminded of the brouhaha a few years ago about the use of this word in an academic setting:
niggard (n.)
"mean or stingy person, miser," late 14c., nigard, nygard, nygart, also with a variant nigoun, nygun (c. 1300), a word of uncertain origin. The suffix suggests French origin (see -ard), but the root word is possibly from earlier nig "stingy" (c. 1300), which is perhaps from a Scandinavian source related to Old Norse *hniggw, related to hnøggr "stingy," from Proto-Germanic *khnauwjaz (source of Swedish njugg "close, careful," German genau "precise, exact"). Perhaps also related to Old English hneaw "stingy, niggardly," which did not survive in Middle English. A noun nig "niggardly person" is attested from c. 1300, but OED considers this unlikely to be the source of the longer word.
Think Scrooge.

And yet, since the word bears a slight [to my ears because of the etymology] resemblance to a sacred cow word, someone's job was put at risk and a public apology for the use of "niggard." And all because of ignorance, knee-jerkism, and certainly for some bad faith of listeners.

I strongly urge that a certainly nerdy and erudite prezette, being generally sensitive to the point of mania, is suffering the same fate for the same reasons as the "niggard" user.
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post:
NavyBlueAggie


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am

I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
These users thanked the author AggieUprising50 for the post:
BigBlueAggie



User avatar
WAAggie
Posts: 2395
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:02 am
Location: Kent WA
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by WAAggie » December 27th, 2020, 12:31 pm

If the players are wrong, they should either go away or sincerely apologize. Instigaters should bear responsibility for the ugly scar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These users thanked the author WAAggie for the post (total 4):
LKGatesImakeitrainCastIronAggieflying_scotsman2.0



calaggie
Posts: 171
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:14 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by calaggie » December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm

AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
These users thanked the author calaggie for the post (total 6):
ImakeitrainNowhereLandAggieThe TruthJSHarveyflying_scotsman2.0OKAggie



AngusAg
Posts: 929
Joined: November 27th, 2010, 11:38 am
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AngusAg » December 27th, 2020, 1:26 pm

calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
Well said IMO.



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 1:28 pm

WAAggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:31 pm
If the players are wrong, they should either go away or sincerely apologize. Instigaters should bear responsibility for the ugly scar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with that 100%



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm

calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.



User avatar
El Sapo
Posts: 1237
Joined: November 27th, 2017, 1:32 pm
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by El Sapo » December 27th, 2020, 3:15 pm

AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.
Perspective makes all the difference.

"The issue being brought up by the players" "Bringing the issue to light" "allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions"

Given the year we just went through? That sounds important.

After the zoom meeting, a single player initiated and furthered this, not the team. The written complaint (THE ISSUE) reportedly from the "team" came days later and argued that USU discriminated against Frank in the hiring process because he is LDS.

Once again for perspective. You need to say it out loud a few times. "USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Looking at the religious makeup of the FB team and the University itself, Mormons are discriminated against? That's "THE ISSUE" that needs to be brought to light?"

CMON MAN!
These users thanked the author El Sapo for the post:
JSHarvey


“Information is just bits of data. Knowledge is putting them together. Wisdom is transcending them.” ― Ram Dass

USUallyAGGrIvatEd
Posts: 75
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USUallyAGGrIvatEd » December 27th, 2020, 4:07 pm

Thelonius wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 9:34 pm
WHITE MORMONS-like yourself-led the charge. Just stop.
A-hole comment. You don’t know me or what I am anyway. F-U.



USUallyAGGrIvatEd
Posts: 75
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USUallyAGGrIvatEd » December 27th, 2020, 4:14 pm

El Sapo wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 3:15 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.
Perspective makes all the difference.

"The issue being brought up by the players" "Bringing the issue to light" "allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions"

Given the year we just went through? That sounds important.

After the zoom meeting, a single player initiated and furthered this, not the team. The written complaint (THE ISSUE) reportedly from the "team" came days later and argued that USU discriminated against Frank in the hiring process because he is LDS.

Once again for perspective. You need to say it out loud a few times. "USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Looking at the religious makeup of the FB team and the University itself, Mormons are discriminated against? That's "THE ISSUE" that needs to be brought to light?"

CMON MAN!
“USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Oh yeah it does. While at Utah state was privy to a lot of conversations with professors. They knew I was not Mormon so they spoke freely about how they wanted to re-educate all of these brainwashed Mormon kids, and how they had systematically eliminated Mormon professors through the years.
These users thanked the author USUallyAGGrIvatEd for the post (total 2):
AggieUprising50Ahbye



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 6:29 pm

El Sapo wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 3:15 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.
Perspective makes all the difference.

"The issue being brought up by the players" "Bringing the issue to light" "allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions"

Given the year we just went through? That sounds important.

After the zoom meeting, a single player initiated and furthered this, not the team. The written complaint (THE ISSUE) reportedly from the "team" came days later and argued that USU discriminated against Frank in the hiring process because he is LDS.

Once again for perspective. You need to say it out loud a few times. "USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Looking at the religious makeup of the FB team and the University itself, Mormons are discriminated against? That's "THE ISSUE" that needs to be brought to light?"

CMON MAN!
It wasn’t just one player who felt this way. The anonymous survey showed that 3/4 of the players on the call felt the same way. The player you are referring too just happened to be the first one who spoke up about it.

I don’t think this player manipulated a team of 100+ people to skip the last game of the season because he alone “felt offended.”

And honestly on a deeper note I do think that many universities across the country are becoming more liberal and less tolerant to religious views in general. USU is not exempt from this either.
These users thanked the author AggieUprising50 for the post:
oleblu111



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 6:30 pm

USUallyAGGrIvatEd wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 4:14 pm
El Sapo wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 3:15 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.
Perspective makes all the difference.

"The issue being brought up by the players" "Bringing the issue to light" "allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions"

Given the year we just went through? That sounds important.

After the zoom meeting, a single player initiated and furthered this, not the team. The written complaint (THE ISSUE) reportedly from the "team" came days later and argued that USU discriminated against Frank in the hiring process because he is LDS.

Once again for perspective. You need to say it out loud a few times. "USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Looking at the religious makeup of the FB team and the University itself, Mormons are discriminated against? That's "THE ISSUE" that needs to be brought to light?"

CMON MAN!
“USU discriminates against Mormons." Does that sound believable?

Oh yeah it does. While at Utah state was privy to a lot of conversations with professors. They knew I was not Mormon so they spoke freely about how they wanted to re-educate all of these brainwashed Mormon kids, and how they had systematically eliminated Mormon professors through the years.
If what you’re saying is true we may be only hitting the tip of the iceberg with what’s going on.



User avatar
The Truth
Posts: 126
Joined: January 18th, 2011, 11:03 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by The Truth » December 27th, 2020, 6:35 pm

calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
this is the exact issue at hand now and it is perfectly displayed in the post by @AggieUprising50. he/she already claims "it was the right call" by the players (inferring morally right) and this all "would have gotten swept under the rug" by the admin (inferring corruption)- whether he/she is aware of it or not these type of statements prove the public judgement has already been made. apparently there is something to sweep under the rug and the players should be praised because they "got the message out". these are the same statements being made in the media and the same thoughts that now flood the minds of those reading anything that has been "reported" on the matter.

as for saving the school from toxic leadership, has there ever been a single shred of evidence of such thing during Cockett's presidency? is there even evidence in these accusation by the players? has any other person or co-worker from any department at the university stepped forward to corroborate anything remotely close to the things being suggested in the zoom meeting? usually when someone is guilty of these type of things and someone makes public accusations other people will quickly come forward to share their similar experience with that individual or group. so far nothing. in fact, I would argue that it has been overwhelmingly the opposite.
These users thanked the author The Truth for the post:
flying_scotsman2.0



AggieUprising50
Posts: 798
Joined: January 31st, 2015, 4:31 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by AggieUprising50 » December 27th, 2020, 6:53 pm

The Truth wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 6:35 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
this is the exact issue at hand now and it is perfectly displayed in the post by @AggieUprising50. he/she already claims "it was the right call" by the players (inferring morally right) and this all "would have gotten swept under the rug" by the admin (inferring corruption)- whether he/she is aware of it or not these type of statements prove the public judgement has already been made. apparently there is something to sweep under the rug and the players should be praised because they "got the message out". these are the same statements being made in the media and the same thoughts that now flood the minds of those reading anything that has been "reported" on the matter.

as for saving the school from toxic leadership, has there ever been a single shred of evidence of such thing during Cockett's presidency? is there even evidence in these accusation by the players? has any other person or co-worker from any department at the university stepped forward to corroborate anything remotely close to the things being suggested in the zoom meeting? usually when someone is guilty of these type of things and someone makes public accusations other people will quickly come forward to share their similar experience with that individual or group. so far nothing. in fact, I would argue that it has been overwhelmingly the opposite.
I’m not saying she is or isn’t guilty of religious discrimination or even has any of those views. But the fact of the matter is she brought it up in the conversation about hiring a coach and the players listening saw some major red flags.

Do you think that there would be an investigation or that anyone outside the call would have taken them seriously if they would have played the CSU game?

And just because no one has said anything publicly about Crockett doesn’t mean they aren’t saying anything to the investigators.

I personally hope that this was just a huge misunderstanding and we move on from this, but we have to wait for the results of the investigation before we continue to bash our players or our admin.
These users thanked the author AggieUprising50 for the post:
oleblu111



Imakeitrain
Posts: 7534
Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 421 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by Imakeitrain » December 27th, 2020, 7:05 pm

AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 6:53 pm
The Truth wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 6:35 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
this is the exact issue at hand now and it is perfectly displayed in the post by @AggieUprising50. he/she already claims "it was the right call" by the players (inferring morally right) and this all "would have gotten swept under the rug" by the admin (inferring corruption)- whether he/she is aware of it or not these type of statements prove the public judgement has already been made. apparently there is something to sweep under the rug and the players should be praised because they "got the message out". these are the same statements being made in the media and the same thoughts that now flood the minds of those reading anything that has been "reported" on the matter.

as for saving the school from toxic leadership, has there ever been a single shred of evidence of such thing during Cockett's presidency? is there even evidence in these accusation by the players? has any other person or co-worker from any department at the university stepped forward to corroborate anything remotely close to the things being suggested in the zoom meeting? usually when someone is guilty of these type of things and someone makes public accusations other people will quickly come forward to share their similar experience with that individual or group. so far nothing. in fact, I would argue that it has been overwhelmingly the opposite.
I’m not saying she is or isn’t guilty of religious discrimination or even has any of those views. But the fact of the matter is she brought it up in the conversation about hiring a coach and the players listening saw some major red flags.

Do you think that there would be an investigation or that anyone outside the call would have taken them seriously if they would have played the CSU game?

And just because no one has said anything publicly about Crockett doesn’t mean they aren’t saying anything to the investigators.

I personally hope that this was just a huge misunderstanding and we move on from this, but we have to wait for the results of the investigation before we continue to bash our players or our admin.
Did she bring it up? What led you to this conclusion? People on this very board were bringing it up speaking on favor of frank long before we knew who would be hired.

Yes. I think if the allegation were made it would have been investigated. The theater of not playing only adds to my suspicion.
These users thanked the author Imakeitrain for the post (total 2):
USU78tjensen_25


“If at first you don’t succeed, do not try skydiving”

User avatar
flying_scotsman2.0
Posts: 1240
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 12:29 pm
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 412 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by flying_scotsman2.0 » December 27th, 2020, 7:36 pm

All I know is we’d better be playing for keeps. Either cockett loses her job or the players who made the allegations lose their scholarships for not meeting the criteria of actually playing the game. I want heads to roll one way or another. I’m tired of racism and I’m tired of people being all sorts of sensitive, so someone needs to burn at the stake.



User avatar
JSHarvey
Posts: 1866
Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
Location: Sandy, UT
Has thanked: 1061 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by JSHarvey » December 27th, 2020, 7:44 pm

There is a huge difference between wanting to teach people to think critically and evaluate their beliefs (in all sorts of areas) and discrimination. The first is one of the primary purposes of education, the second is illegal - they are not the same thing and not even related to each other. USU likely has one of the highest percentages of LDS professors of universities that have received the highest level of accreditation (within the top two or three nationwide I would guess, and may well be number one as BYU doesn't have the highest level of accreditation and I don't know what level of accreditation UVU has). To claim that USU discriminates *against* LDS folks is quite a stretch - and would represent a 180 degree reversal of the discrimination that actually happened for many many decades against non-LDS folks.
These users thanked the author JSHarvey for the post (total 3):
LKGatesstewusu98El Sapo


"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford

NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 2259
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by NavyBlueAggie » December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am

I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
These users thanked the author NavyBlueAggie for the post (total 2):
JSHarveyEl Sapo



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9238
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USU78 » December 28th, 2020, 9:49 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am
I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post (total 2):
NavyBlueAggieEl Sapo


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

mcaggie1
Posts: 2860
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 3:14 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 325 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by mcaggie1 » December 28th, 2020, 10:20 am

AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
Oh brother.
These users thanked the author mcaggie1 for the post:
USU78



oleblu111
Posts: 1819
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:34 pm
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by oleblu111 » December 28th, 2020, 12:02 pm

USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:49 am
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am
I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
That is wrong, smart people hear the truth and it sets them free.
These users thanked the author oleblu111 for the post:
mcaggie1



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9238
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USU78 » December 28th, 2020, 12:05 pm

oleblu111 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:02 pm
USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:49 am
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am
I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
That is wrong, smart people hear the truth and it sets them free.
Can't agree. I've seen too many otherwise bright people jump to conclusions because of the milieu in which a statement occurs. They hear what they want to hear based upon expectations and experience. Whence cometh the mob.
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post:
mcaggie1


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

oleblu111
Posts: 1819
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:34 pm
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by oleblu111 » December 28th, 2020, 12:27 pm

USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:05 pm
oleblu111 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:02 pm
USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:49 am
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am
I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
That is wrong, smart people hear the truth and it sets them free.
Can't agree. I've seen too many otherwise bright people jump to conclusions because of the milieu in which a statement occurs. They hear what they want to hear based upon expectations and experience. Whence cometh the mob.
On this subject I see a lot of folks that are not jumping on the band wagon.



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 9238
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by USU78 » December 28th, 2020, 1:24 pm

oleblu111 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:27 pm
USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:05 pm
oleblu111 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 12:02 pm
USU78 wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:49 am
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
December 28th, 2020, 9:30 am
I'm not an attorney although I've paid for some very solid advice over time. I wonder about all the speculation from the players going on about what they thought they heard from Noelle in a zoom call. This needed some "cheer leaders" to spool up the temperature of the zoom call. The event seems to have taken days of percolation to come to a head on the Friday before the CSU game. My take away is that viable council would rip and tear just with the discovery process now emerging as hearsay. . Such an ugly and expensive food fight.

Blame is every where and truth is yet undiscovered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
That is wrong, smart people hear the truth and it sets them free.
Can't agree. I've seen too many otherwise bright people jump to conclusions because of the milieu in which a statement occurs. They hear what they want to hear based upon expectations and experience. Whence cometh the mob.
On this subject I see a lot of folks that are not jumping on the band wagon.
A lot of folks on this board. The folks on that call? Not so much.
These users thanked the author USU78 for the post:
NavyBlueAggie


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

BigBlueBlood
Posts: 82
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: Zoom call details that were new to me

Post by BigBlueBlood » December 29th, 2020, 5:51 pm

AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 1:40 pm
calaggie wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 12:37 pm
AggieUprising50 wrote:
December 27th, 2020, 11:37 am
I'm not going to blame the players for their decision. In fact as more time passes along the more I'm appreciative of their decision. I understand a lot of people on this board are butthurt that they didn't play the final game, and as disappointing as it was in the moment, it was the right call.

If they would have played the game this all would have gotten swept under the rug. By not playing they made noise and got the message out, which motivated the investigation.

The results of the investigation are going to tell us if this was a huge misunderstanding or if there really is a cancer growing in our admin. Either way, the more information we have the better!

If they players were wrong, then we can all move on knowing that we are in good hands. If the players were right, then they very well could have saved the school from toxic leadership which would have affected more than just athletics.
DIS-agree. Whether or not they played the final game of this dumpster fire of a season mattered very little to me. That’s not what has me “butthurt” (gawd, could we all please retire that word forever).

My problem is that the idea that the investigation will conclusively determine what transpired on that call is naive. An accusation is out there that may or may not have any basis, but President Cocket’s character has been smeared forever unless she can provide irrefutable evidence. I firmly believe that, if she truly said something objectionable, we wouldn’t still be guessing about what she actually said.
I don’t think it’s naive to think that the investigation will come up empty handed. If anything it has as good of a chance of saving President Cockett and her reputation as it does of damning her.

What I do think is naive is thinking that people would have paid attention the issue being brought up by the players if they went ahead and played the game. It would have been swept under the rug and no one would have cared. Their goal was to bring light to an issue they saw that would not only impact the team, but the university as a whole, and they accomplished their goal.

If you love Utah State University, knowing that the president of university is allowing religious bias to dictate hiring decisions is something that is worth investigating and being 100% sure that it doesn’t exist. Period.
Wrong. In fact, had they played the game, it would have gotten more attention. The players' press release would have been discussed on air all night long. The coach would have been asked about it, etc. Also, if just making noise is the goal, then you have a point, but if making noise about something that actually happened is the goal, and other efforts to address it have failed, then you don't have a point and neither do the players. Instead of starting with the process, they went from 0 to 100 mph, issued a press release and cancelled the game, and they publicly accused a university president of racial and religious bigotry. In today's world, that's lighting the fuse of a reputational nuclear weapon and running away. Seems they could have worked up to that, if necessary.
These users thanked the author BigBlueBlood for the post:
JSHarvey



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic