RU#'s ==><== ruhud
I already apologized...
I can't be held responsible for proxy attacks...lol
Carroo's lawyer says Leonte didn't touch victim (Video Link Included)
- Thread starter THERAC
- Start date
I already apologized...
I can't be held responsible for proxy attacks...lol
I already said I couldn't compete with your military service, which is goddamned impressive, and gets my eternal thanks (even pinko, commie libs can appreciate it). But then again, we were arguing academics and language and let's just leave it at we've both done reasonably well on academics (although I did have 6 journal articles from my grad school work) and you really need to read up more on the usage of infer vs. imply.
Every respectable language expert/source will tell you that you misused infer. I don't know what else to tell you on that one. And I'm truly not trying to bust balls here - I'm having trouble understanding how a very smart guy, like yourself, can't see that. At least do me a small favor: ask around among people you really respect with regard to lexicographic issues like this and come back and report on how they weighed in on your use of infer. That's hopefully my last comment on the topic.
But I (and a few others) bet it won't. LOL
derleider's right, we are the best board out there.
G on the greasetruck saved some of it: http://thegreasetruck.yuku.com/topic/9694/lost-computer-flood-going-ups#.VgNar5dWVA8
Thanks, but no apology necessary, IMO - as I said in another post, I assumed you weren't being that serious and I've been known to get under some people's skin for "some reason" (just ask Lester - I seem to be able to get him to drop to DefCon1 by arguing about teflon pans and snow flurries, lol).
Hudson aside, my points are valid. BTW, how bad is the meso-atmo gradient going to be tonight and how much liquid equivalent precip vapor pressure can I expect?
Oh and sorry for befriending a soldier. I know that's pretty low in your circle of friends.
Ahhh, the GreaseTruck - haven't been there in a few years. A mere link won't do. For all those who never read the Daniel Perry Memorial greatest 5-star post in the history of Rutgersfan.com, have at it...
Vincito, you'd be better off leaving the buts out of it. I suspect that you've just set the all time record for looking so unbelievably wrong on anything. Take the hit and move on.
"But for Willis, or anyone else to act like it was a no-brainer to start Hart....never bench him because he is the all-time record holder----deserves debate."
The issue was whether to replace Teel with Hart in the second half. The rest of this stuff is you backpedalling and tripping all over stuff instead of admitting that no one in the history of the world has ever been so obviously proved wrong on something as nakedly and publicly as you have been. You are now the wrongliest wrong person in the history of wrong. Vincwrongo. Mr. Wrong Vincwrongo. When you order your next cheesburger you'll get it with an extra helping of wrong. There are teachers in your grammar school who as we speak are going back to your exams and re-marking them as Fs because there's no way that you could have gotten anything right. You are wrong poster child. If wrong were a country, you'd be king and prime minister. You probably meant to say that Hart should have replaced Teel but you just typed it wrongly. I can't tell you the last time that the world has ever experienced so much wrong in one place.
Good luck in your future career as a weatherman.
"I understand that you need Viagra to get it up"
Actually, if that were the case here, it would only prove that I need wrong to get it up. Because you just served a record setting heaping of wrong. It was a wrong sundae with whip cream and wrong on top. It was more wrong than you usually find in a remedial calculus class. Wrongitty, wrong dee wrong wrong. You have a big red cape on your back with a W on it. You are the caped crusader of wrong. Willing to defend wrong wherever it may be. Should wrong be menaced by right, you'll be there. Whenever a finger makes it way into a nose, you'll be there. Whenever a right turn car blinker stays on for 10 minutes, you'll be there. Should precision or accuracy ever prevail, it won't be your fault. Never before has a look of balls-out determination ever been so menancingly fastened to a face of someone heading the wrong way down a one way street.
Again, the question was put at the half -- replace Teel or don't. It wasn't Monday morning, not even Sunday morning. You said no. Others said yes. And, interestingly enough, you turned about to be Wrongo. You're walking around with a Scarlet W on your shirt. Before typing your next reply, please look down and check whether your socks are the same color. People will now be concerned about pulling a Vincito.
"I think you look INCREDIBLY NAIVE.
And you look . . . . . hmmm . . . . . . . WWWWWWWWWrrrrrrrrrrr . . . farrrreeekkkinn . . . . . . . . OOOOOONNNnnngggG. Mike Teel just called and said you were wrong.
Seldom in the history of obviousness has anything appeared so obvious. Had Zeus himself shined from the heavans a bright light of approval on Ryan Hart as he repeatedly marched his team 90 yards down the field it would have made it no more clear.
But of course, on the other hand, maybe, you see, the running, well, it kinda just started happening, and well, you know, it was fortunate and stuff, and well, you know the timing was kinda coincidental and well had that stuff happened earlier then, ya see, Teel wouldn't have thrown all those balls at those guys in the wrong jerseys and well, then all would be the same. Hart did that last year, ya see. And the year before. So, ya know, Teel was better. Those 2 90 yard drives out of nowhere, they were coming anyway. It was just a matter of time. If Teel were in, they would have been 95 yard drives. No 99. Ya see, that's where I was going.
But if you were going there, you'd be going to Wrondovia the capital of Wrongistan to assume the role of its most renowned cleric and issue repeated fatwahs against right. You'd be Sheik Omar Wrong Wrong Kalil. Millions would travel annually on foot to see your dewey beats truman clippings and etchings of planets orbiting the horizontal earth. They'd cheer you as you stood on your almost cantilevered balcony as it slowly tipped and allowed them to see your gold-framed autographed lyrics of Isn't it Ironic. It would be a triumphant moment for you.
Huhhh what?? Do you honestly think that this was a 16 second confrontation??? But thanks for posting Mrs. Carroo.
Wow #s. That is longer than any forecast string you ever posted. Can you give me the 11 o'clock news version please :)
Knight writes that the video "corroborates" LC's story. To the best of my knowledge, it is fairly well known here he is an attorney. Corroborate, in context, is a legal word. He is making a legal argument, admittedly loosely, as somewhat of an authority of the subject matter on the board. In response, I write:
"The video doesn't corroborate anything. Well it does corroborate that the person shooting the video is obviously not a film student...but that's another story.
Do you mean to say that LC didn't touch the woman in the 16 second clip released? Then say that. Don't use the word corroborate. Makes the dopes among us conclude LC didn't do anything. And perhaps he didn't. I hope he didn't. But this video doesn't tell us that for sure--you know, like the word corroborate would infer."
Using the very link you provide:
To infer is to surmise or conclude, especially from indirect evidence.
Highlighting the "conclude" portion of our programming, how am I "wrong?" You could argue that the sentence is awkward or maybe even poorly constructed--you know, if you wanted to risk being an interwebz style dick--but I will continue to maintain in context it is not "wrong."
He made his point definitely. He used the word corroborate definitively. In context, "corroboration" of the video could lead the "dopes among us" to CONCLUDE LC is innocent.
Corroborate is not a sentient thing. It does not infer. I cannot infer. Please continue to use infer in this manner for the rest of your life and then sit back and feel comfortable that reader after reader will see it, say nothing, but think, "dummy.'
Now I'm genuinely curious, as you've been described as the smartest person on the board and I've never heard the sentient rule before.
Why can a non sentient thing suggest something indirectly but not conclude it?
Oh jesus guys why don't you just whip your little peckers out while you're at it! Com'on there are sooooo many better things to argue about right now! [pfftt]
I don't know much. My use of an IPAD causes a good deal of spelling errors....fat hands. I also have become kind of lazy as employees write most of my important documents. That being said, the idea of arguing over the use of two words 99% of the world wouldn't notice is silly. When you realize one of the guys arguing can blow up your car or shoot you at the RAC from the roof of my RV in the yellow....well patents don't really matter. Carry on......
Hudson. I thought I explained it well enough, above, but I'll try more succinctly. To deduce or conclude something from facts or evidence requires a brain (usually, lol) and the primary meaning of infer is to deduce or conclude something from facts or evidence. A word, like corroborate, is unable to reason, therefore it is unable to infer. However facts, evidence, words, etc., are able to be the subjects which take the verb "imply."
Another way to look at it is that someone who infers that something is the case receives information and forms their own conclusions - inference is a passive activity made by a receiver of information (a sentient being). Whereas, imply is used in an active way, i.e., if a speaker or writer implies something, they are suggesting it in an indirect way rather than making an explicit statement. A situation or set of conditions can also imply: that video implies that Carroo is not guilty.
If you take your sentence, "But this video doesn't tell us that for sure--you know, like the word corroborate would infer." and simply replace infer with imply then your sentence is perfect. Also, your logic that KS misused the word "corroborate" in his original post (it's all his fault, lol) is also spot on.
More info:
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/rutgers-stars-lawyer-blames-victim-in-concrete-slam/
His friend did tell Police that night it was him that did it.
Why were none of the aggressors on her side charged...including her. She's clearly being aggressive and swinging her purse at Carroo's girlfriend. Carroo's girlfriend tried to press charges...why were they refused. ??
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/rutgers-stars-lawyer-blames-victim-in-concrete-slam/
His friend did tell Police that night it was him that did it.
Why were none of the aggressors on her side charged...including her. She's clearly being aggressive and swinging her purse at Carroo's girlfriend. Carroo's girlfriend tried to press charges...why were they refused. ??
How about a take home exam to satisfy your curiosity. Noodle this one over for a while. Take your time, though. Draw from your everyday experiences. Think about the world around you, as you look at it every day. Consider the things you see and the conclusions you draw. Consider them. Consider you. Consider what I'm implying. Make some inferences. In the end, you may settle very nicely into the world of those who infer. Best of luck.
it might not come down to not guilty lets reinstate.
Rutgers legal staff could take the stance that this is his third chance this year alone
After boggs, barnwell , pratt would they take a chance that nothing can go wrong again on a player being reinstated?
If it did how great would that backlash be?
Rutgers legal staff could take the stance that this is his third chance this year alone
After boggs, barnwell , pratt would they take a chance that nothing can go wrong again on a player being reinstated?
If it did how great would that backlash be?
And probably take us all out MacGyver style with string, a stick of Juicy Fruit, and empty soda can lol.
If there even is a backlash, who cares?
Violation of curfew? Suspended for one half of one game.
Exercising poor judgement in leaving the Hale Center against orders to join a confrontation involving his mother and current girlfriend? Suspended one game so far, and all but certainly for a second game until the next scheduled court hearing on this matter takes placed.
If he is found not guilty of assault, then Carroo should be reinstated to the team without question. In fact, not doing will cause backlash and possibly expose the university to legal action.
At the risk of starting an argument about self-righteousness and good judgment, I'm don't that I'd be able to stop myself from leaving a building if informed that my mother and girlfriend are involved in a physical confrontation outside, even if in Carroo's position as a star college football player with high NFL prospects. And hindsight is 20-20, but we find out after the fact that not only are there no surveillance cameras right by the Hale center side of the football stadium, but also that a fight involving the family of one of the players was allowed to continue there for what seems like an unacceptably long period of time prior to security/law enforcement intervention.
Finally, I'm still waiting for more facts to come out, and a hopefully timely final plea/verdict/prosecutorial decision, before deciding whether Carroo was actually involved in the assault himself beyond breaking up a fight.
Last edited:
Carroo's lawyer is a former police officer and Middlesex County prosecutor. He has had a couple of high profile cases where he got acquittals for his clients. If everything from Carroo's attorney is true, and there is nothing involving Carroo beyond that 16 second clip, he will be acquitted
Would certainly be a pleasant surprise if Carroo didn't do some of the things we heard he did, either from the board or other sources. Melees can be hard to decipher with regard to who did what and if Carroo was falsely accused it won't be the first time someone accuses the "famous" guy for attention. If it's confirmed he didn't do much other than defend his family, then he should be reinstated, but we need to wait for the legal system to get there first (unless there's some full video out there exonerating him, which would be enough for me).
A Curfew violation isn't a second chance situation. It's the same as being late for practice or any other internal team rule. You see it in football and basketball everywhere.
No cop in his bio
Academia, then first job after law school was legal work
http://petergilbreth.com/background.html
RU#s is correct.
The word "corroborate" cannot "infer" anything. It can "imply" something.
Someone reading or hearing the word "corroborate" can "infer" something.
The lawyer's use of the word "corroborate" was meant to allow people to "infer" a certain meaning.
The lawyer "implied" a meaning. The reader or listener "inferred" a meaning.
I am no expert on any of this.. but have to be cautious in using such language because of that. I am fairly sure that if you see the word "infers" with the "s" on the end, it is likely a wrong usage and "implies" is more likely the correct word.
Perhaps "confers" would work there?
And on that Vincito-willis thing.. wrong-etc.. isn't that just a ripoff of a SNL skit.. like MCLaughlin Group
Last edited:
Must be a disconnect, and one lawyer is representing Carroo in criminal court, and the other in Family Court?
Articles have said: Attorney William Fetky, who represented Carroo in Wednesday’s Family Court hearing
one of LC's attorneys stated (to the NY Post) that if the alleged victim takes the stand and testifies to the version of events in the police report she will be committing perjury. you cannot make that statement unless you are certain in the evidence.
bitnez
here's the link. WOW! GOOD STUFF
www.nypost.com/2015/09/23/rutgers-stars-lawyer-blames-victim-in-concrete-slam/
here's the link. WOW! GOOD STUFF
www.nypost.com/2015/09/23/rutgers-stars-lawyer-blames-victim-in-concrete-slam/
Interestingly, this complaint is usually the lament of men and here it is a woman making that claim! Many men falsely accused of DV, usually want to make a "harassment" complaint against the false accuser. Usually the police will deny that request and tell the person to take it up with the judge at the hearing. Now we have a woman who is making that same claim that the police would not take her complaint against the so called "victim" of DV. This will be very interesting to see how this unfolds.
You can say it's wrong. You can say it's unfair. You can say it's a lot of things if what Carroo's lawyer is telling the true story.
What I believe you can't say is, in the world we live in today, that the RUPD didn't handle it as most police departments would have. DV is a hot button issue as it should be. It's a very real problem. If the RUPD hadn't done what they did, they would have been skewered in the media and by special interest groups. Especially when the one being accused is pretty close to what would be considered a celebrity at RU.
I'm guessing they did their job the way they're trained to do with the idea as someone said that the court will hash it out.
