The Bobcat Nation

Rumor has it that Wyoming is about to part ways with McClain.....Coach K is on their short list? What will he do?

CatGrad00 wrote:Rumor has it that Wyoming is about to part ways with McClain.....Coach K is on their short list? What will he do?

Wyoming is not a move up!!! Coach K, when he leaves will be heading to the PAC-10

Go Scats Go wrote:

CatGrad00 wrote:Rumor has it that Wyoming is about to part ways with McClain.....Coach K is on their short list? What will he do?

Wyoming is not a move up!!! Coach K, when he leaves will be heading to the PAC-10

Where?

Tony Bennett is taking over at WSU, Jay John seems to have a few more years at OSU...only ASU is available this season. I don't see Krysko moving to ASU.

The wildcard is Oregon and Ernie Kent, but Larry would have to get Phil Knight approval if Ernie is let go after this season. The Moos factor does apply here, however, and the $$$ would be great. I'm guessing around $400k/year with most likely a 5 year deal.

Go Scats Go wrote:

CatGrad00 wrote:Rumor has it that Wyoming is about to part ways with McClain.....Coach K is on their short list? What will he do?

Wyoming is not a move up!!! Coach K, when he leaves will be heading to the PAC-10

Coach K would head to the NBA, which could really sell the Griz program to recruits. I don't see a college offering Coack K enough money to overcome the "french benefits" of being the Griz coach.

An interesting note on salaries between the NBA and college. The Lakers were prepared to offer Duke's Coach K ten million for five years. When Coach K decided not to accept the job, the Lakers offered Jackson ten millon per year to coach the team.

PapaG wrote:

Go Scats Go wrote:

CatGrad00 wrote:Rumor has it that Wyoming is about to part ways with McClain.....Coach K is on their short list? What will he do?

Wyoming is not a move up!!! Coach K, when he leaves will be heading to the PAC-10

Where?

Tony Bennett is taking over at WSU, Jay John seems to have a few more years at OSU...only ASU is available this season. I don't see Krysko moving to ASU.

The wildcard is Oregon and Ernie Kent, but Larry would have to get Phil Knight approval if Ernie is let go after this season. The Moos factor does apply here, however, and the $$$ would be great. I'm guessing around $400k/year with most likely a 5 year deal.

Actually, I heard he was going to replace the drummer in the Rolling Stones, so sit, take that home with you, and chew on that tasty treat for a bit.

Shakermaker wrote:
Actually, I heard he was going to replace the drummer in the Rolling Stones, so sit, take that home with you, and chew on that tasty treat for a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Exactly why would I chew on your info?

Weird.

PapaG wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:
Actually, I heard he was going to replace the drummer in the Rolling Stones, so sit, take that home with you, and chew on that tasty treat for a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Exactly why would I chew on your info?

Weird.

My God, you are a smart one then... zip for a clue huh?

Why would Coach K be interested in jumping ship after two seasons at his alma mater? His winning percentage is around .630 and his team has gone to the big dance both years. He's the leading scorer and rebounder in Grizzly history and won the conference MVP three times. Not to mention that he is a Missoula kid. Coach K is home and it's gonna be tough for Cat fans to watch him keep winning with the Griz.

jdubya wrote:Why would Coach K be interested in jumping ship after two seasons at his alma mater? His winning percentage is around .630 and his team has gone to the big dance both years. He's the leading scorer and rebounder in Grizzly history and won the conference MVP three times. Not to mention that he is a Missoula kid. Coach K is home and it's gonna be tough for Cat fans to watch him keep winning with the Griz.

Like anyone ... he might want more money and more prestige, and a bigger program or an NBA job would provide that. If these are things that appeal to him, he will likely move on in the next couple years.

If he truly just wants to live and work in Missoula, then he will likely have a job there for as long as he wants it.

Shakermaker wrote:

PapaG wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:
Actually, I heard he was going to replace the drummer in the Rolling Stones, so sit, take that home with you, and chew on that tasty treat for a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Exactly why would I chew on your info?

Weird.

My God, you are a smart one then... zip for a clue huh?

Clueless.

I'm an MSU grad and a lifelong Bobcat fan. What I am missing in this exchange is your point.

Care to share? Feel free to PM me your answer. And why the slam on me being a "smart one"?

Charlie Watts is the Stones' drummer. He is a cancer victim.

I am missing the point bigtime on this hilarity.

PapaG wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:

PapaG wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:
Actually, I heard he was going to replace the drummer in the Rolling Stones, so sit, take that home with you, and chew on that tasty treat for a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Exactly why would I chew on your info?

Weird.

My God, you are a smart one then... zip for a clue huh?

Clueless.

I'm an MSU grad and a lifelong Bobcat fan. What I am missing in this exchange is your point.

Care to share? Feel free to PM me your answer. And why the slam on me being a "smart one"?

Charlie Watts is the Stones' drummer. He is a cancer victim.

I am missing the point bigtime on this hilarity.

Cancer victim??? Victim usually means one is dead. I'd like to think of him as a surviver since he was beating away on the pegan skins last month... on national television.

I'll let you in on the big joke. This whole topic of Larry jumping ship is nothing but obvious drivel. Of course he'll move on to bigger and better things. I just love how everyone "heard, knows, or has it from a good source" (and on egriz as well, not just here) of Larry's future plans.

I simply tossed in the drummer joke because it was about as accurate as all the wanton/wishfull speculation (at least from a bobcat's perspective... dreamers all of you ). Why I picked the Stones I don't know. I just did. Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

Shakermaker wrote:Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

Hunting accident, I assume?

Shakermaker wrote:
Cancer victim??? Victim usually means one is dead. I'd like to think of him as a surviver since he was beating away on the pegan skins last month... on national television.

I'll let you in on the big joke. This whole topic of Larry jumping ship is nothing but obvious drivel. Of course he'll move on to bigger and better things. I just love how everyone "heard, knows, or has it from a good source" (and on egriz as well, not just here) of Larry's future plans.

I simply tossed in the drummer joke because it was about as accurate as all the wanton/wishfull speculation (at least from a bobcat's perspective... dreamers all of you ). Why I picked the Stones I don't know. I just did. Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

So a rape victim is always dead? And a molestation victim always dies as well? A mugging victim always end up six feet under?

Interesting.

Also, I posted that there are no Pac 10 openings for Krysko and that he may well like staying in Missoula.

Nice flail on the "smart one" quote. A victim doesn't always die.

LOL

Grizlaw wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

Hunting accident, I assume?

Somebody better alert NPR that Whittington isn't a gunshot "victim" because he didn't die.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5206881

Oh, and hundreds of other news organizations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... hittington+

Victims always die. LOL at the UM guys. Time for the next failed ad hominem attack?

PapaG wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

Hunting accident, I assume?

Somebody better alert NPR that Whittington isn't a gunshot "victim" because he didn't die.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5206881

Oh, and hundreds of other news organizations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... hittington+

Victims always die. LOL at the UM guys. Time for the next failed ad hominem attack?

Has this topic gotten off track or What

mslacat wrote:

PapaG wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:

Shakermaker wrote:Would you have been more comfortable with a comment refering to Krysko replacing the guitarist in Pantera... I hear they're in need of one since their guitarist was the "victim" of a gunshot wound.

Hunting accident, I assume?

Somebody better alert NPR that Whittington isn't a gunshot "victim" because he didn't die.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5206881

Oh, and hundreds of other news organizations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... hittington+

Victims always die. LOL at the UM guys. Time for the next failed ad hominem attack?

Has this topic gotten off track or What

The awkward Rolling Stones reference, coupled with a personal attack on me, sent this thread over a cliff.

PapaG wrote:Somebody better alert NPR that Whittington isn't a gunshot "victim" because he didn't die.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5206881

Oh, and hundreds of other news organizations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... hittington+

Victims always die. LOL at the UM guys. Time for the next failed ad hominem attack?

A few observations:

1. The term "cancer survivor" is a commonly-used term to describe those who have survived cancer. The term "cancer victim" is commonly used to describe someone who has died of cancer, or who presently has it. Your attempt to make Shaker look stupid by comparing cancer survivors with gunshot victims, rape victims, and other types of victims was a (somewhat) clever and amusing play on the word "victim," but at the end of the day, Shaker's point about your use of the word was a valid one.

2. The fact that you didn't get Shaker's original joke is forgivable, but a more honorable way to handle the situation might be to simply acknowledge that you missed his point and let it go at that. Lashing out and trying to "one-up" him for making another valid point (which you also missed, apparently) only makes you look bitter.

3. As mslacat said, we are getting pretty far off-track here, so I'll stop.

Cheers,

--GL

Done

Grizlaw wrote:

PapaG wrote:Somebody better alert NPR that Whittington isn't a gunshot "victim" because he didn't die.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5206881

Oh, and hundreds of other news organizations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... hittington+

Victims always die. LOL at the UM guys. Time for the next failed ad hominem attack?

A few observations:

1. The term "cancer survivor" is a commonly-used term to describe those who have survived cancer. The term "cancer victim" is commonly used to describe someone who has died of cancer, or who presently has it. Your attempt to make Shaker look stupid by comparing cancer survivors with gunshot victims, rape victims, and other types of victims was a (somewhat) clever and amusing play on the word "victim," but at the end of the day, Shaker's point about your use of the word was a valid one.

2. The fact that you didn't get Shaker's original joke is forgivable, but a more honorable way to handle the situation might be to simply acknowledge that you missed his point and let it go at that. Lashing out and trying to "one-up" him for making another valid point (which you also missed, apparently) only makes you look bitter.

3. As mslacat said, we are getting pretty far off-track here, so I'll stop.

Cheers,

--GL

You talk of "one-upping" people. Your chiming in on this thread demonstrates, once again, that you're doing the same.

As for the term victim or survivor regarding cancer, that's a very broad statement. Everyone with cancer is a victim. A victim can become a survivor if they "beat" cancer. However, those who have their remissions reverse can once again become a victim.

Cancer often comes back so the term victim versus survivor is very vague with such a horrible disease.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:You talk of "one-upping" people. Your chiming in on this thread demonstrates, once again, that you're doing the same.

As for the term victim or survivor regarding cancer, that's a very broad statement. Everyone with cancer is a victim. A victim can become a survivor if they "beat" cancer. However, those who have their remissions reverse can once again become a victim.

Cancer often comes back so the term victim versus survivor is very vague with such a horrible disease.

This will be my last post, so this thread can die its rightful death.

I wasn't actually trying to "one-up" papa with my post; I was only trying to illustrate the point that shaker had made (and which papa was mocking him for in his post). I realize the terms "cancer victim" and "cancer survivor" are vague, but people who are close to others who have suffered from the disease tend to be sensitive about the distinction. Seeing the distinction get jokingly compared with the terms "gunshot victim" and "rape victim" struck a nerve with me. That's all...