Billy Ray, you don't understand cogent points. I don't think you're dumb or stupid, but you do have poor comprehension. Sorry, but that's the case. If I'm in agreement with you, then why are you so emotional about this?
Am I even suppose to take this post serious?? I'm getting emotional about this?? Dude, you are the only one in here using colorful little belittling adjectives to describe posters whom don't see you closed-minded opinion on this thing. I understand cogent points when they are actually cogent points. If you think your points fit that description, then kudos to you. Myself, I don't think your points or stance on this fits the definition of "cogent" at all. But hey, it's your opinion and if you can justify it to yourself, then that's all that matters. And the same applies to my comprehension. What really applies here is the fact you have a very troubling problem with handling people whom don't agree with YOUR specific opinions on things. You feel as if anyone who doesn't look at things through YOUR lens is either a fool, ignorant, doesn't understand cogent points, has poor comprehension, or is acting like a schoolgirl. Sorry, but the problem in this thread is not me....it's you.
As for the original sentiment I disagree with, here they are:
I say: "No props to Baylor".
You and others say: "You are wrong"
Okay first off, tell me in the posts that you quoted did I say the words "You are wrong". And what were you saying about comprehension earlier in your post???
Yes, I think Baylor, or more specifically, the board of reagents get props for taking action AFTER an investigation was done. I know you think otherwise. If you feel that way, then good for you. You have stated many times that you don't agree with having to wait on the results from an independent investigation before taking action. And I believe if anyone that has any inkling of history in handling things in that way have gone, that's a foolish course of action. I cited two specific examples earlier in this thread. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with them before commenting further.
You posted that you wanted Briles and his staff suspended immediately pending an investigation. But I have a very good feeling that if that had happened, you would still be on here ranting away at how Baylor handled it. In reality, no course of action by Baylor would have sufficed you. Maybe Baylor beating OU several times in recent years has fueled a lustful hatred inside you for Baylor and you simply want to see them burn.
But even if Briles and his staff had been suspended immediately, what would that have accomplished?? They weren't the ones going out raping people. And months ago, they were all allegations. Not only were they allegations of a coverup, but also they had to factor in whether the women making the sexual assault allegations were making legit and truthful allegations. Not every accusation of rape is legit. So you want the reagents to had out immediate suspensions for coaches POSSIBLY covering up allegations that were POSSIBLY fraudulent just because they heard it in the media or heard people talking about it around campus?? And to make matters worse, I've heard the reports that local police also complicated the matters by burying the women's allegations of rapes as well. So if the coaches, AD, president, and local police are all contributing to a scheme of covering up sexual assault allegations, then how can the board of reagents make ANY sort of responsible decision without waiting on an investigation??
Which brings me to my next point....you don't agree with Baylor waiting until they had a 3rd party (independent) investigation done before taking action. The alternative here is Baylor would have done an internal investigation. How well do you think THAT would have went over in the court of public opinion?? An internal investigation done by a university that already was being accused of suppressing and covering up sexual assault allegations?? Other than those 2 options, the only other thing Baylor could have done was to do nothing. So really, having a 3rd party, which means they would be as non-biased as you can get, to come in and conduct an investigation is about as responsibility a course Baylor could have taken. Anything else would have immediately been ridiculed as being just as tainted as the program that was being accused of covering up sexual assaults.
Is all of that cogent enough for you??
As far as calling down the forum elders to bolster your comments, do what you think is right man. Bring enough gun. I really don't care. I have not flamed anyone, except for saying Billy Ray argued like a schoolgirl (uh it's true), but I don't dislike anyone. I'm bummed out you don't understand the point, because if you did I don't think any of you would disagree.
Where did I call down the forum elders to bolster my comments?? They joined the fray on their own accord. Hold on...what were you saying earlier about comprehension in your post??
And you say you have not flamed anyone except for saying I'm arguing like a schoolgirl. But like....what about using the adjectives ignorant or a fool?? Saying a person doesn't understand cogent points or has poor comprehension are borderlines, but they are generally accepted as either questioning another persons intelligence and/or inferring they are "slow minded" or stupid. But hey....remind me again about your comments about who suffered from poor comprehension in your original post??
And as far as my feelings that you don't understand my point, I couldn't care less. I'm certainly not bummed about it. I certainly understand the points you are trying to make. I simply don't agree with them.....at all.[/QUOTE]
