For what its worth.. redux

[luckyjacket]

Not really. All this heap of love given to Chan now regarding..... 10 SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYERS GONE FROM THE ROSTER. I have still have not heard how many scholly players P.Hewitt lost from his unit, not to mention D. Hall's squad or anyone else. Did our entrusted AD limit those other coaches from "interfering" with the academic rigors of their SA's?

I know that crap is crap regardless of how much perfume you spray.

The reality is we have a hard row to hoe regardless of the spin that Carnac (Ahohisee) may spin on this.

Unlike Carnac, I am a true TECH man, and I do know that we will eventually be back on top, but it will take its due time.

To insult Tech fans that see the short term grim reality in front of us (less than 6 wins a year) by word doctoring is a true indication of your overall desire to debate a topic as your true pastime.

With regard to Gailey, if he completely, publicly, abandones Braine he has a chance, if he shows signs of winning this year. If not, I am out on him.

 

[ahsoisee]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY luckyjacket:

Not really. All this heap of love given to Chan now regarding..... 10 SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYERS GONE FROM THE ROSTER. I have still have not heard how many scholly players P.Hewitt lost from his unit, not to mention D. Hall's squad or anyone else. Did our entrusted AD limit those other coaches from "interfering" with the academic rigors of their SA's?

I know that crap is crap regardless of how much perfume you spray.

The reality is we have a hard row to hoe regardless of the spin that Carnac (Ahohisee) may spin on this.

Unlike Carnac, I am a true TECH man, and I do know that we will eventually be back on top, but it will take its due time.

To insult Tech fans that see the short term grim reality in front of us (less than 6 wins a year) by word doctoring is a true indication of your overall desire to debate a topic as your true pastime.

With regard to Gailey, if he completely, publicly, abandones Braine he has a chance, if he shows signs of winning this year. If not, I am out on him.

MY ANSWER TO luckyjacket

Well, well, we have another poster, luckyjacket, that is throwing false information around.

First, you have never seen me heap any love on Chan Gailey. I have never stated I was supporting Chan Gailey.

I have stated that I support Tech and Tech's coaches, regardless of who they are. I think Chan Gailey or any other coach at Tech should have the same chance to succeed as O'Leary had to succeed.

Is there anything wrong with that, or am I missing something?

Ten football players are gone from the roster. Can you prove it was Gailey's fault? No, you can't. You can only blow smoke. Could it have been that O'Leary had some folks in here that could not pass?

Didn't Braine state it was his fault because he had taken Gailey and the other coaches out of the loop? Didn't Carole Moore state the problem was with the athletes themselves?

So, blow your smoke, and throw your false accusations around, because you have no facts. I must have stepped on your toes when I proved conclusively with facts that O'Leary did not stack up well with Gailey in their begining year/years at Tech.

I must have stepped on your toes when I stated that Gailey's coaching credentials are far superior to O'Leary's when both began their coaching career here.

Do you know the SATS and academic background of the basketball players, baseball players, and football players? Do you have any idea if maybe the players from the other sports have better academic backgrounds than the football players?

Do you think, possibly, the system hit the football team the hardest because of the past problems with O'Leary, Braine, Clough, and the professors? No, you don't know any of this, yet you want to make statements that have no fact because it sounds good to you.

Now, my defense of any coach at Tech and his right to have the same fair advantage as O'Leary is a much more moral attribute than your attempt to crucify him and lynch him.

If you prefer, we can leave the names off and refer to them as Present X Coach and Past X Coach. Should I be wrong because I am fair, or should you be right because you are unfair?

Now you want to talk about spraying perfume. Look at all the posts, and you will see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the lynching mob is throwing perfume on the smelly numbers (facts) of Past X Coach in comparison with better numbers (facts) of Present X Coach.

So, it you know crap is crap, then you know the newer coach's record is superior than the past coach at the same time period of their beginning at GT.

Now, I would be willing to bet you money I am a much truer Tech fan than yourself. I have been a Tech fan since the mid 40s. It would be extremely difficult to find any person that knows me, that would not know I am a Tech fan. I could produce so many people that you would not have time to meet them all.

So, I say I have followed Tech through more good and bad times than yourself and I am still an avid Tech fan. You are blowing smoke and have nothing to back you up in your boast.

You cannot prove we will win no more than six games. You do not know that we won't win 13 games and the national title. You really don't have one iota of facts on your side. You are blowing smoke again with no facts.

You are insulting many fans on the board when you tell them we will win no more than six games when some of them may think we will win more. You are insulting many on the board when you tell them the new coach can not get the job done.

So you say a fan is insulting you if he says Tech will win 13 games this year, but you are not insulting him if you say Tech will win less than six? Interesting!

If a fan says the new coach will get the job done, he is insulting you, but you are not insulting him if you say he cannot get the job done. Interesting!

You are just blowing smoke about something you cannot prove.

It appears your little old feelings are hurt because someone disagreed with your opinion.

You show your true colors in your last statement.

 

[luckyjacket]

My feelings aren't hurt. Your assessment of my true colors seems to suggest I have some type of hidden agenda. Ridiculous, I said what I said, and what I said is my opinion, and THAT is a FACT. Do you want to refute that, Ahsoisee.

Are you saying that the odds of winning 13 games next year is the same as 6, or any other number less than 13? Do you write these things because you believe them, or do you do it just to get a rise out people like me? Of course I can't prove that we won't win em all next year, nobody can, but thats not the point.

On to your conclusive proof that Gailey's start is superior to that of OL's. What an absurd assumption, not to mention "proof"
In all of your years of fact finding, have you ever asked the question "why"? Or is every possible occurence in the universe nothing more than a ping pong ball floating among billions of other ping pong balls in some type of super sized lottery hopper?
Using your same logic, Bill Lewis will be seen as superior to Bobby Ross.

I could go on and on, but I won't because it has been kicked to death.

C'mon man, every once in a while look under the sheets. You will see a whole new world!!

Now its off to the Duke football board to see how their faithful are preparing for their undefeated championship season.

Go Jackets.

 

[oldfoggy]

LuckyJ, Ahso is correct in his assesments(sp) to you! It would appear to me that you are the one who "is crying in the wilderness". His assesment(sp) of CCG (coach present) to Coach O'Liar (past coach coach X should be past coach Y) is also correct in CCG's record is superior to past coach O'Liar's first year. O'Liar however was handicapped due to the abomination(sp) B--- L----. O'Liar left the cupboard bare so CCG was handicapped by O"Liar (where is the $$$ O'Liar) in a similar fashion to the B--- L---- era. So get off your hi horse and face reality! It's ok to attack me as I'm a Techman and also from the mid 40's and I know a rotten fish by it's smell.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY luckyjacket:

Not really. All this heap of love given to Chan now regarding..... 10 SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYERS GONE FROM THE ROSTER. I have still have not heard how many scholly players P.Hewitt lost from his unit, not to mention D. Hall's squad or anyone else. Did our entrusted AD limit those other coaches from "interfering" with the academic rigors of their SA's?

I know that crap is crap regardless of how much perfume you spray.

The reality is we have a hard row to hoe regardless of the spin that Carnac (Ahohisee) may spin on this.

Unlike Carnac, I am a true TECH man, and I do know that we will eventually be back on top, but it will take its due time.

To insult Tech fans that see the short term grim reality in front of us (less than 6 wins a year) by word doctoring is a true indication of your overall desire to debate a topic as your true pastime.

With regard to Gailey, if he completely, publicly, abandones Braine he has a chance, if he shows signs of winning this year. If not, I am out on him.

MY ANSWER TO luckyjacket

Well, well, we have another poster, luckyjacket, that is throwing false information around.

First, you have never seen me heap any love on Chan Gailey. I have never stated I was supporting Chan Gailey.

I have stated that I support Tech and Tech's coaches, regardless of who they are. I think Chan Gailey or any other coach at Tech should have the same chance to succeed as O'Leary had to succeed.

Is there anything wrong with that, or am I missing something?

Ten football players are gone from the roster. Can you prove it was Gailey's fault? No, you can't. You can only blow smoke. Could it have been that O'Leary had some folks in here that could not pass?

Didn't Braine state it was his fault because he had taken Gailey and the other coaches out of the loop? Didn't Carole Moore state the problem was with the athletes themselves?

So, blow your smoke, and throw your false accusations around, because you have no facts. I must have stepped on your toes when I proved conclusively with facts that O'Leary did not stack up well with Gailey in their begining year/years at Tech.

I must have stepped on your toes when I stated that Gailey's coaching credentials are far superior to O'Leary's when both began their coaching career here.

Do you know the SATS and academic background of the basketball players, baseball players, and football players? Do you have any idea if maybe the players from the other sports have better academic backgrounds than the football players?

Do you think, possibly, the system hit the football team the hardest because of the past problems with O'Leary, Braine, Clough, and the professors? No, you don't know any of this, yet you want to make statements that have no fact because it sounds good to you.

Now, my defense of any coach at Tech and his right to have the same fair advantage as O'Leary is a much more moral attribute than your attempt to crucify him and lynch him.

If you prefer, we can leave the names off and refer to them as Present X Coach and Past X Coach. Should I be wrong because I am fair, or should you be right because you are unfair?

Now you want to talk about spraying perfume. Look at all the posts, and you will see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the lynching mob is throwing perfume on the smelly numbers (facts) of Past X Coach in comparison with better numbers (facts) of Present X Coach.

So, it you know crap is crap, then you know the newer coach's record is superior than the past coach at the same time period of their beginning at GT.

Now, I would be willing to bet you money I am a much truer Tech fan than yourself. I have been a Tech fan since the mid 40s. It would be extremely difficult to find any person that knows me, that would not know I am a Tech fan. I could produce so many people that you would not have time to meet them all.

So, I say I have followed Tech through more good and bad times than yourself and I am still an avid Tech fan. You are blowing smoke and have nothing to back you up in your boast.

You cannot prove we will win no more than six games. You do not know that we won't win 13 games and the national title. You really don't have one iota of facts on your side. You are blowing smoke again with no facts.

You are insulting many fans on the board when you tell them we will win no more than six games when some of them may think we will win more. You are insulting many on the board when you tell them the new coach can not get the job done.

So you say a fan is insulting you if he says Tech will win 13 games this year, but you are not insulting him if you say Tech will win less than six? Interesting!

If a fan says the new coach will get the job done, he is insulting you, but you are not insulting him if you say he cannot get the job done. Interesting!

You are just blowing smoke about something you cannot prove.

It appears your little old feelings are hurt because someone disagreed with your opinion.

You show your true colors in your last statement.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso - your SPIN ON CHAN AND HIS RESUME DOES THAT! His resume keeps being brought up because he hasn't done it on the field yet - resumes are paper, tear them up and spit them out ALL THE TIME! If his resume made us win games, why did we hire him - could have copied his resume and given to the players and said..."okay, now go out there and win!"

At least I don't have to "spin" GOL's success here - it's written in the record books, with Friedgen and all! I love reading the positive record books - makes me smile all the time. Reading Chan's resume does nothing!

 

[ahsoisee]

Luckyjacket, it appears your feelings "are" hurt. You made the statements about fans (are you a fan) being insulted because others don't believe in your short term grim reality.

The fact is there is no short term grim "reality". Reality is fact, and you have no facts that Tech will win less than six games a year, thus an assumption and not reality.

Yes, I will refute it. You did not say it was your opinion, you stated it was a reality. Reality and opinion are not the same.

You are spinning again. No one has argued the odds of 13-0 against 6-7 or any other number. Where do you get this odds stuff. I am sure I did not state any odds.

You brought up the statement about being insulted because other fans questioned your assumptions that Tech would win only six games, not me. If you are insulted about someone stating you cannot prove Tech will win just six games, then you are also insulting those who might think Tech can win more than six games.

You are the originator of the insulting remarks. You said you can't prove we can't win them all, but you did say that. You said the grim "reality" is we will win no more than six, your words.

It is positive and indisputable proof that Gailey's record of 7-6 with a bowl game is better than O'Leary's record when he began. O'Leary's first 15 games was 6-8, his next year was 5-6, he lost three straight games to UGA with no victories, his first 2 1/3 years was 11-14 and no bowl games.

It is fact, Gailey's record is superior to the beginning of GOL's. It cannot be spun any other way. It is a fact Gailey's coaching credentials were "far" superior to O'Leary's when both were hired. A fact that cannot be denied.

I give you facts, and you try to say it is an assumption. The facts have been presented. You are offering assumptions based on no facts.

You offer ping pong balls and other innuendo, but no facts. I have provided facts, not some theory you want to dream up with ping pong balls.

 

[ahsoisee]

MsTA, you have just originated another completely rediculous post.

I did not spin Gailey's resume. I copied and pasted it from the Ramblin Wreck board just as it was presented in his bio. No spin. Read it and weep.

You made a completely inane and stupid statement about O'Leary's accomplishments being written in the record books. What in the world do you think the posted bio of Gailey happens to be? It is none other than his accomplishments in the record books.

If reading Gailey's record means nothing, then reading O'Leary's record means nothing. You can't spin it one way for Gailey and another for O'Leary. Well, I guess you can, because you do it all the time.

"A word to the wise is sufficient". When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
MsTA, you have just originated another completely rediculous post.

I did not spin Gailey's resume. I copied and pasted it from the Ramblin Wreck board just as it was presented in his bio. No spin. Read it and weep.

You made a completely inane and stupid statement about O'Leary's accomplishments being written in the record books. What in the world do you think the posted bio of Gailey happens to be? It is none other than his accomplishments in the record books.

If reading Gailey's record means nothing, then reading O'Leary's record means nothing. You can't spin it one way for Gailey and another for O'Leary. Well, I guess you can, because you do it all the time.

"A word to the wise is sufficient". When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">The "spin" is the Resume makes you a great coach -that's the spin - it does not! It makes you a viable candidate for hire - after hire is what counts! HC wise - nothing happened for him! One HC position at Troy state in the 80's - different div, requirements, competition, school academics - easy!

O'Leary's record means NOTHING!! Oh my, you went way out on a limb on this one - don't mention that to the fans that attended those games in which we won and the seats were full - bowl games and money, money and more money; recognition, recognition and more recognition. The only recognition happening now is negative recognition!

And WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T MENTION THAT TO THE BIG $$$$ CONTRIBUTORS, they'll all laugh at you! They are the one who will decide this thing and they were ranting and raving before academics reared its ugly head last month!

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

The HOLE GT is in was not put there by me or anyone on this board - I wonder where that hole comes from?

Let's go ahead and spin again!

 

[luckyjacket]

Ms. Tech, you need to pull out of this insane exchange, and I emphasize insane.

This guy, Ah So I See, either has the reading comprehension skills of well,...my dog, or he deliberately spins things so far off topic in order to create this type of nonsensical debate so that the hours of his days are filled. Somehow, I BELIEVE, am of the OPINION, SURMISE, MY GUT FEELING is that the latter is TRUE.

If more DATA, collected in a CONTROLLED environment was available, someone could possibly PROVE my last statement as FACT. Without the irrefutable proof however, I have still decided to shoot from the hip, and accept it as my strong belief. It feels good to be able to see things and form my own ideas. You know, they say that the human brain is capable of this miracle!!

The point is, its useless to try to communicate with this type of fellow, which I have regrettably discovered.

MS T, I apologize for learning this the hard way and getting you involved.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by luckyjacket:
Ms. Tech, you need to pull out of this insane exchange, and I emphasize insane.

This guy, Ah So I See, either has the reading comprehension skills of well,...my dog, or he deliberately spins things so far off topic in order to create this type of nonsensical debate so that the hours of his days are filled. Somehow, I BELIEVE, am of the OPINION, SURMISE, MY GUT FEELING is that the latter is TRUE.

I agree - have decided that it's absolutely hopeless!

If more DATA, collected in a CONTROLLED environment was available, someone could possibly PROVE my last statement as FACT. Without the irrefutable proof however, I have still decided to shoot from the hip, and accept it as my strong belief. It feels good to be able to see things and form my own ideas. You know, they say that the human brain is capable of this miracle!!

The point is, its useless to try to communicate with this type of fellow, which I have regrettably discovered.

MS T, I apologize for learning this the hard way and getting you involved.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">No apology needed - my rebuttals to his postings were just that! I agree about any further discussion because I know he knows where I stand.

 

[ylojk8]

Originally posted by luckyjacket:
Not really. All this heap of love given to Chan now regarding..... 10 SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYERS GONE FROM THE ROSTER. I have still have not heard how many scholly players P.Hewitt lost from his unit, not to mention D. Hall's squad or anyone else. Did our entrusted AD limit those other coaches from "interfering" with the academic rigors of their SA's?

I know that crap is crap regardless of how much perfume you spray.

The reality is we have a hard row to hoe regardless of the spin that Carnac (Ahohisee) may spin on this.

Unlike Carnac, I am a true TECH man, and I do know that we will eventually be back on top, but it will take its due time.

To insult Tech fans that see the short term grim reality in front of us (less than 6 wins a year) by word doctoring is a true indication of your overall desire to debate a topic as your true pastime.

With regard to Gailey, if he completely, publicly, abandones Braine he has a chance, if he shows signs of winning this year. If not, I am out on him.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">"to insult tech fans that see the short term grim reality in front of us (less than 6 wins a year)"...

sorry luckyjacket .. but reality doesn't take place until it has happened.

the above is crap and this is the kind of crap being doled out by the lynch mob. your "grim reality" is just an opinion about the future .. the future is not realized until it becomes the present.

the only reality that you have stated in your bashing post is that we have a hard row to hoe. ahsoisee is not putting any spin on that. he has repeatedly been saying that time will tell how gailey's tenure will be at Tech. unfortunately, people like you and the stingtalk lynch mob have already assumed the future as a "grim reality".

nobody is giving Chan Gailey a heap of love. all he is getting is a lynching.

you're a true TECH man you say? really? well then .. a true TECH man should know that never in the history of tech football has there ever been a smooth transition when it comes to a coaching change.

georgia tech cannot be impatient with its coaching hires. we cannot afford to become a coaching carousel.

nevertheless, it doesn't matter what folk here think about gailey right now. gailey will get his chance to show what he's all about the coming football season. time will settle that.

i desperately want him to succeed. because if he succeeds, tech succeeds. get that MR. TECH MAN!

if he fails, tech fails .. tech failed miserably along with gailey in the last 2 games of the season.

what logic are you using when you say that according to ahsoisee's logic, bill lewis has a better record than bobby ross?

is that just the first year you are considering? consider all the data that you have.

the problem is that with gailey, you have all but one year to consider. when o'leary took over, he had problems to overcome. and he did .. but it took him time. give gailey some time and maybe he'll overcome it. maybe not.

what is the guarantee that if we get rid of gailey that the replacement will overcome the problems that tech faces today? there is none.

 

[ahsoisee]

MsTA, I have nothing to do with painting your image. Your image on this board is completely dependent on the way you express yourself and the content of your expressions to this board.

I have nothing to do with your image.

 

[ahsoisee]

Luckyjacket, the only insane aspect of these discussions is your statements without facts, while I try to back my statements up with facts.

You stated if you could gather the information, you could prove your statements. That is always true of every situation. Any person can prove his statements if he has the facts. Go get the facts first and then prove your statements.

Your accusations and innuendos are not fact without proof. Your opinion is equal to every one else's opinion. However, your opinion is not equal to facts.

You have just tossed out another false supposition. Your gut feeling that I rebutt you has nothing to do with my filling up the hours of the day. It has everything to do with rebutting accusations and innuendos with facts and sanity in some posts on the board.

I am copying and pasteing one of your completely inane statements, [If more DATA, collected in a CONTROLLED environment was available, someone could possibly PROVE my last statement as FACT. Without the irrefutable proof however, I have still decided to shoot from the hip, and accept it as my strong belief.]

You are saying, without proof I have still decided to shoot from the hip.

Man is that ever an irresponsible statement.

Yes, it does appear you cannot communicate with me. You don't want to accept facts. All you want to do is assert your opinions as fact.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
MsTA, I have nothing to do with painting your image. Your image on this board is completely dependent on the way you express yourself and the content of your expressions to this board.

I have nothing to do with your image.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">

 

[luckyjacket]

Mr.YLOFG8 and AH SO I SEE (Sorry, thats the only way I can write it without dicing it up) YLO, if I missed yours, I apologize.

This whole thing is ridiculous. I am not a big fan of communicating via email, much less a chatgroup addict, simply because of this.

The sole point of my original remark was to share my feeling that AH has a remarkable talent of frustrating some people by telling them what they see is not factual.
Stingtalk's father of the scientific method is remarkable in his ability to sort out the relevant issues we all should be concerned with.

As for you FG8, my remarks did not concern you, but thanks for highlighting the FACT (thats for AH) that I am a TECH man. Your insult means nothing to someone that values TECH over an internet identity.

If I started it, Sorry. iF you did, how dare you.

 

[goldeagle]

Lady and Gentlemen, let's ALL back off, cool down and remember that alum or not we are all GT fans, even if we express the depth of our love for the school in many varied and different ways and over greatly differing periods of time!

The degrees of venom and personal vituperation that are beginning to show are not worthy of the high ideals that we say we expect from GT fans, alums, and boosters and which we say set us apart from other schools' fans.

Frankly, judging from the quantity, length, and time of many of your posts I have concerns about other important areas of your lives being seriously neglected! If we indeed think so highly of Dr. Rice's 'Total Person' philosophy then we need to practice it more, even on this board.

I've never had the pleasure of meeting any of you in person, yet, but you are my family members in a very unique circle in our love for GT: however I am growing weary of the high volume of harping and carping that is going on tonight. Let's move on!

 

[ahsoisee]

The hole I am referring to is obviously the one you keep digging regarding your own image.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
The hole I am referring to is obviously the one you keep digging regarding your own image.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I didn't come here for an image - I can here because of my support for this school - to say nothing in a negative situation is to not be passionate - I have my way, you have yours!

My family/friends know my image - you don't! Let's get real here and talk sports not personal crap!!! You are going a little bit beyond in your personal statements!

 

[ahsoisee]

Luckyjacket, you are still spinning untruths. I never said you was not a Tech fan. You stated I was not a true Tech fan. I told you I had been a Tech fan much longer, and probably longer than you have been alive.

You are still spinning the insult remark. You are the one who has thrown the insults by denigrating anyone who does not go along with your prediction that Tech will not win more than six games. You are the author of the insult.

Now how in the world have you come up with someone valueing an internet identity more than being a Tech fan. You have not seen that anywhere on this board. You have an internet identity, and I have an internet identity, what is the difference here.

I have been a Tech fan for 56 years. I have been on the internet for about ten years. I have been a Tech fan much longer than a poster on internet boards. As stated, I have been a Tech fan longer than you.

Did you start the argument? You better believe you did. I have only responded to your innuendos and false statements.

How can you not see that you have just dreamed up some more false information with your internet identity versus being a Tech fan statement? What a foolish remark! What does it even have to do with anything?