So, you're going to post under your real name? Or just keep hiding behind your key board?
Great… So glad this is in our rear view mirror
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
So, you're going to post under your real name? Or just keep hiding behind your key board?
Tron, it is posts like this that suggest that you are not a very good person. Normal people don't troll message boards with their sole intent to see how many personal attacks that they can direct at someone. An occasional fire fight isn't unusual, but you are way too quick to assume the worst and every post made by someone you don't like is read through a filter so thick with hatred and angst that you can't even comprehend what's being said. You don't even make a rudimentary attempt to understand someone else.
Your first, and only, instinct is to assume that something typed by certain people is geared as an attack on Leach and unwavering support of Wulff. None of us are perfect and we all have our biases, but too often, you take it to a level that is really unhealthy, both for the board and yourself.
Hundreds and hundreds of posts and open admissions that their "99 percent" of their posts criticize Leach are not electrical firings in Cougatron's head. Btw, there you go again with the "hate" mantra. Give it up. Go on vacation. Go have some fun. Relax for a change.
I just got back from vacation (in Seattle). If you don't think that Tron has an unhealthy obsession with specific individuals, you aren't paying attention. BTW, you are right that there are people that do criticize Leach. That doesn't mean that every single post is an attack on Leach and valiant support of Wulff. From his responses, he's either blinded by rage or ignorant because he too often reverts into "You love Wulff" or "You hate Leach" when that isn't the message being delivered at all. In defense of the WSU degree that I assume he holds, I've decided that it's rage and hate that causes him to lose all reading comprehension ability. I could be wrong. If you want to hand out some advice about relaxing, I would suggest that you get some one on one time with him and work on that.
Flat, I have written this before. When three people (Ed, Sponge and Chinook) take a break from this board, there is seldom any vitriol among the people left. There are people that get under other's skin. Ed does have a way of doing just that and in response, people can go a little crazy and over the line. He and Yaki cannot stand each other. Tron doesn't like him. When so many people have an issue with a few posters, who do you think is really the problem.
There have been a few things that you have written that I thought were idiotic. Now, I am not calling you idiotic, nor do I think you are an idiot. I am not going to make that leap based on a few posts of yours in the past. Still, I think you are making a huge leap with Tron.
Ed. Funny stuff. You get something entirely wrong, and yet you say it proves your point. Maybe you don't know this. Sticking your hand in any face is a sign of disrespect. It does not matter the reason or what excuses you want to use to justify this. There are a dozens of things that Wulff could have done if (and that is a big if) he were busy, the one he chose is the one that disrespects the other person.
Now, I heard it from the person to which this happened. It followed a pattern of things that Wulff did that were not good. As for the other stuff in your post about that I posted crap. Whatever! I stand by what I wrote. You had to change what happened because it fit your narrative. It is what you do.
I could be wrong on Tron. The thing that I've seen recently is that he rarely takes the time to read my posts and usually leaps into some tangent attack on me that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Contrary to what he thinks, I think deeply (maybe too much) about what I write and try to have a logical, factual basis for my position. Sometimes I'm proven right in the long run. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes, I probably had a great point but did such a poor job of presenting it that it doesn't even matter what I was thinking.
Some people, Tron being foremost on my mind at the moment, get so caught up in proving people wrong that they just quit making sense at times. I'm amazed at the number of times that some mythical post saying that SDSU was better than Auburn comes up. It's never relevant to the actual conversation, but it's the go-to personal attack once everything else fails. There are times that I think Ed could say that the sun rises in the east and Tron would say, "You only think that because Wulff coached at EASTern Washington.
Some people, Tron being foremost on my mind at the moment, get so caught up in proving people wrong that they just quit making sense at times. I'm amazed at the number of times that some mythical post saying that SDSU was better than Auburn comes up. It's never relevant to the actual conversation, but it's the go-to personal attack once everything else fails. There are times that I think Ed could say that the sun rises in the east and Tron would say, "You only think that because Wulff coached at EASTern Washington.
1990, maybe it was just Wulff innocently abiding by his open door/hand in your face policy.
I am in the belief that "not very good people" do "bad" things. Calling people names on a message board is not what I call a "bad" thing. Not saying it is a good thing. But, on the list of bad behaviors, to me that is not near the top.
I get what you're saying, but doesn't that go both ways? It has been said openly that Ed and Sponge are "defending" Wulff from any post that isn't accurate about him… Well, there are some things, as an example with this whole "hand up in the face"… there is no "accurate" according to Ed. And to go further back, to the whole medical definitions regarding symptoms of the flu, or go back to just about any debate that gets heated around here… It eventually becomes a "he said, he said" thing. No fact. So why are they "defending" him when half the time, these debates are about a play, that eventually comes out as nothing like what was described? Wouldn't you consider that an "unhealthy obsession with specific individuals"? There are people that are "defending" a person about things that are circumstantial, make-believe or assumption. If you are going to paint Yaki or others with that brush, you better look at the other side of the "debate" and paint them with the same brush. Just because they place themselves as the victim, doesn't mean they are. IMHO, they are just as "unhealthy" as anyone else.
Let's start with the basics then move forward. Flu-gate...how was that play inaccurately described? He broke outside the pocket, got to the sideline, he had the option to get out of bounds before getting hit and did not. Watch Luke Falk against OSU. He got down before getting hit. He could have run for another three yards and take the hit, but he did not. Luke Falk made a smart play. The extra three yards meant nothing.
Calling someone a pussy and Mfer is a sign of respect? They are on the coaches field, the coaches domain. I have no idea what Wulff was doing at the time. I do know parents well enough they in these circumstances that I know the truth lies somewhere in the middle. When M Wilson quit, did I say well he was disrespected by Leach, or buy into what the "rumors" were at the time? Nope. Did Leach and staff say something harsh things to the kids, I am sure they did. But guess what, they were hired to do a job. That by definition alone hired by the school is the respect that is needed. I have no problems accepting your story as fact. It doesn't change dick. What is said on the field is their area. Unless a kids health is at risk, and that is why they have trainers and medical staff members there, the kids belong to the coaching staff. And if they don't like it, leave.
My daughter AAU coach coached two teams this spring. An elite 7th grade team and an elite highs school team. Both are within the top 8 teams at their age level in the state. I have seen the practices for the younger team. I know how he conducts himself at practice. 7th grade kids and parents loved him, the high school team was use to a different coach and tried to get him fired. They would tell stories and they were brought to my attention. There are well intentioned kids, but the stories they told their parents were out of character with who this coach was. Their stories well not lies, were not accurate either. They spoke from their perspective, and they spoke about what they saw from their eyes and heard with their ears.
Unlike where Mike Leach had a forum to speak regarding his accusers, you didn't give that benefit to Wulff. You made no attempt to seek a different perspective. For a lack of a different word, your mind was made up and maybe you had a different agenda other than supporting the program.
He never took on a LB, for one. Considering that this was some parties sole description of said play, you'd think you'd make sure that was right- and it wasn't. By any definition.
Because at one point, it was "taking on an LB". Verbally, honestly, we all know that sounds like Tuel tried to "out-physical" an LB. That is NOT what happened. The video doesn't show that in ANY respect. Even sponge was surprised there was video because he commented that the game wasn't televised, didn't know the video existed,, yada yada. And when the video came out then it became, "he just didn't get out fast enough so that's the same as 'taking on' an LB". Complete bs. Regardless of ALL of this though. Some are being described as "unhealthy" for their posts regarding things and people they don't know. You've said point blank you don't know Wulff. But your adiment that you will defend him. I want you to explain the difference in your posting/defending and others... How is one any less unhealthy?
Last edited:
And Tuel went out of bounds. The linebacker in pursuit - as in from behind, you know, the guy Tuel took on - he landed on top of Tuel after they both had gone out of bounds. The camera doesn't blink. Some people's common sense does, however. All one needs to consider is that another player came flying across the field, flying by in what looks like an attempt to NOT HIT someone who is out of bounds.
I do think Tuel wishes he could have gotten out of bounds sooner, though. I just don't think his body in its weakened state against an FCS linebacker would allow it.
What you don't get is I have no problem with people that criticize Leach within reason. It's when people like you that come in here with stupid reasons, and a complete disregard and trivialization for one of the worst coaching tenures in our history, BCS history, national history that we faced before Leach, and then criticize him for not immediately fixing the disaster.
I use statistics, and facts, and 3rd party evidence to support my position. You don't. And that's why I have a problem with your crap because it's crap and not substantiated with reason or logic.
And if you don't like that. Then maybe start basing your opinions on facts and we won't have a problem now will we.
Why aren't you giving the benefit of the doubt to this player? You are the first and only person EVER to justify the hand in the face. Besides, you DID minimize what Wilson did and criticize Leach. Of course, because it is YOU, you played both sides of the fence. 99% against Leach and 1% for then you say, "See, I was neutral."
There was the matter of the rolling in the sand, the spraying with garden hoses of players wearing cotton in sub-freezing weather that went on and on and on. There was the matter of Leach not showing up to work until the p.m., with sly suggestions of a drinking problem. Perhaps all that was conveniently forgotten.
Ed, regarding buying into the rumors, you went round and round about guys getting sprayed with a hose in freezing temperatures. You went beyond buying into the rumors and just made some up.
I doubt the chump thing is going away, so how about you sign up for a typing class.
Facts are often very subjective. It's often said that Paul Wulff led WSU to the two worst seasons in WSU history and much has been made of that. The sad truth is that Mike Leach's 2012 and 2014 seasons are tied for the 9th worst finishes in school history. Does that make him a terrible coach? If 2008 and 2009 were Wulff's fault and not Doba's fault, why shouldn't Leach be held responsible for his finishes? Lots of "facts" can be thrown around to make a point to support someone's position. BTW, I'm not stating that I believe that Leach is a terrible coach, I'm just pointing out how facts can be used however you want. Very often, people cherry pick facts about coaches and use them to support their arguments. Recently, someone compared 2010 to 2014 (the 3rd year of Wulff's and Leach's 3rd year). Is that truly a statistically relevant comparison or just an easy way to support their case? Given that the surrounding circumstances of each season were totally different, did it make sense?
I've brought up plenty of facts that you don't agree with and it's fair to say that not every fact is relevant to a particular situation. From what I see, you disregard facts that don't fit your viewpoint and discount them as opinions and refuse to even consider the position that the other person comes from. Then, too often, you compound it with name calling because you don't want to put in the effort to actually refute the other person's position. Whether or not you agree with my take on a situation, I would argue that I actually do rely on "facts" for just about everything that I believe. Sometimes, you could make the argument that I get so caught up in facts and statistics that I miss the big picture. That's different than your opinion that everything that I say is crap. Of course, your statement above about crap is the reason that so often, you end up looking ignorant to me. Instead of thinking about what I've typed, you often ignore it and type something else unrelated because you've established your opinion prior to even reading what I've said. I'm finishing a book called "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and there is a section of the book that talks about how often people evaluate what someone else is saying through their own personal filter without any consideration of what the other person is actually thinking or feeling. You are the absolute king of that.
Actually, all Tron does is take the time to refute yours and Ed's positions. Why do you think Sponge calls him a nerd? You just do not agree with everyone else's position not named Ed, Chinook, CSC, and Sponge. That is just about it that agree with you.
Regarding Doba, Wulff and Leach, it is quite simple and not at all contradictory.
The Seahawks are the betting favorites to win the Superbowl next year. If Pete Carroll decided to retire tomorrow and the Seahawks hired me to replace him. I then hired the WW crew to be my coaches. The Seahawks would not make the playoffs because my staff and I are nowhere near the coaches they are.
As a staff and coach, Paul Wulff could take over any team and they would be much worse, because they were terrible. They took over Doba's team and made them much, much worse than they should have been. Then, for the next four years Wulff does a terrible job recruiting and guess what? Leach doesn't have much to work with and the results show.
Facts are not subjective, facts are facts. How you use those facts with respect to the context you use them may delve into subjectivity, but facts themselves are not subjective. For example, you say leach is tied for 9th worst finish which may be fact, but how many other coaches have also finished 3-9 while coaching WSU? I think quite a few, if not most, which renders your fact somewhat insignificant--in other words, those 3-and-9's don't stand out when most coaches here have reached those lows. On the other hand, how many WSU coaches fielded teams where the opponents were taking a knee before halftime, or shutting them out while still putting in their 3rd stringers with half a game to go and beating them by 60, 70? Look that fact up for me.
Completely agree. And not only is it about how you use the facts, but it's using all the facts you can find and using those to continually "fill in the picture". Example:
3-9 is the only fact you look at. You aren't looking at all the facts, thus you aren't seeing the whole picture. You are only seeing a small portion of a picture and the rest isn't filled in.
So you look at as many facts as possible to help clarify the picture. And here's where I think people think it becomes "subjective". You don't just look at certain facts. You thirst for more. You find as many as you can, regardless of the outcome of those facts. Then see how those paint the overall picture. You don't just focus on "3-9 times 2".
What's great is that all three of you missed the overall point. I was pointing out how you can draw any conclusion you want based on facts. Unfortunately, rather than make attempt at really understanding my post, you directly addressed my examples and ignored the point. The funny thing is, you ended up saying the exact same thing that I did.
So......thanks for agreeing with me.
So......thanks for agreeing with me.
Um....No. You got your very first sentence incorrect ("Facts are often very subjective."), and somehow the three of us are wrong and you are right. Yeah, OK
Um....No. You got your very first sentence incorrect, and somehow the three of us are wrong and you are right. Yeah, OK
So, in my post, I said that the problem with facts is that they can be subjective when used to support a position someone wants to take. You say, "No, you're wrong, facts aren't subjective, they are only facts, the subjectivity comes when applied by the person to support their case". Or words to that effect. In case you don't realize it, you just waved your hands one way when I was waving them the other but we basically said the same thing.
actually, the funny thing is you hypocritically take a Fact (tied for 9th worst record) and subjectively twist it to fit your narrative ("the sad truth is..."), which is that leach is in the same company as wulff. Wasn't your post railing against that very thing? And that whole "facts are subjective" thing. But sure, we're just agreeing with you if that makes you feel better.
actually, the funny thing is you hypocritically take a Fact (tied for 9th worst record) and subjectively twist it to fit your narrative ("the sad truth is..."), which is that leach is in the same company as wulff. Wasn't your post railing against that very thing? And that whole "facts are subjective" thing. But sure, we're just agreeing with you if that makes you feel better.
The funny thing is that you didn't even read my post. If you stroll back up there, right after I made the comment about Leach and the 3-9 record, I wrote the following:
BTW, I'm not stating that I believe that Leach is a terrible coach, I'm just pointing out how facts can be used however you want.
Unfortunately, you are proving my point. You aren't even reading what I'm writing at all and you don't care about my point. You picked out something that I typed (a fact) and twisted it to fit your narrative. You really ought to just let this one go.
I did read your post, and have read enough of previous posts to read between the lines. "I'm not saying leach is a bad coach" prefaced with "the sad truth is...". Hmmm, I wonder what you really think?
I don't think what you think you said is actually what came out. I went back and read once again your original post. You made your main point and trashed Leach. That is what stuck out. Then, you qualified it and to us it seemed as if you were trying to play both sides. Frankly, to me you made your point backwards and confusing then.
Yeah, looking back, the past 3 or 4 posts just don't jive. Admittedly, there is one sentence that says one thing. But the whole rest of the post is completely opposite. I guess I took more weight on the bulk of the post. As an example, when I write War & Peace about one thing… then the last incomplete sentence is opposite, I'd expect everyone to place more weight on the dissertation, not the one sentence. Am I the only one on this?
That was my exact point and what I was trying to accomplish. Once I made a statement that went contrary to what you believed, you quit reading. The same thing happened to me the other day on the article about Bruce Feldman. Once I read the one statement that I didn't agree with.....I kind of quit reading. We ALL do it.
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again," Flat. I've noticed you've been more active here in the conspicuous absence of others who stir the pot. But let's take a look at your myopic take of things. Those who defend the previous regime (yes, you're in that camp) resent references to "6 and 40" or "9 and 40," and continue suggesting there was more to the previous regime than wins and losses.
So now your focus is 3-9 x 2. This ignores the bowl season in between, but among the previous regime's 9 wins in four seasons, did that illustrious staff ever take two NC-game teams to the wire? Now, had it done so, I personally would recognize that as achievement, as evidence the program was taking a positive turn. I certainly would assign it more weight than a victory over an ASU team that had tanked under Dennis Erickson, or a near win over a Utah team playing its, what, third-string QB.
Yes, it's a fact WSU under Leach lost to Auburn in 2013 and to Oregon in 2014, But it's also a fact that rational and loyal Cougar fans got excited about the program because of those games, just as many crowed about how a Mark Rypien-led Cougar team nearly pulled off the come-from-behind upset of USC in Pullman in 1984, and how others saw hope as Drew Bledsoe helped WSU score more than 20 points against the vaunted Husky defense in 1991 (WSU would defeat USC in 1986 and the UW in 1992).
So, you'll contend I'm using facts in a subjective way, but here's the point. You've agreed that the o-line was left in a shambles by Wulff. I'm sure you'll agree with the axiom that the game is won in the trenches. Leach has made great strides in addressing this deficiency. It is a fact on which many rational and loyal fans base their hope that the program is going in the right direction. Had this occurred under previous and beloved coaching staffs, it would have been a flag waved with great fervor. For some now, however, it is a fact dismissed, even by those who cling to Iron Laws stating that you win with upperclassmen on the lines.
Hundreds and hundreds of negative posts from supposed loyal Cougs even though WSU has yet to lose a single game in 2015 cannot be ignored or denied. A tapestry consisting of thread after thread of whining hangs here like no other message board. Look around. Many of those responsible for the negativity here are paying members on another Cougar site, yet you will not find this same tapestry hanging there. Why?
Seriously, just wait for the season. If Leach/WSU flops, shake your flag of disappointment all you wish, but to have done so for weeks and weeks long before the first game (for some, it's been going on for four years) is not what a rational, honest, and loyal fan does.
Yeah, maybe for some. But for others, we are reading the whole thing and you aren't making any sense so we take the bulk. So really you are just sounding completely insane...
Similar threads
