tampa_griz wrote:crazycat wrote:Oh you didn't imply a thing there. Well, I'm just wondering what you're going to do for a face

when that baboon wants his ass back?
I didn't imply anything. I let your own words hang you. And....just as expected....you inserted a brand-new parameter for the "dirty program/recruit" argument....."he was only a sophomore when he put his fingers in a man's anus!"
That's what you wrote. No implication needed.
OK, I'll go along with your not implying anything.
As for hanging myself I don't think so. As I wrote in the other thread, here's why:
That's true when it's men and in the scenario you suspiciously described so well (you've been there?), but in this particular case the case was dismissed, which I can only take to mean that no crime was committed.
Like I said comparing a high school sophomore grabbing someone's jewels in a dog pile to a guy getting his girlfriend drunk and having his buddy...well, we all know Russum's story...are drastically different. When juveniles pull these kinds of pranks it isn't something that we need to tie up the courts over. However Russum's act being that it was premeditated and that he also conspired with a college roommate takes on a whole different flavor compared the spontaneous act that occured with this high school sophomore.
However had this kid had a history of doing this kind of thing and continued the act after being reprimanded, that's different, too. I just don't think high school sophomores who ill-advisedly and inappropriately grab each others Jimmies in a dog pile are criminals. I'm sure this kid has more than paid the price via public embarrassment and whatever reprimands the school doled out. Russum on the other hand is still getting a full ride scholarship to another school.
This other kid should, and probably will, get a scholarship somewhere. My contention is that he should still be able to come here and I see the poll agrees with me. I don't think our past problems should limit our ability to take THIS particular kid. We should, however, continue to scrutinize who we take lest we end up taking players with track records like Russum, Quinn, Coleman et al.
You're trying to bring something into this conversation that isn't relevant. By doing that you're just trying to sidestep you own comments about Russum be a good guy. What this kid didn't doesn't make him a good kid, but this act pales in comparison. It sounds like Russum is coming around to becoming a solid member of the Missoula community, but that isn't the point. The point is that Hauck brought him in, along with other players that exhibited poor character at a time in their lives when they should've known better. Trying to compare this kid to those men isn't fair and shows that you'll go to no end to defend Hauck's actions. Basically you're using a kid to justify the faults of grown men. That's pretty bad.