Started By
Message
re: Tennessee under Investigation again?
Posted on 9/27/11 at 8:52 am to Alahunter
Posted on 9/27/11 at 8:52 am to Alahunter
quote:You posted in this thread and if I happen to bring your handle up in a thread you aren't in it is likely because someone is trolling in Alahunter fashion. It is who you are.
I find it unusual that you bring my name up in threads I've not posted in.
quote:Do you know what Tiger Prowl is/was? Pretty sure the coaches didn't drive to Texas in a Limo, so your question was not valid. Sorry to disappoint.
And what I asked, was a valid question, concerning the circumstances. Seastrunk was heavily recruited by Auburn and the Bham News was denied open records concerning Tiger Prowl, due to a current investigation. All I asked, was if this causes more concern to Auburn fans now. And you are correct, it was Tiger Prowl, not BCW.
1
Posted on 9/27/11 at 8:54 am to Alahunter
quote:
just a question...does the NCAA investigation into Big Cat Weekend, which Seastrunk was a part of, worry Auburn fans a little bit more, with all the baggage around this kid now?
Didn't take you long to steer this back to auburn. Thanks for caring.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 8:57 am to WDE24
quote:
if I happen to bring your handle up in a thread you aren't in it is likely because someone is trolling in Alahunter fashion. It is who you are
Except the fact that what we usually discuss and you deny, ends up being that I'm right. (The NCAA prez says we're not being investigated for Cam).
quote:
Do you know what Tiger Prowl is/was? Pretty sure the coaches didn't drive to Texas in a Limo, so your question was not valid. Sorry to disappoint
quote:
The Auburn coaching staff, which grabbed headlines with its Tiger Prowl limo tour last month, is at again.
The Tigers are staging a star-studded recruiting weekend -- they're calling it Big Cat Weekend -- that features the two top running backs in the nation as well as the No. 2 linebacker prospect, the No. 2 wide receiver, the No. 2 offensive guard and the No. 4 offensive tackle, as well as others.
The move is an interesting twist in recruiting, at least for Auburn. AuburnSports.com says approximately 25 recruits are in town.
Among those visiting are running backs Lache Seastrunk, the No. 1 running back in the nation according to Rivals
The fact remains, Lache was heavily recruited by Auburn, this staff has been penalized for recruiting violations, is under investigation for them again, and now it's surfacing that other schools are for this kid. All I asked was if this causes more concern. A simple yes or no would have sufficed and avoided all this back and forth. But you want to be so offended and defensive because it was asked by me, instead of looking at the situation objectively.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:00 am to Alahunter
quote:
The fact remains, Lache was heavily recruited by Auburn
And they backed off of him (which happend) supposedly becuase they didn't like what was going on surrounding him and how he was handling his recruitment to other schools.
Again UT thread, with facts, you start stiring the pot for auburn with conjecture. I would expect nothing less.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:00 am to piggidyphish
quote:
And they backed off of him (which happend) supposedly becuase they didn't like what was going on surrounding him and how he was handling his recruitment to other schools.
link? I've seen this said twice by you now.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:02 am to piggidyphish
quote:
you start stiring the pot for auburn with conjecture
What's conjecture in what I posted? There was a question, and facts. I was wrong about it being the Tiger Prowl and BCW, that was corrected, but please, show me what is conjecture.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:03 am to Alahunter
quote:
link? I've seen this said twice by you now.
Are you expecting an article that says "Auburn backs off of Lache because they think his handler is dirty?"
Everyone who follows AU recruiting knows AU backed off of Lache shortly after BCW. We just didn't know why at the time.
This post was edited on 9/27/11 at 9:04 am
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:03 am to Alahunter
quote:Wrong again. You like to mischaracterize facts to suit your opinions. It's fine. I have grown accustomed to it. I own you in debate after debate.
Except the fact that what we usually discuss and you deny, ends up being that I'm right. (The NCAA prez says we're not being investigated for Cam).
quote:Except it wouldn't have pointed out that your question itself assumed an incorrect fact which was the entire basis of your point. Now you are back tracking and trying to save yourself.
A simple yes or no would have sufficed and avoided all this back and forth.
Simple question, was Lache Seastrunk a part of Tiger Prowl or associated with it in anyway?
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:04 am to Stanky Legg
Well, considering I'm being given hell for a simple question and for posting facts and being told it's conjecture, and that several of you have blasted people for making claims that can't be backed up, I'd figure you'd hold yourselves to the same standard.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:05 am to Alahunter
quote:
What's conjecture in what I posted? There was a question, and facts. I was wrong about it being the Tiger Prowl and BCW, that was corrected, but please, show me what is conjecture.
UT thread, with facts. You're discussing what if's, and trying to play as though its innocent questioning. The problem is you're always overly concerned with anything auburn, therefore you cannot be seen as an objective poster but rather a swamptider equal.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:05 am to Alahunter
quote:The question was a misrepresentation of fact and that incorrect fact, once corrected, destroyed the assumption you were relying on. That is what you are being blasted for. That and your obsession with Auburn.
Well, considering I'm being given hell for a simple question and for posting facts
This post was edited on 9/27/11 at 9:06 am
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:06 am to Alahunter
You are all fluff and no substance. I should have followed my own advice and ignored your pot-stirring arse.
This post was edited on 9/27/11 at 9:07 am
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:06 am to WDE24
quote:
Wrong again. You like to mischaracterize facts to suit your opinions. It's fine. I have grown accustomed to it. I own you in debate after debate
You said time and time and time again, Au wasn't being investigated for Cam, cuz the Emmert said so, and begged for links everytime it was brought up.
quote:
A simple yes or no would have sufficed and avoided all this back and forth.
Except it wouldn't have pointed out that your question itself assumed an incorrect fact which was the entire basis of your point. Now you are back tracking and trying to save yourself.
You could have said, it was Tiger Prowl, not BCW and no, or yes. Pretty simple.
quote:
Simple question, was Lache Seastrunk a part of Tiger Prowl or associated with it in anyway?
I posted the link from the News, he visited 2 weeks after Tiger Prowl to the BCW. Again, I ask, does this new info concern Au fans more, about his recruitment there?
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:07 am to Alahunter
quote:
link? I've seen this said twice by you now.
You serious clark?
As stated above, do you think it'd be two years later if charles robinson had a quote from auburn saying they backed off him becuase he was dirty?
Surely you're not this dense.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:08 am to Alahunter
quote:
Again, I ask, does this new info concern Au fans more, about his recruitment there?
No...only alabama fans hoping on a star that auburn gets the hammer.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:09 am to Alahunter
quote:No I didn't. I have said that I didn't think the NCAA is actively looking into Cam anymore and that I didn't think the NCAA Prez would be making the statements he was making if they had any incriminating evidence related to it.
You said time and time and time again, Au wasn't being investigated for Cam, cuz the Emmert said so, and begged for links everytime it was brought up.
I think if new info comes out (like DS's claims), they will check it out, but what is left for them to do and why would the President make the public statements he has if they already had the evidence they needed?
ETA: Also, you keep referencing me asking for links, but I rarely if ever do that unless I am making a joke. I don't know where you got that impression.
ETA2: Just did a search and couldn't even find one instance where I requested a link related to the Cam fiasco. Granted, the search feature isn't the best, so that doesn't mean I've never done it, but it certainly isn't my m.o.
This post was edited on 9/27/11 at 9:14 am
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:10 am to Stanky Legg
Ignore or just answer without flaming. My question was a simple one. I had one part of it wrong, and was glad to correct it when pointed out. Again, all of this bickering was brought on by yall deciding to avoid answering a simple question and a decision to deflect and start calling me a troll. If yall can't see that it's a legit question, then I can't help that.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:12 am to piggidyphish
Simple answer, to a simple question. All I was looking for.
WDE, more dishonest in your answers every day.
WDE, more dishonest in your answers every day.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:14 am to Alahunter
quote:
WDE, more dishonest in your answers every day.
In what way?Posted on 9/27/11 at 9:14 am to Alahunter
quote:
answer without flaming
Thats rich.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News