#
Printable View
#
All I know is it sure is cooperative of them in a most exemplary way to request/demand all these delays.
#
I have not heard. But the Bearsharks are spinning last week's NCAA visit as "Bdork invited the NCAA here to show our transparency"
..."Bdork invited the NCAA here to show our transparency"
Bdork..."I have no idea what you are talking about when you say burner phones, our assistants paying players, us paying players not to visit other schools. You can come and look all you want and I don't believe you will find any truth to that".
Obviously they requested the delay because they have nothing to hide.****
#
saying something. That's akin to asking OSHA to show up at construction site or manufacturing facility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
The whore/gambling house invited the sheriff's office in to make sure the girls were disease free and the dice weren't loaded.**
If they delay the COI meeting, I would think that would be a very good sign for UM. At the very least, I think it would mean they are coming in with a somewhat open mind, as if they think UM is guilty, they are not going to want them to have another season to capitalize. Best case scenario for non-UM people I think would be for the COI to go ahead and announce a bowl ban and a small to medium scholarship reduction, to make sure they don't capitalize any more than they already have, vacate the wins they know should be vacated, and say they are going to reserve the rest of the punishment until they finish the investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by spbdawg
At what point do they stop spinning and just shut up? Damn, they have a lot more energy than I do.
So bdork doing stand up comedy now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
#
I believe they requested a furlough in the response to the delay.
The latest letter from their fearless leader who refuses to fire anyone at this time. Flagship, flagship, flagship and more flagship. BullSHIT !!!
From Vitter.
As we complete a productive academic year and immerse ourselves in an energetic summer session, we continue to work on important goals related to history, context, and identity.
The University of Mississippi, along with many universities across the country, continues on a journey to acknowledge and address the challenging and complex history around the issues of slavery, injustice, and race. Here on the main campus, we are involved in a profoundly important dialogue to fully understand and articulate our historical truths, while claiming our hard-earned present identity as a national flagship university.
The university has long been committed to honest and open dialogue about its history and how to make our campuses more welcoming and inclusive. In 2014, under the leadership of then-chancellor Dan Jones, guided by recommendations from the 2013 expanded Sensitivity and Respect Committee, the university took another step in that direction. The result is generally referred to as the 2014 action plan.
I realized shortly after becoming chancellor that many people do not realize the tremendous amount of work already done toward these goals, while others see these efforts as potentially threatening to cherished aspects of the university. As a general principle, I think it is important to communicate and keep people engaged and informed, so that we can work most effectively together.
To that end, we have enhanced the website, diversity.OleMiss.edu, which, among other things, gives an ongoing and comprehensive update on the 2014 action plan. We list each of the plan’s six recommendations, along with what has been accomplished and planned. For example, the search we launched this spring for vice chancellor for diversity and community engagement is a key part of Recommendation 1, and the new vice chancellor will help advance Recommendation 2 on developing a portfolio model of diversity and engagement. You can also read about the progress and ongoing work on Recommendations 3 and 4 in dealing with race and advocating the ideals of inclusion and fairness.
I’d particularly like to highlight Recommendation 5, which is about history and context. Beginning last summer, a committee of four experts began working to contextualize the Confederate statue in the Lyceum Circle. The resulting language was inscribed on a plaque installed near the statue in mid-March. I wrote you on March 29 about the committee’s desire to consider further input and reexamine whether the plaque’s language should be changed and, if so, how. After considerable input and study, the committee made its final recommendation, which I have approved, and in the coming months a new plaque will replace the current one and read as follows:
As Confederate veterans were dying in increasing numbers, memorial associations across the South built monuments in their memory. These monuments were often used to promote an ideology known as the “Lost Cause,” which claimed that the Confederacy had been established to defend states’ rights and that slavery was not the principal cause of the Civil War. Residents of Oxford and Lafayette County dedicated this statue, approved by the university, in 1906. Although the monument was created to honor the sacrifice of local Confederate soldiers, it must also remind us that the defeat of the Confederacy actually meant freedom for millions of people. On the evening of September 30, 1962, this statue was a rallying point for opponents of integration.
This historic statue is a reminder of the university’s divisive past. Today, the University of Mississippi draws from that past a continuing commitment to open its hallowed halls to all who seek truth, knowledge, and wisdom.
I commend the committee members for their dedication and good work as we turn to the remaining important work to contextualize campus sites and buildings. As mentioned in my March 29 letter, I am establishing a Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on History and Context that will expand the membership from four to roughly a dozen. I invite you to consider the criteria for committee membership and take part in the nomination process; the deadline is June 30.
The committee’s charge will be to recommend which Oxford campus sites should be contextualized, so as to explain the environments in which they were created or named. The committee will also be charged with designing the content and format to contextualize the sites. Three sites already suggested for contextualization are Johnson Commons, Lamar Hall, and Vardaman Hall. The committee will work during the upcoming academic year and employ a variety of methods along the way to ensure transparency and broad community input.
I want to clear up one area of confusion that arose from Recommendation 6, namely, about considering the implications of calling ourselves “Ole Miss.” Many individuals I’ve talked with felt that our efforts to create a welcoming environment at the university would somehow ultimately lead to restricting use of the term Ole Miss Rebels.
I can assure you that we will continue to use the terms Ole Miss and Rebels as endearing nicknames for the university. Data show that the term Ole Miss is broadly viewed as one of connection and affection, with strongly positive national (and international) recognition. It is one of the more known and respected (and frankly, envied) college brands. People searching on the Web for information about our university are seven times more likely to use the term Ole Miss than University of Mississippi, and the term Ole Miss evokes a more positive image than does even University of Mississippi. Similarly, the term Rebels, which originally was a link to the Confederacy, is used today in a completely different and positive way: to indicate someone who bucks the status quo, an entrepreneur, a trendsetter, a leader. Sharon and I are proud to be Ole Miss Rebels. However, as we continue to use the terms Ole Miss and Rebels, we must always use accompanying images and symbols that are consistent with the positive meanings we advocate.
Since becoming chancellor, I have had opportunities to visit with thousands of people who love this institution and invest their time and resources in our mission to transform lives and communities. I am convinced that together — guided by the UM Creed, informed by our expertise, and with respectful candor — we will successfully come to grips with difficult aspects of our university’s history and move boldly as a national leader to craft a vibrant future. Please accept my sincerest thanks for your continued support and involvement as we move our great flagship university forward.
The Titanic was a flagship too. And well, you know...Quote:
Originally Posted by notsofarawaydawg
https://imgflip.com/readImage?iid=62921232
It must hurt all of those Donald Trump conservatives to swallow all of that "political correctness" all at one time.
Is this real life? It took him 2000 words to say we are trying to be more inclusive and less racist, but will cling to the term ole miss. Can't have it both ways chancellor.
Ole Miss
Dixie
Rebel Battle Flag
The South Will Rise Again
all part of the experience at that University. Doesn't that just scream "inclusion"?
"Data show that the term Ole Miss is broadly viewed as one of connection and affection, with strongly positive national (and international) recognition. It is one of the more known and respected (and frankly, envied) college brands."
The delusion runs from the very top down. :rolleyes:
When is the next article on the OM thing going to be released? Anybody have an idea? We heard something about an article supposed to be released like last week or so, and they were holding back because of the Baylor stuff. What's the latest?
Let's remember that Ole Miss filed its NOA response in April, then told the public they had a 30 day extension to wait until late May.
THIS WAS A LIE.
No request for extension was made. No request for extension was granted. Ole Miss had already filed their response while they were telling the public that they were getting a delay.
You can't believe a damn thing Ole Miss says in regards to their investigation. They have REPEATEDLY lied to the public. Denied there was an investigation. Denied there was a NOA. Ignored FOIA requests. Hid the NOA from public view until they finally responded to the NCAA about it. Lied about the seriousness of the NOA. Lied about the number of allegations in the NOA. Lied about there being a 30-day extension to respond to the NOA. Lied, lied, lied.
Ole Miss has told more lies than truths regarding their investigation.
Elitedawgs, national writers, and Steve Robertson have been the ONLY reliable sources in these matters.
#
NCAA website lists the dates they meetQuote:
Originally Posted by spbdawg
Ole Miss has lied about a lot of things, and they may have lied about who asked for the 30-day extension, but I don't think you're correct about there never being one. It seems quite clear there was one granted, and that UNM responded approx 30 days later.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassInterference
We should be careful to not throw out accusations that aren't true, lest they call into question the validity of our claims on the stuff we do know about. Give their fans an inaccurate statement within a slew of facts, and they'll seize on the one error and tell the world they have proof all the stuff we post are lies, then cite the one example.
Where did this come from? And why? #never HillaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Reason2succeed
#
How was one granted? OM responded within the 90 days. Its up to them as when to release their response- its not NCAA mandated. The 30 day extension would have allowed them to file after the 90 day deadline- it had nothing to do with their releaseQuote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully
Perhaps I'm unclear on the facts. Was not their original deadline to respond in April, and did they not announce someone had asked for a 30 day extension, and did they not then issue their response a month later?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Y'all know me, You know I LOVE to antagonize that delusional bunch of morons as much as I honestly can. I just draw the line at willfully posting stuff I know not to be true. I'm not saying that's what others are doing here, but I am asking if there is something I am missing here, because I haven't heard or read anything on this particular topic that suggests they were lying on this point.
Believe me...if there's yet another lie to add to the ever-growing list of lies that abomination of institution has tallied, I'd welcome the ammunition to use against those morons, particularly on Rivals.com.
Educate me.
The 30 day extension is for the OM response. There is no 30 day extension I'm aware of when OM has to publicize their response. Hell, they responded 35 days later. It was just another lie. They didnt delay their response 30 more days- they responded to the NCAA within the 90 day window.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully