Regents to get details on Handling of Assault

ketelmeister · 06-06-2008, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by hawkeye_t

I would like to defend SH here on #1. There were rumors that Jevon Pugh was leaving school. It was then reported, and confimed by KF and the spring two deeps that Jevon Pugh was indeed returning to the Hawks. It was not until Pugh went back to Florida for Spring Break that he finally decided he was not coming back. Do you care to discuss the Soup Campbell/Carl Jackson statement?

Are you now representing Southern Hawk? Guess he needs some support.

hawkeye_t · 06-06-2008, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Are you now representing Southern Hawk? Guess he needs some support.

No. I think SH can handle himself. I do, however like to call BS where I see it. I admire your passion for the Clones and to see that things aren't swept under the rug. I would hope that you can accept to be challenged a little bit on your facts and staments as they relate to the Hawks. I will be the first to admit that the Hawks have a number of issues that need to be worked out.

ketelmeister · 06-06-2008, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by hawkeye_t

No. I think SH can handle himself. I do, however like to call BS where I see it. I admire your passion for the Clones and to see that things aren't swept under the rug. I would hope that you can accept to be challenged a little bit on your facts and staments as they relate to the Hawks. I will be the first to admit that the Hawks have a number of issues that need to be worked out.

I appreciate the tone of your comment. The "facts" I've related have been based on:
1. conversations with others such as the Iowa Regents
2. reports from other newspapers, like the Iowa City paper
3. info from Iowa blogs
I only have passed on what I've been told and surmised what MIGHT happen as a result. Such things as Pugh leaving, the Iowa players being indicted, the Regents involvement were all based on conversations. A Hawk booster on this board has consistantly claimed I was lying about my conversations and making all this up. Now it seems, at least some of what I've said is true. I don't see where passing on conversations with people in the know is an attack on Iowa. Anyway, I appreciate your comment.

HGPuck · 06-06-2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

When I read the article, I sure didn't arrive at the same "facts" that you did. The key point is that it mentions that the Regent President will present an oral report to the Regents based on information provided by the "Regent's staff". I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the term staff doesn't involve outside investigators. In fact, if it does, this is exactly how the information would typically be released. The article doesn't say anything about the upcoming oral report being based on details released by the U of I.

After reading the article I feel the same way. I realize that I am biased when I read about Iowa but I would say your interpretation SH is pretty biased as well. Im not about to get into what did or didn't happen or what is or isn't happening, but what I feel pretty confident about is that I interpret some things quite a bit differently than SH.

SouthernHawk · 06-06-2008, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I started going through your mass of posts to confirm what I wrote. The sheer number of false claims, distortions and illogic would fill a thesis. Just keep watching the newspaper stories to confirm what I've been saying. Oh ya, and Go Hawks!

Then you'll have no problem providing proof of where I said any of that.

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I appreciate the tone of your comment. The "facts" I've related have been based on:
1. conversations with others such as the Iowa Regents
2. reports from other newspapers, like the Iowa City paper
3. info from Iowa blogs
I only have passed on what I've been told and surmised what MIGHT happen as a result. Such things as Pugh leaving, the Iowa players being indicted, the Regents involvement were all based on conversations. A Hawk booster on this board has consistantly claimed I was lying about my conversations and making all this up. Now it seems, at least some of what I've said is true. I don't see where passing on conversations with people in the know is an attack on Iowa. Anyway, I appreciate your comment.

Pugh leaving was apparently because of either grades or home sickness. Nothing to do with grades or troubles with the law.

And again, I'd like to see where you said that the Regents would be given an oral report on the time frame of this entire process. You claimed that there would be a private investigator, that there was a coverup, that there would be some major changes within the UI staff, that the new position being created is due to the Regents, and that more players would be kicked off the team, but I don't recall you ever predicting this small (and obvious) development.

Saying "Watch the papers" is not a prediction - it's stating the obvious.

Anyways, the only reason I've consistantly argued with you is because you have been passing along your opinion as proof of some sort of conspiracy theory, and have been acting like you are the ultimate authority to let us know what's going down in Iowa City. While what some of what you have said may have come true (although I would really like to see where you predicted anything other than indictments, which IMO was a "duh" type of thing), my challenges have been to challenge your theories that there is something big going on.

Anyways, I've said my piece on this subject.

hawkeye_t · 06-06-2008, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I appreciate the tone of your comment. The "facts" I've related have been based on:
1. conversations with others such as the Iowa Regents
2. reports from other newspapers, like the Iowa City paper
3. info from Iowa blogs
I only have passed on what I've been told and surmised what MIGHT happen as a result. Such things as Pugh leaving, the Iowa players being indicted, the Regents involvement were all based on conversations. A Hawk booster on this board has consistantly claimed I was lying about my conversations and making all this up. Now it seems, at least some of what I've said is true. I don't see where passing on conversations with people in the know is an attack on Iowa. Anyway, I appreciate your comment.

Fair enough. In my opinion, that is the first time you have spelled out your thoughts for the reader to interpret. This is a perfect example to the question many folks pose to SH and DJK as to why they and myself, (who like them is an Iowa fan but an ISU alumn) spend time at an ISU message board. I spend enough time at HR.com conversing with Hawk fans. I enjoy hearing a point of view that is not filter with a Black and Gold filter.

SouthernHawk · 06-06-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by hawkeye_t

Fair enough. In my opinion, that is the first time you have spelled out your thoughts for the reader to interpret. This is a perfect example to the question many folks pose to SH and DJK as to why they and myself, (who like them is an Iowa fan but an ISU alumn) spend time at an ISU message board. I spend enough time at HR.com conversing with Hawk fans. I enjoy hearing a point of view that is not filter with a Black and Gold filter.

Yup, and I spend enough time on my Hawkeye site that it's fun to converse with ISU fans.

HGPuck · 06-06-2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Pugh leaving was apparently because of either grades or home sickness. Nothing to do with grades or troubles with the law.

I realize this is being a bit of a smart *** but this sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Care to clarify about the Pugh situation.

SouthernHawk · 06-06-2008, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by HGPuck

I realize this is being a bit of a smart *** but this sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Care to clarify about the Pugh situation.

Woops - I had a completely different sentence typed out, and then edited it. I guess I completely messed it up.

Anyways, Pugh apparently left due to grades or homesickness (I don't think it's been widely reported either way) and nothing to do with troubles with the law.

MontyBurns · 06-06-2008, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I started going through your mass of posts to confirm what I wrote. The sheer number of false claims, distortions and illogic would fill a thesis. Just keep watching the newspaper stories to confirm what I've been saying. Oh ya, and Go Hawks!

Southernhawk has changed his story on Pugh, the latest investigation/indictments, and the Regent's involvement so many times that his own spin might have caused some of the tornados in central Iowa yesterday. And let's not forget his "Shonn Greene is on the team I mean will definitely be on the team I mean might be on the team" story. There's really no reason to point out his contradictions anymore; he's made so many that his credibility is a big round zero.

hawkeye_t · 06-06-2008, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Southernhawk has changed his story on Pugh, the latest investigation/indictments, and the Regent's involvement so many times that his own spin might have caused some of the tornados in central Iowa yesterday. And let's not forget his "Shonn Greene is on the team I mean will definitely be on the team I mean might be on the team" story. There's really no reason to point out his contradictions anymore; he's made so many that his credibility is a big round zero.

Nobody really knows if Shonn Greene will be on the team this fall. According to statements by Ferentz and the staff, they expect him to be. This is one that I will take a wait and see on. If I see him run out on the field versus UMaine, I will believe that he is back on the team. If not, I will not be shocked.

As far as the Jevon Pugh issue, I think that was spelled out in an earlier post.

MontyBurns · 06-06-2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by hawkeye_t

Nobody really knows if Shonn Greene will be on the team this fall.

Perhaps you missed Southernhawk's posts from a few days ago. At least twice he announced that Greene is back on the team. He did change his story (as always) when it was pointed out that he was just making stuff up:

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/...tml#post491314 (Big Ten vs. Other Conferences)

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/...tml#post488485 (What season will be Kirk Ferentz' last at Iowa?)

Phaedrus · 06-07-2008, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Woops - I had a completely different sentence typed out, and then edited it. I guess I completely messed it up.

Anyways, Pugh apparently left due to grades or homesickness (I don't think it's been widely reported either way) and nothing to do with troubles with the law.

I actually kind of like your posts, SH, but your last sentence here is absolutely insupportable.

There is nothing that I am aware of that "nothing to do with troubles with the law" figures in to the equation.

With the Iowa Football teams immediate past history, I need proof a player ISN'T in trouble with the law, before I believe otherwise.