3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:25 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:20 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am

Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.

Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?

Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?

It seems that it's harder for minorities to get opportunities that build their resumes. I think Frank turned down a lot of opportunities that would have helped him build his, so I don't know that it has anything to do with him specifically. To the players, this isn't just about Frank.

Right, it's about an already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer as well. There are posts on this board that explain what happened with that incident and why the outside party investigating it determined there was no need for further concern. Included in those posts is the assertion that the alleged "victim" did not have a problem with the trainer.

That already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer was used to cast the entire program/university in unsavory light in an attempt to strengthen their currently evidence-less accusation.

Unless you think there is a culture of discrimination within the football program at Utah State, their argument doesn't hold water outside of whether or not Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things.

I'll add (again), if Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things, I look forward to her resignation. If she didn't, then I hope she continues to apologize for saying something the players THOUGHT was racially or religiously bigoted, but we shouldn't fire people (or pay out civil rights settlements) because someone got their feelings hurt due to an out-of-context statement or misunderstanding.

No, man. It's not about specific incidents. Specific incidents may trigger what we're seeing, but what we're seeing is bigger than that.
It's about broad cultural discrimination that minorities experience throughout their life. It's about how discrimination is a preoccupation of their thoughts.
I'm a white guy, I can't relate. I know I can't relate. I never think about being discriminated against. Ever. I know that for minorities, discrimination is real and affects the way they perceive the world around them. I don't know what was said, but whatever it was triggered their sense of outrage for things much larger than Frank or USU or any SPECIFIC thing. It's about the minority players knowing discrimination is real, feeling sensitive to discrimination, and all of us non-minorities being insensitive to to discrimination (at times acerbically insensitive).

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:50 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:25 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:20 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am

Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.

Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?

Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?

It seems that it's harder for minorities to get opportunities that build their resumes. I think Frank turned down a lot of opportunities that would have helped him build his, so I don't know that it has anything to do with him specifically. To the players, this isn't just about Frank.

Right, it's about an already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer as well. There are posts on this board that explain what happened with that incident and why the outside party investigating it determined there was no need for further concern. Included in those posts is the assertion that the alleged "victim" did not have a problem with the trainer.

That already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer was used to cast the entire program/university in unsavory light in an attempt to strengthen their currently evidence-less accusation.

Unless you think there is a culture of discrimination within the football program at Utah State, their argument doesn't hold water outside of whether or not Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things.

I'll add (again), if Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things, I look forward to her resignation. If she didn't, then I hope she continues to apologize for saying something the players THOUGHT was racially or religiously bigoted, but we shouldn't fire people (or pay out civil rights settlements) because someone got their feelings hurt due to an out-of-context statement or misunderstanding.

No, man. It's not about any specific incident. It's about broad cultural discrimination that minorities experience throughout their life. It's about how discrimination is a preoccupation of their thoughts.
I'm a white guy, I can't relate. I know I can't relate. I never think about being discriminated against for things I don't have control over. I know that for minorities, discrimination is real and affects the way they perceive the world around them. I don't know what was said, but whatever it was triggered their sense of outrage for things much larger than Frank or USU or any SPECIFIC thing. It's about the minority players knowing discrimination is real, feeling sensitive to discrimination, and all of us non-minorities being insensitive to to discrimination (at times acerbically insensitive).

Hey Brown, I agree with your statements here. Here is what others and myself have had some issues with for Frank's statement.

Frank doesn't call out any other times he has felt discriminated against due to his religion or race while at USU. How long has he been a part of this program? His 1 time ever feeling discriminated against has been through OTHERS telling him that he was discriminated against...which does seem odd to me. Just like you have mentioned, we can't tell him how to feel, BUT, it does seem quite extreme to go to these lengths for feeling discriminated against because other people told you that was happening...

I think this is how I feel about all this...but i'm still determining my thoughts.

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:50 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:25 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:20 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am

Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.

Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?

Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?

It seems that it's harder for minorities to get opportunities that build their resumes. I think Frank turned down a lot of opportunities that would have helped him build his, so I don't know that it has anything to do with him specifically. To the players, this isn't just about Frank.

Right, it's about an already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer as well. There are posts on this board that explain what happened with that incident and why the outside party investigating it determined there was no need for further concern. Included in those posts is the assertion that the alleged "victim" did not have a problem with the trainer.

That already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer was used to cast the entire program/university in unsavory light in an attempt to strengthen their currently evidence-less accusation.

Unless you think there is a culture of discrimination within the football program at Utah State, their argument doesn't hold water outside of whether or not Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things.

I'll add (again), if Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things, I look forward to her resignation. If she didn't, then I hope she continues to apologize for saying something the players THOUGHT was racially or religiously bigoted, but we shouldn't fire people (or pay out civil rights settlements) because someone got their feelings hurt due to an out-of-context statement or misunderstanding.

No, man. It's not about specific incidents. Specific incidents may trigger what we're seeing, but what we're seeing is bigger than that.
It's about broad cultural discrimination that minorities experience throughout their life. It's about how discrimination is a preoccupation of their thoughts.
I'm a white guy, I can't relate. I know I can't relate. I never think about being discriminated against. Ever. I know that for minorities, discrimination is real and affects the way they perceive the world around them. I don't know what was said, but whatever it was triggered their sense of outrage for things much larger than Frank or USU or any SPECIFIC thing. It's about the minority players knowing discrimination is real, feeling sensitive to discrimination, and all of us non-minorities being insensitive to to discrimination (at times acerbically insensitive).

That's fair.

Now, let's hear what was allegedly said.

Here's some more fuel for the ongoing argument in this thread (sorry if I missed it posted earlier):

https://kutv.com/news/local/witnesses-o ... ds-comment

KUTV reportedly got confirmation from two people (remaining anonymous) that were on the zoom call. According to them, this is what President Cockett said:

"What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:41 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm

Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?

Nice straw man argument you are lining up there.

How about Frank didn’t get the job because he’s terrible and we got a much better candidate regardless of race, gender and religion.

Now Frank is sour grapes because he felt entitled to the position and is trying to burn down our institution.

That’s enough to upset me.

The institution that is Utah State University is not going to be ruined in any way because of this, or figuratively burned down. The football program will be fine. President Cockett is the only one who stands to lose.

I was the ASUSU President in 1985/86 (I think that is the correct academic year), unlike most universities USU gives the student body president real power (or at least it did back then). I sat on the Institutional Council (now Board of Trustees) as a full voting member (and on the University's Dean's Council, and several other university governing boards). We went through Governor Bangerter's budget cuts and it was painful. Two of the reforms I got through was requiring a student vote on any new fees, and student representation on every board that spends student fee money. Getting both of those approved by both the Faculty Senate and the University's Institutional Council were no small feats. Even the State Board of Regents fought us. But the overall lesson I learned from all that was that USU faces an uphill existential battle for existence most of the time. USU needs all the friends it can get in the Legislature and Governor's office - because there are a lot of people in those places that would love to divert massive amounts of money away from USU to other universities/programs in the state.

I can assure you that this episode is going to hurt USU *substantially* - USU has already lost a lot of money due to the cancelled game. We likely will lose a lot more in lost future donations. The new coach is going to have a much harder time recruiting for a few seasons, that in turn means we likely win fewer games than we otherwise would have. That means it will be more difficult to pay the mortgage on our sports facilities. We are either going to pay a settlement (I hope we don't) or pay for a court case (which I think we eventually win - JMO). Some people at the Legislature are going to remember this episode come budget time (and it won't be fact based memories) and that will be one more obstacle to getting what USU needs from the Legislature (it is always an uphill climb in SLC). Further, now that Sen. Lyle Hillyard isn't there to defend/promote USU the legislative battle just got even harder.

So yes, this episode has already significantly harmed USU and it will continue to harm USU for years to come, and the "tab" is going to be in many many millions of dollars.

Was it self inflicted? I don't know, but I do know that the situation as it currently stands is much worse then it needed to be regardless of whatever systemic problems exist at USU.

Floppy Hat wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Here's some more fuel for the ongoing argument in this thread (sorry if I missed it posted earlier):

https://kutv.com/news/local/witnesses-o ... ds-comment

KUTV reportedly got confirmation from two people (remaining anonymous) that were on the zoom call. According to them, this is what President Cockett said:

"What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

I wonder what the context before and after that statement was.

Also, who would she be referring to? When have they hired an LDS person from Utah for this role? I think GA is technically LDS (he went to Ricks College back in the day), but you couldn't accuse him of being LDS now or at anytime he's been involved with USU.

As an aside, my original guess was that the "anti-culture" complaint by the players was about LDS culture, not Polynesian culture. This would bear that out.

Floppy Hat wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Here's some more fuel for the ongoing argument in this thread (sorry if I missed it posted earlier):

https://kutv.com/news/local/witnesses-o ... ds-comment

KUTV reportedly got confirmation from two people (remaining anonymous) that were on the zoom call. According to them, this is what President Cockett said:

"What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

This is either a lie or President Cockett is really dumb. When was the last time we hired someone that was an active member of the church as the head coach for football or basketball? I think Gary and Stew were both members of the church at some point, but I do not think either consider themselves members of the church, at a minimum I do not think either would say that being a member of the church defines who they are.

What I am saying is, we have not tried that.

JSHarvey wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:36 pm

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:41 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm

Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?

Nice straw man argument you are lining up there.

How about Frank didn’t get the job because he’s terrible and we got a much better candidate regardless of race, gender and religion.

Now Frank is sour grapes because he felt entitled to the position and is trying to burn down our institution.

That’s enough to upset me.

The institution that is Utah State University is not going to be ruined in any way because of this, or figuratively burned down. The football program will be fine. President Cockett is the only one who stands to lose.

I was the ASUSU President in 1985/86 (I think that is the correct academic year), unlike most universities USU gives the student body president real power (or at least it did back then). I sat on the Institutional Council (now Board of Trustees) as a full voting member (and on the University's Dean's Council, and several other university governing boards). We went through Governor Bangerter's budget cuts and it was painful. Two of the reforms I got through was requiring a student vote on any new fees, and student representation on every board that spends student fee money. Getting both of those approved by both the Faculty Senate and the University's Institutional Council were no small feats. Even the State Board of Regents fought us. But the overall lesson I learned from all that was that USU faces an uphill existensial battle for existence most of the time. USU needs all the friends it can get in the Legislature and Governor's office - because there are a lot of people in those places that would love to divert massive amounts of money away from USU to other universities/programs in the state.

I can assure you that this episode is going to hurt USU *substantially* - USU has already lost a lot of money due to the cancelled game. We likely will lose a lot more in lost future donations. The new coach is going to have a much harder time recruiting for a few seasons, that in turn means we likely win fewer games than we otherwise would have. That means it will be more difficult to pay the mortgage on our sports facilities. We are either going to pay a settlement (I hope we don't) or pay for a court case (which I think we eventually win - JMO). Some people at the Legislature are going to remember this episode come budget time (and it won't be a fact based memories) and that will be one more obstacle to getting what USU needs from the Legislature (it is always an uphill climb in SLC). Further now that Sen. Lyle Hillyard isn't there to defend/promote USU the legislative battle just got even harder.

So yes, this episode has already significantly harmed USU and it will continue to harm USU for years to come, and the "tab" is going to be in many many millions of dollars.

Was it self inflicted? I don't know, but I do know that the situation as it currently stands is much worse then it needed to be regardless of whatever systemic problems exist at USU.

That's an interesting take, and I know that there was one poster who mentioned no longer donating or buying season tickets.

Would one of you who knows how to add a poll to this site do one to see how this scenario affects individual plans to continue or discontinue donating/supporting USU?

newhouse9 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:48 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:36 pm

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:41 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm

Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?

Nice straw man argument you are lining up there.

How about Frank didn’t get the job because he’s terrible and we got a much better candidate regardless of race, gender and religion.

Now Frank is sour grapes because he felt entitled to the position and is trying to burn down our institution.

That’s enough to upset me.

The institution that is Utah State University is not going to be ruined in any way because of this, or figuratively burned down. The football program will be fine. President Cockett is the only one who stands to lose.

I was the ASUSU President in 1985/86 (I think that is the correct academic year), unlike most universities USU gives the student body president real power (or at least it did back then). I sat on the Institutional Council (now Board of Trustees) as a full voting member (and on the University's Dean's Council, and several other university governing boards). We went through Governor Bangerter's budget cuts and it was painful. Two of the reforms I got through was requiring a student vote on any new fees, and student representation on every board that spends student fee money. Getting both of those approved by both the Faculty Senate and the University's Institutional Council were no small feats. Even the State Board of Regents fought us. But the overall lesson I learned from all that was that USU faces an uphill existensial battle for existence most of the time. USU needs all the friends it can get in the Legislature and Governor's office - because there are a lot of people in those places that would love to divert massive amounts of money away from USU to other universities/programs in the state.

I can assure you that this episode is going to hurt USU *substantially* - USU has already lost a lot of money due to the cancelled game. We likely will lose a lot more in lost future donations. The new coach is going to have a much harder time recruiting for a few seasons, that in turn means we likely win fewer games than we otherwise would have. That means it will be more difficult to pay the mortgage on our sports facilities. We are either going to pay a settlement (I hope we don't) or pay for a court case (which I think we eventually win - JMO). Some people at the Legislature are going to remember this episode come budget time (and it won't be a fact based memories) and that will be one more obstacle to getting what USU needs from the Legislature (it is always an uphill climb in SLC). Further now that Sen. Lyle Hillyard isn't there to defend/promote USU the legislative battle just got even harder.

So yes, this episode has already significantly harmed USU and it will continue to harm USU for years to come, and the "tab" is going to be in many many millions of dollars.

Was it self inflicted? I don't know, but I do know that the situation as it currently stands is much worse then it needed to be regardless of whatever systemic problems exist at USU.

That's an interesting take, and I know that there was one poster who mentioned no longer donating or buying season tickets.

Would one of you who knows how to add a poll to this site do one to see how this scenario affects individual plans to continue or discontinue donating/supporting USU?

I am glad we hired the right coach. It is clear that Anderson is way more qualified for the job than Frank was. Therefore, my donations are going up substantially.

I thought it was anti-Polynesian statements. If you read Frank's statement, he makes it clear at least 4 times that he's of Polynesian ancestry.

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:56 pm

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:41 pm

Floppy Hat wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Here's some more fuel for the ongoing argument in this thread (sorry if I missed it posted earlier):

https://kutv.com/news/local/witnesses-o ... ds-comment

KUTV reportedly got confirmation from two people (remaining anonymous) that were on the zoom call. According to them, this is what President Cockett said:

"What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

I wonder what the context before and after that statement was.

Also, who would she be referring to? When have they hired an LDS person from Utah for this role? I think GA is technically LDS (he went to Ricks College back in the day), but you couldn't accuse him of being LDS now or at anytime he's been involved with USU.

As an aside, my original guess was that the "anti-culture" complaint by the players was about LDS culture, not Polynesian culture. This would bear that out.

I understand GA was not LDS though he was a Utah native, but he went to Ricks on a FB scholly.

And also, is this honestly a bad question to ask? She isn't stating, "Do not hire him because he is LDS and from Utah." She is proposing a question...

I don't understand how this can possibly be viewed as discriminating against Frank, or against mormons, and especially against Polynesians. That seems like a huge stretch.

SasquatchAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:53 pm

newhouse9 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:48 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:36 pm

mcaggie1 wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:41 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm

Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?

Nice straw man argument you are lining up there.

How about Frank didn’t get the job because he’s terrible and we got a much better candidate regardless of race, gender and religion.

Now Frank is sour grapes because he felt entitled to the position and is trying to burn down our institution.

That’s enough to upset me.

The institution that is Utah State University is not going to be ruined in any way because of this, or figuratively burned down. The football program will be fine. President Cockett is the only one who stands to lose.

I was the ASUSU President in 1985/86 (I think that is the correct academic year), unlike most universities USU gives the student body president real power (or at least it did back then). I sat on the Institutional Council (now Board of Trustees) as a full voting member (and on the University's Dean's Council, and several other university governing boards). We went through Governor Bangerter's budget cuts and it was painful. Two of the reforms I got through was requiring a student vote on any new fees, and student representation on every board that spends student fee money. Getting both of those approved by both the Faculty Senate and the University's Institutional Council were no small feats. Even the State Board of Regents fought us. But the overall lesson I learned from all that was that USU faces an uphill existensial battle for existence most of the time. USU needs all the friends it can get in the Legislature and Governor's office - because there are a lot of people in those places that would love to divert massive amounts of money away from USU to other universities/programs in the state.

I can assure you that this episode is going to hurt USU *substantially* - USU has already lost a lot of money due to the cancelled game. We likely will lose a lot more in lost future donations. The new coach is going to have a much harder time recruiting for a few seasons, that in turn means we likely win fewer games than we otherwise would have. That means it will be more difficult to pay the mortgage on our sports facilities. We are either going to pay a settlement (I hope we don't) or pay for a court case (which I think we eventually win - JMO). Some people at the Legislature are going to remember this episode come budget time (and it won't be a fact based memories) and that will be one more obstacle to getting what USU needs from the Legislature (it is always an uphill climb in SLC). Further now that Sen. Lyle Hillyard isn't there to defend/promote USU the legislative battle just got even harder.

So yes, this episode has already significantly harmed USU and it will continue to harm USU for years to come, and the "tab" is going to be in many many millions of dollars.

Was it self inflicted? I don't know, but I do know that the situation as it currently stands is much worse then it needed to be regardless of whatever systemic problems exist at USU.

That's an interesting take, and I know that there was one poster who mentioned no longer donating or buying season tickets.

Would one of you who knows how to add a poll to this site do one to see how this scenario affects individual plans to continue or discontinue donating/supporting USU?

I am glad we hired the right coach. It is clear that Anderson is way more qualified for the job than Frank was. Therefore, my donations are going up substantially.

I'm in the same boat, although I was pretty much maxed for now. Those suites are big $$!

AgMac wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 1:25 pm

Floppy Hat wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:33 pm

Here's some more fuel for the ongoing argument in this thread (sorry if I missed it posted earlier):

https://kutv.com/news/local/witnesses-o ... ds-comment

KUTV reportedly got confirmation from two people (remaining anonymous) that were on the zoom call. According to them, this is what President Cockett said:

"What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

If this is, indeed, what she said. It is exactly as I thought. Essentially, after the players made a pitch for Frank (presumably because he's from Utah and LDS and could, therefore, navigate the landscape), Cockett correctly indicated that we can't just hire someone because they're from Utah and LDS. How would it look (i.e., "what do we say") if we hired someone grossly underqualified just because he is an LDS guy from Utah and it doesn't work out?

For the players' sake, there better be more than this. But I'm sure we'll hear any minute from them what exactly was said. Or maybe oldblu can just back up his earlier comments and tell us exactly what was said.

If that is indeed the context, it does seem like a mountain/molehill type of situation. Clumsy wording to express the sentiment that we can't hire a guy just because he fits the local culture.

Sl7vk wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:42 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

Yes circumstance where discrimination could be a roadblock for us is difficult to imagine. This is why it's hard for us to understand why the players reacted the way they did.
They perceived a discriminatory barrier. For many of them, a discriminatory barrier to their livelihood is all too real. For them, the stakes are very high.

Or, FM had created a divisive us versus them mentality in the locker room. I've seen this play out on Sales teams, so I don't think it would have been a stretch here. FM got mis-treated in the hiring of GA (in his mind) and cultivated an us versus the man... I'll protect you guys from them... the bad guy..... The AD.... The President... The University.
They are racist, they don't care about you, they don't listen. They won't hire me because of these things.
They love FM as their "protector," but consequently begin to miss trust and hate the University and its administration.
This leads to an incendiary environment that is just waiting for the faintest spark to set the whole thing ablaze.

All of this is a leadership tactic that is as destructive as anything I've ever witnessed.

Woah.

That’s quite the train of thought you’ve got there. You may notice your wording makes it sound like you have confirmed that that is the case...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

It would be nice. But there could be a number of reasons for why they haven’t- and no, not just reasons that make them scumbag liars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:16 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

It would be nice. But there could be a number of reasons for why they haven’t- and no, not just reasons that make them scumbag liars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is ridiculous if you can't state facts STFU. Ruining careers and institutions on vague innuendo. I'm glad you are cool with that. If it's egregious the words should speak for themselves.

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:16 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

It would be nice. But there could be a number of reasons for why they haven’t- and no, not just reasons that make them scumbag liars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is ridiculous if you can't state facts STFU. Ruining careers and institutions on vague innuendo. I'm glad you are cool with that. If it's egregious the words should speak for themselves.

Sorry, that’s just not how it works. No need to be that angry about something you know nothing about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 3:02 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:16 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

It would be nice. But there could be a number of reasons for why they haven’t- and no, not just reasons that make them scumbag liars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is ridiculous if you can't state facts STFU. Ruining careers and institutions on vague innuendo. I'm glad you are cool with that. If it's egregious the words should speak for themselves.

Sorry, that’s just not how it works. No need to be that angry about something you know nothing about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could say the same to Frank and the media. They seem plenty upset about something they know nothing about. How do things work? You are able to put out an organized hit job 2 days after an event and not held accountable for it?

If that’s the whole comment, this whole thing is even more ridiculous than I thought it might be.

Signed, a Mormon from Utah

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 3:02 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:16 pm

TrueAG wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

USU78 wrote:

BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Frank gets hired as head coach at USU? Or are you saying that Frank gets $$ from USU? To get $$ from USU, he has to prove damages. Just how was he, an employee who was given an interview for but didn't get hired as the head man spot, damaged? That's important in civil lawsuits. How was he damaged? Just what did he lose that he previously had? Moreover, I return to my brownjeans question: Was it possible in the world we actually live in for him to have been hired over AndersOn? How was he damaged by the failure of his application?

I’m not talking about any of that and I thought I’d made that clear by now...

If Cockett said anything similar to what the players accuse her of, that’s not okay.

If she didn’t, then she’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It'd be great if they would quote us what was so troubling. The longer this goes without detail the dumber it is.

It would be nice. But there could be a number of reasons for why they haven’t- and no, not just reasons that make them scumbag liars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is ridiculous if you can't state facts STFU. Ruining careers and institutions on vague innuendo. I'm glad you are cool with that. If it's egregious the words should speak for themselves.

Sorry, that’s just not how it works. No need to be that angry about something you know nothing about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could say the same to Frank and the media. They seem plenty upset about something they know nothing about. How do things work? You are able to put out an organized hit job 2 days after an event and not held accountable for it?

Of course the media is not upset, you must be smarter than that. As for Frank, you have absolutely no idea whether or not he knows anything about this. Not sure how you can say he knows “nothing” about it.

Of course there are repercussions for people who put together an organized hit job with false information. But we both know you have zero knowledge of that being the case. It might be, but you and I certainly don’t know that.

If those players are taken to court of course they would have to provide specific information. But you aren’t dull enough to think they’re required by law to give that information to the general public just because you want it.

I know you’re upset, but that entire comment is nuts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And if they voted to cancel the last game of their season over THAT then I don’t even know what to say....

bluegrouse wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 3:33 pm

And if they voted to cancel the last game of their season over THAT then I don’t even know what to say....

IF that's the comment she made (and yes, that's a big if):

GameFAQSAggie wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 4:14 pm

newhouse9 wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 12:48 pm

That's an interesting take, and I know that there was one poster who mentioned no longer donating or buying season tickets.

Would one of you who knows how to add a poll to this site do one to see how this scenario affects individual plans to continue or discontinue donating/supporting USU?

On a sports message board, the results are going to be skewed in favor of continuing to donate and be frustrated that other people aren't, but that's not a reflection of the general public that is likely to jump ship more easily.

Yeah, I put up a poll but then decided it's none of my business, so I dumped it. I was just curious.

Roy McAvoy wrote:This could get interesting in the lawsuit. Whoever filmed that video of Hartwell--it's know by Hartwell who the person was. If they're somehow connected to Frank in all of this, it just became public slander. This thing is getting messy.

It seems the person who posted the video of Hartwell knows they messed up because they deleted the video and the Twitter account.

He was followed by USU for a brief moment. My guess is that he got a strongly-worded DM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

December 14th, 2020, 5:24 pm

This could get interesting in the lawsuit. Whoever filmed that video of Hartwell--it's know by Hartwell who the person was. If they're somehow connected to Frank in all of this, it just became public slander. This thing is getting messy.

It seems the person who posted the video of Hartwell knows they messed up because they deleted the video and the Twitter account.

Yep. Perhaps the person was already identified and contacted by Hartwell (or his rep) and requested to have it taken down immediately or face the consequences.

I don't expect Alex Wheat to be all that smart about it, but I do hope the people in the media that were tagged on that decide to let this pass.

I have no idea what Cockett is saying/trying to say if the words attributed to her are accurate:

“What do we say to outside people who ask us about hiring an LDS person from Utah? We tried that, and it didn’t work."

Who are the “outside people” referenced that she would have to be telling this to? Who is the person that “didn’t work?”

Was she on NyQuil? This is just gibberish without context. I am not even sure context would help.

Also, where’s the reference to polynesians? A racial component would be much more problematic (with due respect to my mormon brethren on here).