harveycmd

Why can't you understand that trust has nothing to do with this? Only idiots trust anyone. In the absence of positive proof, there's nothing to "believe."

Do you know that Beard shoved or hit a woman? You don't know what the university uncovered anymore than I do. If they had clear evidence, the DA would have had the same clear evidence. Stop trying to play god and admit you don't know. Texas fired Beard. It's too late to do anything about it now. Again, they can fire whomever they want. But when we're talking about wins and losses because of it I can opine as much as anybody. I hope someone takes CDC to the woodshed over it in the their silly meeting this week.

How many times are you going to say "brilliant?" Can you provide an argument for why firing Beard wasn't political? The man wasn't charged. Accuser recanted accusation. Is that "brilliant?"

It's true an employer can do what they want in the state of Texas. I wouldn't have any other way. There ain't no "despite" in terms of determining the truth. Texas fired Beard. It was a mistake. Not only because they hired a hack to replace him, but because they don't know what really happened and responded to pressure that wasn't based in epistemic reality. If your standard is accused means a man should be fired, then you got your wish. We suck now. We suck because we fired a man without waiting for due process. Congratulations.

I know that I don't now. UT doesn't know. You don't know either. If every person who was thought to have done something wrong was fired, about half the workforce wouldn't be employed. Publicity isn't a reason for firing absent political motivation. That's not me being "political." That's the UT administration being political.

Austin DA didn't have evidence a crime was committed. If they did, they would have charged him.

I didn't "went you equate" anything. Do you have evidence a crime was committed?

Where is the analogy? Provide some evidence and stop hiding behind nonsense.

I don't think it's political either. Given the absence of positive evidence, there's no reason to think there's a reason to fire Beard absent politically nonsense about domestic violence. No positive proof, no case. That's the truth.

Again, reminds me of talking to lefty nutjobs. I don't know what happened. You don't either. Blotter means nothing to me when it comes to epistemic certainty. The "judgment" is that I don't know.

Who is Brard? I think you mean Beard. If that's what you mean, then, yes, that's true. Not casting. How many Texas coaches do you think are morally superior to Beard?

Amen.

I'm not trusting anyone, but you can't make a definitive judgment in the absence of solid empirical or logical proof. Therefore the most logical conclusion is to avoid judgment. Why is that hard to understand?

I don't trust anyone on faith alone. I certainly don't trust your statements about Beard's culpability. Why would would I? Basic epistemological honesty requires empirical and logical evidence. We don't have empirical evidence. Logical evidence is mixed because stories changed and charges were dropped. Our AD and administration aren't epistemic stalwarts in this case because they haven't given us the information or evidence to prove their credibility in this matter.

You are assuming there was a "perpetrator." That's the question. You don't know. Stop acting like you have perfect knowledge of the situation. I don't. You don't.

We seem to be dealing with CNN here. Was domestic violence proven?

You're saying their investigation superseded the statements of the parties involved? Again, charges were recanted and dropped. I didn't know CDC was clairvoyant.

That's true, but he was punished by the Texas administration because they were worried about political backlash. And again, since when is the standard that we just assume we must punish without definitive evidence? Common sense plays a role, but we have nothing there to determine Beard's culpability in this case.

I can't prove a negative. You can't either. We don't know for sure what happened.

That's up to him. Charges were dropped. I don't know about his transgressions. You don't either. CDC doesn't know for sure. Again, he's not guilty until proven innocent. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't maim anyone.

The confusion is about contemporary politically correct standards and competence coaching college sports. I'm not confused about the two. I'm not confused about the disposition of eternal souls. Like Sark, Beard didn't commit an unforgivable eternal sin. Media crap doesn't cloud my judgment on such matters. Do you need rehab?

I don't need clarification. History doesn't change in six years. Will Rodney Terry be better suited to be head coach of the Texas Longhorns men's basketball team in six years? I doubt it. Sark was calling a national championship game for Alabama the next year. Does that clarify things?

I didn't ask. I said Sark deserved a second chance. Beard didn't deserve to be fired for contemporary prejudice about domestic matters. A few here think he did. I chalk that up to Austin left nonsense.

Beard didn't have to enter rehab. Lefty nutjobs on the Cormac McCarthy board in 2003 were more logical than this.

My favorite character in Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" is Buscemi as Mr. Pink.