Started By
Message
re: UO Game Off / Clemson Replacement
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:52 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:52 pm to TbirdSpur2010
"Condescending" perhaps, but certainly not "ignorant."
I assure you that I have both the data and education to analyze the issue. I simply reach a different conclusion than the majority, based upon a different code of behavior.
Take a business lease. It allows the tenant to post signage no larger than 48" by 72," and it allows lanflord to terminate on 30 days notice for any breach. Obviously both parties agreed to this language before signing the lease.
Tenant orders a 4x6 sign, bur gets a sign measuring 49" by 73." He does not notice and posts it. Landlord grts a better offer for the building, so he terminates the lease and demands that tenant relocate his business within 30 day
It is in Landlord's financial interest to do so. Landlord had every legal right to do so, but it is chickenshit, in my opinion. That opinion will not change.
quote:
ignorant - lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
I assure you that I have both the data and education to analyze the issue. I simply reach a different conclusion than the majority, based upon a different code of behavior.
Take a business lease. It allows the tenant to post signage no larger than 48" by 72," and it allows lanflord to terminate on 30 days notice for any breach. Obviously both parties agreed to this language before signing the lease.
Tenant orders a 4x6 sign, bur gets a sign measuring 49" by 73." He does not notice and posts it. Landlord grts a better offer for the building, so he terminates the lease and demands that tenant relocate his business within 30 day
It is in Landlord's financial interest to do so. Landlord had every legal right to do so, but it is chickenshit, in my opinion. That opinion will not change.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:02 pm
1
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:01 pm to AggieHank86
Your assertion that exercising a clause clearly outlined in our contract is "getting away" with something is indeed ignorant.
And your analogy is an apples to oranges comparison. We are talking about contracts to play a football game, not housing leases. This is a business decision on our part, and a sound one at that. It would be irresponsible to remain locked into a contract detrimental to our business interests when there are clear outlines allowing for peaceful disengagement. It would be different, if, say, there were no such provisions and we attempted to go back and reword the contact after the fact against Oregon's wishes. That, of course, is not the case.
Your assertion that canceling a freaking home and home series is some egregious breach of ethics could not be more erroneous, and continuing to attempt justify such is, in fact, ignorant on your part, sir.
I'm not happy about canceling the series, either, but my disgruntlement has more to do with my looking forward to playing that team. I understand and agree with the necessity of dropping the series, however.
And your analogy is an apples to oranges comparison. We are talking about contracts to play a football game, not housing leases. This is a business decision on our part, and a sound one at that. It would be irresponsible to remain locked into a contract detrimental to our business interests when there are clear outlines allowing for peaceful disengagement. It would be different, if, say, there were no such provisions and we attempted to go back and reword the contact after the fact against Oregon's wishes. That, of course, is not the case.
Your assertion that canceling a freaking home and home series is some egregious breach of ethics could not be more erroneous, and continuing to attempt justify such is, in fact, ignorant on your part, sir.
I'm not happy about canceling the series, either, but my disgruntlement has more to do with my looking forward to playing that team. I understand and agree with the necessity of dropping the series, however.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:05 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I am not saying it is egregious. I am simply saying that I might have chosen differently. And I did not say that TAMU was "getting away with" something. I never used that term in reference to the. TAMU/Oregon contract. I simply extrapolated another poster's personal philosophy based upon his own statements.
But MOSTLY I am saying that TMC was incorrect when he said that keeping the series "wasm't an option." It clearly WAS "an option." It was simply noy the option that he would have selected.
But MOSTLY I am saying that TMC was incorrect when he said that keeping the series "wasm't an option." It clearly WAS "an option." It was simply noy the option that he would have selected.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You are in the majority. I fully understand that I am in the minority, in that I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard. Perhaps it makes me odd. So be it.
You're an arrogant cocksuck
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
MOSTLY I am saying that TMC was incorrect when he said that keeping the series "wasm't an option." It clearly WAS "an option." It was simply noy the option that he would have selected.
Because it was a poor option that would have been detrimental to our interests and a disservice to our fans who deserve more than thr paltry number of home games they would have wound up with.
As such, it was not a viable option. If you want to nitpick on tmc's choice of words, you're missing the point. No responsible person in a decision-making position for us on this matter would have elected not to exercise the clause.
Just because something is an option doesn't mean it's a good one, and it damn sure doesn't mean remaining shackled to a harmful business situation out if some naive, misguided sense of moral ethics. That's foolish.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:16 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Gentlemen. This is an unnecessary argument.
Both schools understood and agreed upon the outlines of the contract. No one ran away from the contract. All the terms of the contract were followed, plain and simple. Nothing dishonorable about that.
Trust me, as a self-appointed 2%er, the Aggie Code of Honor was followed. If it were up to me, we would have played Oregon first and then bailed on them
and not paid them ala LSU in 1995.
Both schools understood and agreed upon the outlines of the contract. No one ran away from the contract. All the terms of the contract were followed, plain and simple. Nothing dishonorable about that.
Trust me, as a self-appointed 2%er, the Aggie Code of Honor was followed. If it were up to me, we would have played Oregon first and then bailed on them
and not paid them ala LSU in 1995.Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:18 pm to greenbastard
quote:
This is an unnecessary argument.
Both schools understood and agreed upon the outlines of the contract. No one ran away from the contract. All the terms of the contract were followed, plain and simple. Nothing dishonorable about that.
Precisely what I'm saying
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:18 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Now let's wait for princess to tell us about how we're sinners and he's of a more sophisticated standard
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:20 pm to Gradual_Stroke
You're sinners and I'm of a more sophisticated standard...oh crap, I did it again.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:21 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
classic
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:22 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Hank is quickly becoming one of my favorite aggie posters, and I mean that sincerely.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:33 pm to AggieHank86
the odd thing to me as you go down this path is how imprecise your language is. For instance
When what I actually said was
We offered a reasonable alternative. That solution was not acceptable to Oregon. We therefore exercised our termination rights as defined in the contract. And so as an attorney, you know full well that we did in fact honor our obligation. So why would you write "honor our obligation?" Seems a really odd choice of words....
Trying to nitpick my language is equally as bad. And as an attorney, you should be highly trained in the distinction of language. If you have the option of being kicked in the nuts and being given $1million, you might say that choosing to be kicked in the nuts wasn't an option. And if you said such, no one would think that you literally couldn't choose to be kicked in the nuts. It's hyperbole, a common parlance of our time.
It was a message board post hank. If you are unable to grasp the subtleties of language, how will you ever be able to argue the reasonableness of your tenant being booted for an unintended breach? Of course that's an incredibly simple case and would be a slam dunk provided you gave your clients decent advice and they followed it: remedy the situation post haste.
quote:
YOU said that honoring the obligation "wasn't an option."
When what I actually said was
quote:
After they declined the swap of home games, it wasn't an option to keep Oregon on the schedule
We offered a reasonable alternative. That solution was not acceptable to Oregon. We therefore exercised our termination rights as defined in the contract. And so as an attorney, you know full well that we did in fact honor our obligation. So why would you write "honor our obligation?" Seems a really odd choice of words....
Trying to nitpick my language is equally as bad. And as an attorney, you should be highly trained in the distinction of language. If you have the option of being kicked in the nuts and being given $1million, you might say that choosing to be kicked in the nuts wasn't an option. And if you said such, no one would think that you literally couldn't choose to be kicked in the nuts. It's hyperbole, a common parlance of our time.
It was a message board post hank. If you are unable to grasp the subtleties of language, how will you ever be able to argue the reasonableness of your tenant being booted for an unintended breach? Of course that's an incredibly simple case and would be a slam dunk provided you gave your clients decent advice and they followed it: remedy the situation post haste.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:39 pm to Gradual_Stroke
The most aggravating element of this entire discussion is the fact that you gentlemen insist upon ignoring key elements of my posts.
I acknowledged from the very beginning that A&M was acting within its rights. I acknowledged, from the very beginning, that the decision was in all likelihood made with the financial best interest of the University in mind. At no point did I ever say that I definitely would have made a different decision. The most that I said was that I "might" have made a different decision.
It is entirely possible to make a decision which is both contractually allowed and affirmatively in your own best interest, while acknowledging that your own decision was somewhat "chickenshit" vis-a-vis persons other than yourself.
I try to avoid making those decisioms, but it sometimes simply cannot be avoided. The TAMU/Oregon deal may indeed be exactly that scenario. But when I must do the chickenshit thing, I try to be honest with myself and admit it was chickenshit.
I acknowledged from the very beginning that A&M was acting within its rights. I acknowledged, from the very beginning, that the decision was in all likelihood made with the financial best interest of the University in mind. At no point did I ever say that I definitely would have made a different decision. The most that I said was that I "might" have made a different decision.
It is entirely possible to make a decision which is both contractually allowed and affirmatively in your own best interest, while acknowledging that your own decision was somewhat "chickenshit" vis-a-vis persons other than yourself.
I try to avoid making those decisioms, but it sometimes simply cannot be avoided. The TAMU/Oregon deal may indeed be exactly that scenario. But when I must do the chickenshit thing, I try to be honest with myself and admit it was chickenshit.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It is entirely possible to make a decision which is both contractually allowed and affirmatively in your own best interest, while acknowledging that your own decision was somewhat "chickenshit" vis-a-vis persons other than yourself.
I try to avoid making those decisioms, but it sometimes simply cannot be avoided. The TAMU/Oregon deal may indeed be exactly that scenario. But when I must do the chickenshit thing, I try to be honest with myself and admit it was chickenshit.
Jesus Christ you are obtuse.
"Chickenshit" would be shying away from Oregon because, say, they hired Nick Saban or signed the consensus best recruiting class in the country. If we all of a sudden didn't want to play them for some reason such as that, then I'd understand.
This decision wasn't made in that vein or even out of pure malice against Oregon. Were the situations reversed, they would have dine the same. As would any athletic department worth a hill of beans.
I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, but even by your own tacit admission, your stance is unreasonable
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:47 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:I do not think you are sinners. I think you are products of the generation in which you were born and raised. You were raised on materialism and self-interest. I do not blame you for that fact.
Now let's wait for princess to tell us about how we're sinners and he's of a more sophisticated standard
I certainly do not see my code of behavior as being more sophisticated. It is actually simpler. I am a product of a simpler time and place than most of you.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 8:56 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:52 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Spur, I anticipate name calling from the peanut gallery, but I expect more from you.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:58 pm to AggieHank86
If you can't handle your absurd stance being called obtuse, then this ain't the board for you, I'm afraid.
Don't come in here popping off about what you expect from me.
Don't come in here popping off about what you expect from me.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 9:02 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Never said I could not handle it. Just that I expected better from you.
Please accept my apologies for seeing you as worthy of a higher standard than the hoi polloi.
Please accept my apologies for seeing you as worthy of a higher standard than the hoi polloi.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 9:15 pm to AggieHank86
There are no kid gloves with me. If I disagree with you, you will know in no uncertain terms. I give no shits about some nebulous standard of worthiness that you or any other poster has concocted. I have always been "articulate, but still will grab a n*gga by the collar quick."
Back to the matter at hand: there is no way a responsible athletic dept. would have stayed wedded to that albatross of a contract after it became clear what our home game situation would be. Many of those in positions of power to make those decisions, btw, are your peers, so spare us the lecture about some simpler, less materialistic time being purer. There was nothing chickenshit, dishonorable, or duplicitous about our decision to drop the series, and there really is no reasonable argument to the contrary, whether you like/agree with it or not.
That said, it is a shame we won't get to play Oregon. Would have been more interesting for me as a fan than Clemson. There are far more cogent factors to consider than just my druthers, however.
ETA: And that's the last I'll say on the subject.
Back to the matter at hand: there is no way a responsible athletic dept. would have stayed wedded to that albatross of a contract after it became clear what our home game situation would be. Many of those in positions of power to make those decisions, btw, are your peers, so spare us the lecture about some simpler, less materialistic time being purer. There was nothing chickenshit, dishonorable, or duplicitous about our decision to drop the series, and there really is no reasonable argument to the contrary, whether you like/agree with it or not.
That said, it is a shame we won't get to play Oregon. Would have been more interesting for me as a fan than Clemson. There are far more cogent factors to consider than just my druthers, however.
ETA: And that's the last I'll say on the subject.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 10:16 pm to AggieHank86
After reading through this and reviewing your post history......
I'm convinced you are Randolph Duke
I'm convinced you are Randolph Duke
Page 4 of 5
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News