The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Ken maybe you shouldn't sit so high, mighty and be so self righteously judgmental about that unless you knew the facts!

Read the article that sums it up. Moron.

You guys couldn't generate enough interest in anything to garner a lawsuit amongst your three regular posters who happen to be one in the same with your alumni section at that glorified track where your football team plays.

(07-04-2015 05:34 PM)rtletterman Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 03:58 PM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 02:33 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:57 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear toddjnsn,
Not to speak for emu79, because I don't know for sure whether he was speaking in a sports sense, or some other venue, but I believe it was meant in the other venue. Meaning, adults do not broadcast disparaging remarks about peoples' private lives. So, I think you have the wrong take on what was said. Now whether you think it should be brought up in this context, that's just your opinion. Just as he has the right to express his opinion on what adults should be discussing on a sports site.

Apparently you don't follow politics. Adults don't disparage other adults private lives? There are entire industries built on that format.

Yes, if one were so inclined, one could make quite a lucrative law practice on little else.

You can sue a ham sammich.

So true. You can sue a ham sammich. But be aware, that suing a ham sammich is costly in itself.

Most who sue ham sammiches find that they have spent exponentially more just filing the suit agains the ham sammich than they could ever collect. Its even worse when it is discovered that the ham sammich has no collectable assets, because, well, it's a ham sammich. At that point the guy suing the ham sammich is literally begging the ham sammich to settle for next to nothing just so he can save face and stop doling out money to greedy lawyers.

So yes, while it is true that you can sue a ham sammich, the net result is that you'll spend a chit load of money, and the ham sammich will give you nothing, because.............well, it's a ham sammich.

The worst thing is when that ham sammich has an azz kicking homeowners and the wherewithal to have an umbrella. That throws a monkey wrench in the whole SLAPP play. It's too bad for the Hoogies, Grinders, Clubs and the like that they didn't realize before throwing lettuce and sprouts at the problem, they could have been spared a lot of hard earned greens.

Never underestimate the ham sammich. Arrogance can be a liability.

(07-04-2015 09:57 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 05:34 PM)rtletterman Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 03:58 PM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 02:33 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:57 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear toddjnsn,
Not to speak for emu79, because I don't know for sure whether he was speaking in a sports sense, or some other venue, but I believe it was meant in the other venue. Meaning, adults do not broadcast disparaging remarks about peoples' private lives. So, I think you have the wrong take on what was said. Now whether you think it should be brought up in this context, that's just your opinion. Just as he has the right to express his opinion on what adults should be discussing on a sports site.

Apparently you don't follow politics. Adults don't disparage other adults private lives? There are entire industries built on that format.

Yes, if one were so inclined, one could make quite a lucrative law practice on little else.

You can sue a ham sammich.

So true. You can sue a ham sammich. But be aware, that suing a ham sammich is costly in itself.

Most who sue ham sammiches find that they have spent exponentially more just getting the ham sammich to trial than they could ever collect. Its even worse when it is discovered that the ham sammich has no collectable assets, because, well, it's a ham sammich. At that point the guy suing the ham sammich is literally begging the ham sammich to settle for next to nothing just so he can save face and stop doling out money to greedy lawyers.

So yes, while it is true that you can sue a ham sammich, the net result is that you'll spend a chit load of money, and the ham sammich will give you nothing, because.............well, it's a ham sammich.

That sounds like a total backfire. Has to be a bitter pill. Especially when the ham sammich was really taking up for a Stay Puff Marshmellow mans case in the first place. Just goes to show......no good deed goes unpunished.

Dear Ken Barna & Associates,

Quote:Not to speak for emu79, because I don't know for sure whether he was speaking in a sports sense, or some other venue, but I believe it was meant in the other venue

Yes, he was. In a nutshell, one was about sports where essentially the whole "group" is on the same side as far as viewing how/where EMU football has been in recent times. The other has nothing to do with sports and was about curious out-loud speculation, defending, opposing, etc. -- where views differed greatly (but controversial on a semi-public forum because it's about things that are controversial). If you want to call that "not adult", that's whole other type & a whole other ball of wax that isn't so clear. IMO, it's comparing apples and oranges -- as far as assessing football teams & sports talk is concerned.

Quote:The point is that you had people on this board being sued for statements regarding people's private lives, and they (the ones being sued) should have been more adult about their behavior.

I get what you're saying, but as pointed out, in a private lawsuit, it'd be easy to automatically say for any and all people threatened with a suit or being sued was automatically being childlike. It doesn't take the motif of being "not an adult" or "childlike" to be sued.

Can ham sammiches be adult like?!

(07-04-2015 11:48 PM)rtletterman Wrote:  Can ham sammiches be adult like?!

Yes, on pumpernickel with brown mustard, swiss, lettuce, and tomato.

Dear rtletterman,
My, my someone is upset. At least now we know who the adult is not.

(07-05-2015 08:06 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear rtletterman,
My, my someone is upset. At least now we know who the adult is not.

Dear Ken

Cheap shots are returned in kind. Hiding behind a self proclaimed "adult motif" gets you nowhere. We see who the adult is here. In fact, we can see 20 adults reported at 12000 every Saturday on ESPN3 from ypsitucky.

Dear rtletterman,
Cheap shots? There is only one person on this topic that has used "moron" in their discussion. I'm not hiding behind anything, but you are with your statements of personally attacking me, instead of staying on topic because you have nothing to add to the discussion.
I read all of the statements that were on this board about the lawsuit, including what moderators had to say on the subject of the lawsuit.
I do not know whether the suit has moved forward or was settled. Maybe you have that information and would like to share it?

(07-05-2015 11:57 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear rtletterman,
Cheap shots? There is only one person on this topic that has used "moron" in their discussion. I'm not hiding behind anything, but you are with your statements of personally attacking me, instead of staying on topic because you have nothing to add to the discussion.
I read all of the statements that were on this board about the lawsuit, including what moderators had to say on the subject of the lawsuit.
I do not know whether the suit has moved forward or was settled. Maybe you have that information and would like to share it?

Dearest Kenneth,

Thank you for "adulting up" and proving my point, you don't have the facts. To answer your most eloquently put inquiry, no I would not care to share. However, I 'm pleased to inform you that you are able to discover the facts quite easily using your Google and mlive searching prowiness.

Dear rtletterman,
You don't have the facts either. Hiding behind Google and Mlive, isn't going to save you. Google and Mlive have posted the same information that was known back in February, that being, that the three bloggers being charged in the lawsuit were being hit with a $25,000 defamation suit each. Now if you have something beyond that....

(07-05-2015 02:56 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear rtletterman,
You don't have the facts either. Hiding behind Google and Mlive, isn't going to save you. Google and Mlive have posted the same information that was known back in February, that being, that the three bloggers being charged in the lawsuit were being hit with a $25,000 defamation suit each. Now if you have something beyond that....

Are you insane? There was an article a week or so back that said all had been settled.

(07-05-2015 02:56 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear rtletterman,
You don't have the facts either. Hiding behind Google and Mlive, isn't going to save you. Google and Mlive have posted the same information that was known back in February, that being, that the three bloggers being charged in the lawsuit were being hit with a $25,000 defamation suit each. Now if you have something beyond that....

Dear Ken,

There most certainly is something beyond that on those very same sources. You can look if you so desire, there's no longer any excuse for playing ignorant. Now if you're just playing games then I understand....

Dear Hiller4Hyz09,
I don't follow what happens on your board every hour of the day, so if I am ignorant of something that happened it's not my fault. In any case did anyone on the Stampede publish the results? What is all the cover-up about? I know it might be embarrrassing for this site and those involved, but what is the reticence? If it's public knowledge, share it.

That's what I thought, Ken obviously knows about the article and is being obtuse.

Dear rtletterman,
Wrong again. If anyone is obtuse look in the mirror.

(07-05-2015 03:06 PM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 02:56 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear rtletterman,
You don't have the facts either. Hiding behind Google and Mlive, isn't going to save you. Google and Mlive have posted the same information that was known back in February, that being, that the three bloggers being charged in the lawsuit were being hit with a $25,000 defamation suit each. Now if you have something beyond that....

Are you insane? There was an article a week or so back that said all had been settled.

He knows I'm sure, he's being "cute" and trying to goad someone into posting the link.

Either he's being a jerk or a moron who can't search the web. You pick as to which one.

Alright, let's try to keep this discussion somewhat on-topic.

Quote:Alright, let's try to keep this discussion somewhat on-topic.

You're right. Back to topic: EMU has a tough schedule this year. No FCS teams. In order of difficulty (but not exact):

@LSU (SEC)
@NIU
@Toledo
WMU
@Wyoming (MW)
Ball State [Improved]
Akron [Improved]
Old Dominion (CUSA)
UMass [Improved]
@CMU
@Miami-OH [Improved]
Army

Good luck hitting a dream year of 4W -- it'd be a miracle for you guys with that schedule. And no, I'm not being childlike by pointing that out, nor childlike by chuckling at more Pepsi cans showing up for games than people. :)

**WITHIN REASON SCENARIOS**
EMU IMPRESSES: 4-8
EMU HAPPY: 3-9
EMU PAR: 2-10
EMU DISAPPOINTED: 1-11
EMU CRYING: 0-12