Mark Titus Should Probably Pick Different "Filler" Next Time
by Tyler T. on May 25, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintI generally avoid the self-aggrandizing "blogger on blogger" commentary that creates controversy, and thus site hits, out of personal disagreement, but mass uproar over Mark Titus' latest post on his website, Club Trillion, requires a response of some sort. As many are wont to do these days, Titus layed out his thoughts on Jim Tressel and possible violations by Buckeye players purchasing used-cars from two dealerships in Columbus, the now infamous Jack Maxton Chevrolet and Auto Direct stores.
Titus begins honest enough, admitting that he has no cogent argument, just a stream of observations and interpretations derived from those observations. He makes it clear that he has no inside information, no scoop, and that he has little contact with Ohio State football players, having only once shared a group presentation with Ross Homan.
He then gets into the part that has upset many Buckeye fans, where he states his personal belief that something shady was going on with football players and cars due to the "unusually high volume of brand new Dodge Chargers driving around on campus." Backing his point, he says, is the scarcity of basketball players with cars, let alone nice ones.
To begin, I have no issue with Titus questioning the presence of violations based on data he gathered from simple observation. His opinions will have no effect on Ohio State's investigation, and even if they did, that would mean that there were violations to be gathered, a much bigger issue than Titus noticing them. I hope Buckeye fans are not angry at Titus for asking a question that many students at college campuses across the country routinely wonder: How do supposedly poor college athletes afford these cars?
That said, I understand where the anger comes from after reading the post and Titus' response to his critics. In the prelude to his thoughts, Titus is careful to note that he's just throwing out mildly developed ideas, setting up a veritable spitball session for others who have noticed the same things. Even after he notes his suspicions, he provides his own counterargument, pointing out that there are NCAA exemptions that could allow for poorer players to legitimately purchase nice cars.
And then his tone shifts and he starts dropping general statements about unnamed players and their "lavish lifestyles," William Buford's innocence, and his "shock" if the NCAA doesn't discover violations. He goes from proclaiming ignorance to complete certainty in a few paragraphs, oddly distorting his disclaimer in the beginning of the post.
It's this constant whipsaw between hesitant curiosity and absolute certainty that left me confused, especially when you deconstruct his post in light of the facts. He points out the high number of "new Dodge Chargers and Chrysler 300s" on the football team, a valid concern, but one that only leads to more questions. The two dealerships under investigation are used-car stores-- never mind that the primary dealership does not even sell Dodge's or Chrysler's-- which makes one both question the veracity of Titus' observations and wonder about more possible car violations yet to be unearthed.
Titus' error, I think, was in how flippantly he handled this really massive set of allegations he aimed at the Ohio State football program. He didn't say, "I saw some players in a beat-up Chevy driving down High Street one day," but instead indirectly opened a new set of questions about players and their brand new Dodge Charges.
Perhaps he was unaware of the significance of his statements, but he certainly can't be surprised that he's getting backlash from crazy college football fans who would rather die than see the Buckeyes lose a game. He's too smart, too aware for me to buy that defense. Certainly, there could have been something else more "filler-like" he could have used for his self-described filler post.
That isn't to say that Titus should feel obligated to "cover-up" for Ohio State in any way. In fact, I'd encourage Titus to spill the juicy guts of any systemic, wide-ranging case of improper benefits running through the Ohio State Athletic Department as long as he has it. If Ohio State has committed serious NCAA violations and he could prove it, there would be no reason to bury the information, and I'd like to think any media member or blogger would open the blinds on violations of that size, if only to prove to the masses how little we really know about college athletes and institutions.
The venom directed towards Titus is excessive and reveals a rather unflattering segment of the Ohio State fanbase, but it doesn't exclude him from the serious questioning that anyone else making highly controversial conclusions from spurious evidence would face.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agree to a point
One year old rentals look new when cleaned up and blinged out. I wouldn’t use that fact he said “new” as a rebuttal to his piece.
As for “spurious evidence,” he’s placing, through his own eyes, football players behind the wheels of the cars. That’s direct evidence admissable in any court of law.
As for his conlusions, it’s tough. His thought seems to be new cars w/ bling=NCAA violation, without enough regard to other possibilities, like parent’ strading in, helping with payments, etc. He also seems to want to protect the basketball players who are alleged to have bought cars from the salesman/dealers in question. In a court, it’s not his conclusion to make, but on a blog, go ahead.
Fans seem to be stuck in the “anger” phase of grief. Not without reason in some cases, but it’s really unhealthy. Part of this ties into the constant drip of “new” allegations and the fact that the process won’t be over until August at the earliest. I hope this anger doesn’t affect Saturdays in the fall, though, or it may not be an enjoyable gameday experience.
There's nothing wrong with what he wrote
people getting worked up over it are taking Mark Titus way too serious. Good grief.
BS
This was one guy giving his informed, though by no means ironclad, opinion. He said he had no evidence and these were just his honest observations and opinions formed from said observations, combined with his knowledge of how his (and some of his teammates’) scholarship worked. Then a bunch of mouth-breathing message board dwellers went nuts on him. It’s unfortunate that our fanbase has such a high percentage of said mouth-breathers, but there’s nothing that can be done about that. I applaud Titus for being honest about what he thinks about our football program.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 25, 2011 11:39 AM EDT reply actions
If he doesn't want to face scrutiny....
…then don’t post it on the internet.
He said he had no evidence
…then he contradicts himself claiming seeing them driving new cars from the same dealer is supporting evidence he is “…almost certain that there was something shady going on…”
He contradicts himself again claiming he ate with them, lived with them, attended meetings with them, they hung out with his friends… then tries to tack on the buried disclaimer “I have no inside information” after trying so hard to convey a personal familiarity.
He repeats this throughout his story spending paragraphs to convey familiarity to support his conclusion, then burying a disclaimer near the end.
Then a bunch of mouth-breathing message board dwellers went nuts on him. It’s unfortunate…
He obviously went looking for this response. He does not deserve Martyrdom for getting a strong response.
I applaud Titus for being honest about what he thinks about our football program.
If he was being honest, his story wouldn’t be filled with self-contradictions, exaggerations, and false characterizations.
I laugh at him for having to rely on such tactics to attract attention to his postings. If he had an opinion of merit, it would stand on the evidence, not a series of contradictions.
BS as well
He does not “repeatedly” try to “convey personal familiarity” with football players. He “repeats” throughout the post that he has no inside information, and one time – one time – he says he “crossed paths with them” more frequently than most students (which is undoubtedly true). Would such an assertion give his observations more credibility? Maybe, and if so, only marginally. To imply that he is working hard to establish such credibility to support his thesis is disingenuous, and basing your allegation that he “repeatedly” “contradicts himself” entirely around that supposed attempt at building credibility is even more disingenuous. You add that he also presented “exaggerations and false characterizations” without identifying them. Tell me, exactly which of his personal observations and opinions do you know were “exaggerated” and/or “false”?
I agree that he does not deserve “martyrdom,” and that any opinion posted on the internet (or any public forum) can expect “scrutiny.” Such scrutiny should at least be reasonable, however, and not basically amount to “HE DIDN’T ACTUALLY SEE THEM GET HANDED THE KEYS TO CARS THEY DIDN’T PAY FOR HE’S SUCH A HATERRRRRR DURR.”
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 25, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice try, but....
He does not "repeatedly" try to "convey personal familiarity"
His assertion of familiarity with the players:
I frequently crossed paths with a bunch of the football guys for a variety of reasons (stayed in the same dorm as some of them during my freshman year, went to same place for our training table meals, had a bunch of mandatory athlete meetings with them, some of them hung out with my teammates, etc.). And in crossing paths with them so frequently, I can offer this analysis:…
By the authors words, his familiarity is the support he gave for his false conclusion. I don’t need 3 paragraphs to show this, I only need show the authors words.
He "repeats" throughout the post that he has no inside information,
…which leads to my pointing out his self-contradictions – in 1 paragraph he claims no inside information, in the next he claims familiarity as the basis for his conclusion.
To imply that he is working hard to establish such credibility to support his thesis is disingenuous
…is contradicted by the authors words above and your words as well…
Would such an assertion give his observations more credibility? Maybe
Far from disingenuous, it is his and your words.
YoTell me, exactly which of his personal observations and opinions do you know were "exaggerated" and/or "false"?
Identified by the author’s words
That might sound like a lot of money at first thought, but you have to realize that these checks had to cover the monthly cost of rent, utilities, food, gas, entertainment, tattoos, trips to the strip club, bottles off the top shelf, weed, hookers, blow, and – on top of all of that – child support.
…is both an exaggeration and a false characterization as it contains items that wouldn’t apply to most athletes, but which he lists to support his conclusion.
I sure as hell never had enough of a cushion to afford a $400 monthly car payment either.
…is also an exaggeration – the average price was listed as under $12K – a $400 payment would represent nearly 35% interest rate on a 5 year loan, over 15% on a 3 year loan.
Do I need to explain his entire blog to you?
I agree that he does not deserve "martyrdom," and that any opinion posted on the internet (or any public forum) can expect "scrutiny."
Obviously if you are referring to the OP as “mouth-breathing message board dwellers” and you “applaud Titus for being honest” after exaggerating you feel criticism of him is wrong and undeserved.- as cited here it is clearly warranted.
Such scrutiny should at least be reasonable, however, and not basically amount to "HE DIDN’T ACTUALLY SEE THEM GET HANDED THE KEYS TO CARS THEY DIDN’T PAY FOR HE’S SUCH A HATERRRRRR DURR."
As noted above, this isn’t the basis for my criticism of the author – the author’s words are.
Disingenuous again
The entire basis of your assertion that Titus should not have made the post is his alleged “contradictions.” The entire basis of your assertion that he contradicted himself is his “repeat(ing) this throughout his story spending paragraphs to convey familiarity to support his conclusion,” when, in fact, he says one time that he, as an athlete, probably crossed paths with football players more often than other students and, therefore, has probably seen them and their cars more often than most students.
You assert that Titus contradicts himself by saying that he has no inside information and then “repeatedly” “conveying familiarity” with the players themselves. This is an outright distortion on your part. In fact, he repeatedly states that he has no inside information and his opinion is just that: an informed opinion (“informed” based on his own observations and his knowledge of the mechanics of his own athletic scholarship). One time, he says that he “crossed paths” with the football players a little more often than other students, and he clearly does not offer that as proof of personal “familiarity” with them, but as an indication that he has probably seen them (and, therefore, seen their cars) more often than others may have. It is not an averment that he possesses the “inside information” he repeatedly says he does not have. If that equates to a “contradiction” in your book, then you and I clearly have nothing left to talk about.
Lastly, I never once said that the posters on this comment thread were the mouth breathers to which I was referring, nor did I allege that your criticism was based on such mouth-breathing blindly loyal idiocy.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 26, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I love when people play forum slots... inserting $50 in tokens in hopes of a $2 payout...
The entire basis of your assertion that Titus should not have made the post is his alleged "contradictions."
This is false. I cite many more problems with Titus’s basis for conclusion.
in fact, he says one time that he, as an athlete, probably crossed paths with football players more often than other students and, therefore, has probably seen them and their cars more often than most students.
Please insert 4 tokens and try again.
He spends the bulk of the article trying to relay his personal familiarity with coaches, players, the scholarship system, etc. to add credence to his assertions.
The players is just 1 example.
You assert that Titus contradicts himself by saying that he has no inside information and then "repeatedly" "conveying familiarity" with the players themselves.
This fits the definition of inside information – relevant information not readily available to the public. It isn’t the strongest source of inside information (such as a conversation with an investigator), but his entire reason for spending so much time is to lend credence to his assertions.
If you wanted to question if it fits the definition because it is irrelevant, I wouldn’t argue the point… but you have already stated you consider it relevant.
Lastly, I never once said that the posters on this comment thread were the mouth breathers to which I was referring, nor did I allege that your criticism was based on such mouth-breathing blindly loyal idiocy.
I never claimed you did.
I do assert if you are referring to the OP as "mouth-breathing message board dwellers" and you "applaud Titus for being honest" after clearly exaggerating and attempting to lend credence to his conclusions with the irrelevant, you obviously feel criticism of him is wrong and undeserved.- as cited here it is clearly warranted.
…but at least you dropped the assertion he wasn’t exaggerating – that is 1 step in the direction of honesty.
Sigh
This is false. I cite many more problems with Titus’s basis for conclusion.
No, you really didn’t.
He spends the bulk of the article trying to relay his personal familiarity with coaches, players, the scholarship system, etc. to add credence to his assertions.
The players is just 1 example.
Yes, he says on multiple occasions that he is familiar with the athletic scholarship system insofar as his (and maybe one or two of his basketball teammates’) scholarship was concerned. Because, you know, he is. He says in one sentence that he crossed paths with football players more than most other students probably did, as a result of his being a varsity athlete. You have chosen to make the logical leap that he is claiming to have the “inside information” he has specifically disclaimed throughout the post, when in fact it is clear from the text that this assertion is not offered to “prove” that he “knows” what’s going on with the football players. He never once asserts that his relative proximity to some football players means he has some intimate knowledge of their actual actions in obtaining the vehicles. You have clearly chosen to take that logical swan dive because you want very badly for his opinion to be wrong (as we all do). In fact, there is absolutely nothing “contradictory” about his premises, his conclusion, or his post as a whole.
His argument was plainly and clearly as follows:
1. Disclaimer: I base this on my own observations and knowledge about my scholarship situation, not any firsthand information about any deals that OSU football players may or may not have gotten, nor any firsthand knowledge of how the football program is run as a whole.
2. It’s pretty common knowledge on campus that a seemingly inordinate number of OSU football players drive really fancy cars (at least for a college student).
3. As a former athlete, although I was not friends with any of them, I probably saw these guys a little more often than the average OSU student, and yes, I agree that an inordinate number of them seemed to have what most college students would deem “fancy” cars.
4. I was a scholarship athlete at OSU.
5. I know that the funds awarded to me via my athletic scholarship would have been insufficient for me to purchase the kind of cars I see football players driving around.
Conclusion: While there are numerous possibilities to explain this (those cited by Titus himself: parents, additional financial aid on top of the scholarships, football players have exceptional money management skills), my opinion is that football players get “special” deals on cars.
I fail to see this damning “contradiction,” which somehow invalidates his perfectly reasonable opinion.
…but at least you dropped the assertion he wasn’t exaggerating – that is 1 step in the direction of honesty
Seriously? Your support for your claim that Titus’s opinion is “exaggerated” and therefore invalid and not be trusted is this sentence:
That might sound like a lot of money at first thought, but you have to realize that these checks had to cover the monthly cost of rent, utilities, food, gas, entertainment, tattoos, trips to the strip club, bottles off the top shelf, weed, hookers, blow, and – on top of all of that – child support.
I hope you are simply joking. If not, your lack of understanding of the rules of logic is only matched by your lack of understanding of sarcasm.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 26, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
This is fun...
This is false. I cite many more problems with Titus’s basis for conclusion.
No, you really didn’t.
Enter 4 tokens and try again – he certainly exaggerated typical college athlete expenses and the cost of a car loan.
You have chosen to make the logical leap that he is claiming to have the "inside information"
This is false – I ma basing my conclusion on fact (the definition of inside information) not logic. Inside information can include any information not readily available to the public.
If you have to narrowly define a common term to validate your point, you don’t have a valid point.
His argument was plainly and clearly as follows:
I an not questioning the content of his argument, only its validity.
Shady deals is not even close to the most likely explanation for his observations.
No amount of reordered quotes will change this.
I fail to see this damning "contradiction,"
If you claim to hold logic dear but don’t know the definition of circular reasoning (and possibly don’t recognize it as fallacious logic), then it is understandable you would hold a narrow definition of inside information to support Titus’s assertions.
iously? Your support for your claim that Titus’s opinion is "exaggerated" and therefore invalid and not be trusted is this sentence:
Titus’s exaggerations such as the typical spending of a college athlete and the cost of a used car have been proven.
The use of exaggeration to make his point is among the several reason to doubt the validity of his assertion.
If Titus had a valid point, he wouldn’t feel the need to exaggerate.
I hope you are simply joking. If not, your lack of understanding of the rules of logic is only matched by your lack of understanding of sarcasm.
Sure it is sarcasm… it is also exaggeration used to lend support to his assertion (much like the $400 car payments).
If Titus had a valid point, he wouldn’t feel the need to exaggerate.
Side note: I wouldn’t suggest throwing around the terms logic and reason if you don’t know the definition of circular reasoning, recognize it as a fallacious form of logic, and don’t recognize that logic and reasoning are not on par with evidence and truth.
I have also observed some signs of mischief...
…I noticed that almost all OSU football players are wearing Levi jeans. I am pretty sure they are getting them at a substantial discount over what you or I would pay.
…I noticed almost all are carrying cell phones from 1 of just a few service providers. I am pretty sure they are getting these at a substantial discount over what you or I would pay.
…I noticed almost all have Dell computers. I am pretty sure they are getting these at a substantial discount over what you or I would pay.
Joking aside, I love the conspiracy theorists A lot of college students (or any other commonality) from the same group are driving cars purchased from the same dealer. The obvious conclusion is that they are giving their friends referrals having been satisfied with their purchase.
Make this group college football players and the conclusion becomes they are getting perks.
A used car dealer did some detailing and slapped some new rims on a used Dodge. The obvious conclusion is lipstick on a pig. Make the buyer a scholarship athlete and now it is proof they are getting perks.
I do admit to finding it embarrassing that scholarship athletes are purchasing used Dodges at an average of $11,600 each… what fracking group of idiots pay nearly $12K for a used Dodge?
There's a pretty big difference
… between jeans, laptops, and cell phones on the one hand, and new (or new-looking) Dodge Chargers on the other.
Noticing that A.) the vast majority of current college students do not possess the disposable income to purchase such a vehicle, and B.) the vast majority of the current students who drive such vehicles are football players, is, quite simply, being minimally observant, and conclusions drawn therefrom are perfectly valid, especially when couched with the clear, repeated assertion that the speaker is basing his conclusion on those observations and the knowledge of how his own scholarship worked, rather than mysterious inside information.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 25, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, there is...
…a big difference, yet it is the same basis used for the assertion.
Noticing that A.) the vast majority of current college students do not possess the disposable income to purchase such a vehicle,
This is false. The average sale was reported to be $11,600. A 5 year loan at 8% interest and no down payment is under #240/month – within most college student budgets.
B.) the vast majority of the current students who drive such vehicles are football players, is, quite simply, being minimally observant, and conclusions drawn therefrom are perfectly valid
This is false. The observation being potentially true does not equate to the conclusion being valid. As I noted, there are other more likely explanations for the similarity than provided perks.
especially when couched with the clear, repeated assertion that the speaker is basing his conclusion on those observations and the knowledge of how his own scholarship worked, rather than mysterious inside information.
This is false. The author cites his familiarity with the players as the basis for his “analysis”
And yet...
A 5 year loan at 8% interest and no down payment is under #240/month – within most college student budgets.
The obvious and completely fair follow-up question is “then why don’t ‘most college students’ drive such vehicles? Why is it primarily football players, as conceded by basically everyone involved?” I (and Titus) hope OSU has a fantastic, reasonable answer for that question, one that puts the matter to bed.
The observation being potentially true does not equate to the conclusion being valid.
I never said his conclusion was true (for that matter, neither did Titus). I said it was valid. A valid conclusion is one which is entailed by its premises. Titus’s premises (“1. I sure see a lot of football players driving around cars which most college students would agree are ‘fancy’ and 2. I know I couldn’t have afforded such a car on my athletic scholarship”) clearly entail his conclusion (“while there are other possibilities, my opinion is that something shady is going on”). It is, therefore, valid. Are there other valid conclusions? Of course, and Titus clearly acknowledges that. He was just giving his opinion.
As I noted, there are other more likely explanations for the similarity than provided perks.
Although I think your qualifier that other explanations are “more likely” has absolutely no support, given the existence of TatGate, I freely acknowledge that other explanations exist, as did Titus in both his original post and his follow-up. And I (and Titus) have both explicitly said we hope one of those other explantions is true.
The author cites his familiarity with the players as the basis for his "analysis"
Once again: BS, as noted above.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 26, 2011 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
More forum slots...
The obvious and completely fair follow-up question is "then why don’t ‘most college students’ drive such vehicles?
Irrelevant. Just because others can afford it doesn’t mean it carries the same priority for them. It is not as if EVERY player was driving a car from this dealer – if I recall it was roughly the equivalent to about 1 recruiting class over a number of years.
He was exaggerating citing $400 payments and elsewhere – your introduction of the irrelevant won’t change this.
never said his conclusion was true (for that matter, neither did Titus). I said it was valid. A valid conclusion is one which is entailed by its premises.
You have you definitions mixed up – a conclusion which is entailed by the premise is a decent definition of circular reasoning not valid conclusion.
Valid entails just and well founded – obviously Titus’s conclusions weren’t.
Driving a nice car in Titus’s eyes, driving a car Titus couldn’t afford himself, etc. is not a valid (just or well founded) reason to arrive at the conclusion something shady was going on.
Although I think your qualifier that other explanations are "more likely" has absolutely no support
Yes, they are supported by the simple truth the most likely reason for a group to purchase similar products from the same business is not shady deals.
…the existence of TatGate…
No, the most likely reason for a businessman to own trophies, awards, memorabilia, sports gear, etc. of current college athletes is that he bought them (I take it critical thinking isn’t your strong suit).
A less likely conclusion would be considered possible, but it would not be considered valid (just and well-founded) unless you use a very loose definition of well-founded.
And I (and Titus) have both explicitly said we hope one of those other explanations is true.
In both cases, I find this doubtful at best.
Once again: BS, as noted above.
I wholly agree it is BS, but it is Titus’s words, not mine when Titus stated “And in crossing paths with them so frequently, I can offer this analysis:…”
*shaking my head*
You have you definitions mixed up – a conclusion which is entailed by the premise is a decent definition of circular reasoning not valid conclusion.
Valid entails just and well founded – obviously Titus’s conclusions weren’t.
Driving a nice car in Titus’s eyes, driving a car Titus couldn’t afford himself, etc. is not a valid (just or well founded) reason to arrive at the conclusion something shady was going on.
You are, quite frankly, wrong. His conclusion is entailed by his premises. It is therefore valid, whether it is true or not. And you have offered no reason why his conclusion is “obviously” “not well-founded,” other than his (non-existent) “contradictions.”
And seriously, if you think the facts that have come out about TatGate in no way make Titus’s conclusion at least as likely as the other possibilities, then I don’t know what to tell you. If I lack “critical thinking,” you clearly lack a head that is not buried in sand.
And I (and Titus) have both explicitly said we hope one of those other explanations is true.In both cases, I find this doubtful at best.
And the real reason for your vitriol against Titus (and, I suppose, myself) comes out! The dreaded “fake Buckeye” barb! Nevermind my degree, my memorabilia collection (none of it obtained from players!), my attendance at five consecutive OSU/Michigan games earlier this decade – my refusal to play Kevin Bacon in “Animal House” and shout “ALL IS WELL” against the mounting evidence to the contrary means that I don’t really like Ohio State and don’t want them to win! You got me. I apologize for offending you with my ruse.
I, only the other hand, am only offended by your obvious contempt for logic.
Good riddance.
by Viceroy Fizzlebottom on May 26, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Please enter 4 tokens and try again.
His conclusion is entailed by his premises.
A conclusion that entails the premise is circular reasoning, a fallicious form of logic.
And you have offered no reason why his conclusion is "obviously" "not well-founded," other than his (non-existent) "contradictions."
Yes, I did. Titus’s conclusion is not even close to the most likely reason for the observation.
if you think the facts that have come out about TatGate in no way make Titus’s conclusion at least as likely as the other possibilities, then I don’t know what to tell you. If I lack "critical thinking," you clearly lack a head that is not buried in sand.
They are 2 seperate issues involving different players at different times and different NCAA violations. The only thing in common is that the players involved all played for the same program.
And the real reason for your vitriol against Titus (and, I suppose, myself) comes out!
This is false – at no time did I refer to you or Titus as fake Buckeyes.
Bsed on your attrempt at forum slots and Titus’s desire to draw readers, I simply doubt you really wan to the players found innocent at this juncture.
Please insert 4 tokens and try again.
Nevermind my degree, my memorabilia collection (none of it obtained from players!), my attendance at five consecutive OSU/Michigan games earlier this decade
I don’t give them credence – much like Titus supporting his assertions based on familiarity with athletes, i do not consider this relevant.
Accidentally hit submit
my refusal to play Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" and shout "ALL IS WELL" against the mounting evidence to the contrary means that I don’t really like Ohio State and don’t want them to win! You got me. I apologize for offending you with my ruse.
Please enter 4 more tokens – I never claimed any of this.
I do not ask you to play along… I do question blind support of an author clearly shown to have exaggerated, post self contradictions, etc. which can only be denied if you narrowly define redefine the terms exaggeration, self contradiction, inside information,valid, etc.
If you have to redefine or narrowly define common terms to validate a point, you don’t have a valid point.
I, only the other hand, am only offended by your obvious contempt for logic.
Side note – citing logic and reason doesn’t carry much weight when you can’t define circular reasoning.
I have neither contempt nor respect for logic and reason. I do hold in contempt those who place logic and reason on equal footing with fact and evidence.
Almost any conclusion can be made to appear logical supported by a series of plausible sounding statements.
Unfortunately, the universe doesn’t work this way – being logical does not equate to being true. At one time it was widely held that the earth was logically the center of the universe based on plausible observations of the sky. Conversely few would consider it logical that an objects mass and passage of time would be based in part on its velocity.
Logic and reason are a fools folly filling their creator with false confidence is unsupported or weakly supported conclusions. They are great for assembling a theory, but lousy at differentiating fact from fiction.
I prefer critical thinking drawing the most likely conclusion only after weighing the evidence… a skill as far beyond your ability as the definition of circular reasoning.
I have no evidence either,
but I can personally attest to seeing Berry and Herron both driving very nice, new looking, Dodge Avengers, complete with rims and window tints, that doesn’t mean they didn’t pay for them, but they definitely own them. I side with Titus’ opinion that it doesn’t look right—at all—but I also wouldn’t produce an entire blog post if I had Titus’ voice and didn’t have any other point other than it looks bad, no shit it looks bad.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
Your opinion runs counter to that of Titus...
…and shall therefore be ignored.
Seriously, window tint and new rims? You can get your windows tinted by someone for less than the cost of a date, and the cost of a new set of rims to a car dealership isn’t squat – it is a used car dealer putting lipstick on a pig.
Ever heard of parents? Maybe, just maybe, their parents helped buy them a car. Contrary to popular opinion, not everything has to be sinister. With the feeding frenzy that the media has voraciously attacked the program, it seems as though it’s hip to trash OSU. Too many people are getting their rocks off by wanting to see people’s lives ruined for mistakes in the past.
The more I look at it...
…the less bad it looks…
…even with the accusers going to exaggeration.
Ever heard of parents? Maybe, just maybe, their parents helped buy them a car.
Quite likely, but at an average car payment of under $250 a month, they really didn’t need their parents help.
Contrary to popular opinion, not everything has to be sinister.
I would go further – item by item the non-sinister conclusion is the more likely.
it seems as though it’s hip to trash OSU.
It goes with success.
Too many people are getting their rocks off by wanting to see people’s lives ruined for mistakes in the past.
Improving their favorite team’s performance and reputation is beyond the control of fans, but trying to drag another program down is.
Different person I guess...
…he used to use a similar tag name.
Probably not...
…former player, really nice guy, hard luck life story.
When I was down there (class of 08), I never saw a football player driving anything egregiously fancy but I obviously didn’t see all of their cars. Brewster had a nice SUV but it wasn’t outrageous, my friends drove similar cars. My friends and I are mostly middle-middle or lower-middle class suburban kids, and we were racking up student debt while we were down there. Student loans can go a long way in Columbus.
A brand new Charger is 26k, and I bet a 1-2 year old model for under 20k isn’t an absurdly low price.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I would argue the opposite...
…paying an average of $11,600 for a used Dodge is high, but hey - they had window tint! That’s gotta be what… $50 at Wall Mart?
I seriously doubt the typical car purchased was a 1 or 2 year old Charger… it is just what seems most inflammatory to cite as an example.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Along The Olentangy
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
