Happy Anniversary
- Thread starter uncfan in ky
- Start date
....it doesn't upset me. It just makes you look immature. Like a kid sticking his tongue out and blowing raspberries at us. I know you're not a child, so why act like one?
Projecting much? Your panties must be double-knotted by now. UNC has zero effect on my life, I'm just wasting time at work laughing at how pathetic you are at discourse. You've not made a single factual argument. You just type ad-hominem attacks and "u mad bro" statements like a 12 year old. Its hillarious.
Another brilliant take.
Why don't you just take the rest of the afternoon off huh. Thanks bud.
Your opinion doesn’t mean nothing to me. Whoever disagrees that’s thier right. It’s also my right to Laughing. Keep trying, like I said nothing is going to change.
1. They were not created for athletes. That’s something you’re totally wrong about.
2. Work was done. A 25 page paper was required
3. No professor wrote anything for a student
Were you there in the early nineties when the class was created? How do you know why it was created?
It certainly looks to me like it was created to keep athletes eligible since they didn't have to show up to class and it was proven that instructors were literally completing papers and changing grades from incomplete to A+ on a paper that was never turned in. Go ahead and try to deny it.
Yes, a 25 page paper was part of the curriculum, but it doesn't mean they were doing it. That was just what SACS was told was part of the curriculum to gain accreditation when the class was created. But it was proven that those kids weren't even doing the minimum in those classes, yet they were getting A's.
Again, read the link in my 1st post. It says:
While student-athletes likely benefited from the courses, so did the general student body,” said Sankey. “Additionally, the record did not establish that the university created and offered the courses as part of a systemic effort to benefit only student-athletes.”
While student-athletes likely benefited from the courses, so did the general student body,” said Sankey. “Additionally, the record did not establish that the university created and offered the courses as part of a systemic effort to benefit only student-athletes.”
FYI, failing to establish something does not mean the opposite has been established.
You can say the classes were not proved to have been created for athletes. You can not claim that it was proven that they were NOT created for athletes based on that statement.
Big difference between "the record did not establish that the university created and offered the courses… ." and "the university created the courses to benefit athletes". Big difference. He's saying he could not definitively say that the classes were created to keep athletes eligible.
Come on man, you can't really be serious, you needed me to point this out to you? Come on.
They didn't put "FOR ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY ONLY" on the course syllabus. Case closed. Laughing
To be fair, whether they were for created for athletes or not doesn't even matter at this point.
Keep it up and I'm going to insert that pin back into my AWilli6995 voo doo doll, right in the pee hole where I had it yesterday.
And you thought you had kidney stone issues. Ha haaaa.
Oh, they had a placard right above the classroom door that said "fake class for athletes only" that they took down just before Wainstein got there. Scraped the glue off the door frame header and everything. There was no sign that it ever existed. Fooled the shit out of everyone.
You all only see what you want to see. We’ve more than proven our side of this argument.
I show facts from the actual NCAA report that you’re wrong & you still spin yourself around it.
I show facts from the actual NCAA report that you’re wrong & you still spin yourself around it.
It was very clearly explained to you that what you quoted did not mean what you think it means.
That quote just means they cant prove the classes were created for athletes. It absolutely does not say the classes were not created for athletes.
It clearly states that NCAA couldn’t prove that the AFAM were created for athletes.
What more do you need?
I don't need anything at all. We were just correcting a falsehood you put forward. You said:
That has not been proven.
Umm, so you are saying you read up on it as much as UNC fans? I mean, you are freely admitting to this? I doubt that is the case. I certainly hope not. I think you probably read other's opinions. Judging why how you guys post I assume that is the case.
It has been proven. If the ncaa couldn’t find proof, then what do you need for proof?
LOL, how did you not think that was funny? What about that post made you think it was an angry response. I thought even you would hit the like button on that one.
Why would a college basketball fan not read about college basketball news? Why would a college basketball fan be afraid to freely admit that? I read about all kinds of news that doesn't effect me, both sports and non-sports related. It's called being informed about current events.
Once again, failing to prove something does not mean the opposite has been proven. This is basic highschool logic/philosophy stuff.
You can't prove I'm not a billionaire. So I must be a billionaire by your logic, correct?
You sure as hell haven’t proven the opposite. I gave you a direct quote form the ncaa.
You’ve given your opinion.
When did I claim to have proven the opposite? Don't put words in my mouth.
You gave me a direct quote from the NCAA that you tried to pass off as saying something that it did not say.
Have you been saying that the AFAM classes were created for athletes & that UNC added regular students to create a loophole?
I have absolutely not said the classes were created for athletes. As there is no evidence of that. I think they probably were, but I haven't stated that as a fact a single time. You keep trying to pass your opinion off as fact.
I HAVE said there was a loophole, because THERE WAS A LOOPHOLE.
Similar threads
