Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
Author Message
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #61
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 08:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  They have violated the Cleary Act. In addition, if they knew they had a child molester roaming campus they knew there was an issue and they still allowed him to bring children on campus. People have sued for McDonald's having their coffee too hot. They don't have to be certain of losing for there to be a risk. People often pay if the cost of defending themselves exceeds the settlement costs.

And even if they hadn't committed perjury or violated the Cleary Act, what do you think the 3's chances of getting another job would be now? The same situation applied then. They knew there was someone who had been accused of molesting children and they didn't even distance themselves from him at that point. They would have to go far away where no one had heard of them or the situation.

In the real world people do think about their personal liability and personal job prospects. Its not some theoretical exercise about whether they would lose a lawsuit or not. They are much more likely to think about the impact on themselves than about Joe's reputation or a football team's recruiting. There's a reason the one guy kept that file on Sandusky and locked it up.

x

Once again, your understanding of the law is flawed. You should read the McDonald's case before you cite it. It's almost universally misunderstood, which is the only reason why it is considered to be the poster child for frivolous lawsuits. It actually isn't a frivolous lawsuit. It just has a weird set of circumstances, and it is easier to cite it than read it. McDonalds was sued because their coffee was unreasonably hot. I don't want to get too off topic, but the basic idea behind the case was that McD served a lady some coffee through a drive thru. McD knew that the customers who were ordering the coffee via the drive thru in the morning weren't drinking the coffee until later. So, to keep their customers happy, McD was serving really, really hot coffee in the morning, so it would still be hot when the customer finally drank it. To put things in perspective, McD's coffee was so hot that it was literally undrinkable. It would have burned the mouth of anyone who tried to drink it (she got skin grafts and spent a week in a hospital). And, despite its large deviation from the public's expectations based on standard industry practice, McD didn't warn customers of the extra danger. Essentially, they knew or should have known that their customers would use their product in a certain way, they then knew or should have known that the failure to disclose that their coffee was significantly hotter than the coffee of any other retailer, which could lead to injuries, and yet they didn't sufficiently warn their customers of the danger. Then, when their customers were injured, they were liable. There was a special relationship (seller-customer) and a deviation from accepted industry standards, so there was a duty to disclose, there were insufficient warnings, so there was a breach of that duty, the breach of the duty was something like 80% of the proximate cause of the injury and the actual cause of the injury, and obviously there was a significant injury. It wasn't just some random lawsuit out of nowhere for no reason. Even then, using your example, Jim Cantalupo (McD's CEO) was never sued.

I don't dispute that PSU hasn't been sued. I think that State actually just settled. I just haven't heard of anyone suing anyone in an individual capacity.

"People often pay if the cost of defending themselves exceeds the settlement costs." You are 100% wrong. All of them have indemnification agreements with the university. Had Sandusky won, his expenses would have been $0. The exact terms of the indemnity agreement is complicated and depends on the contract, but your general assertion is incorrect as it applies to their personal finances.

Your statement about their job prospects is misleading at best. Refusing to take half-measures is the definition of distancing oneself. There was a sex scandal at Syracuse where someone was (wrongfully IMHO) accused of molesting children, but JB, the Chancellor, and the athletic director all still have their jobs, and the former chancellor and former AD are still in good graces. So, when appropriate action is taken, there are no negative job-related personal affects.

Your statement about the "real world" is also wrong. The expectation of liability (or gain) is what drives people's decision-making process, which is what you are characterizing as a theoretical exercise. It's commonly referred to as a cost-benefit analysis, and if you aren't making at least a rough cost-benefit analysis in your head when you makes significant decisions, then you are irrational.
07-15-2013 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #62
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Since we're drifting a little, let me restate my point:

Other than the victims, football recruiting was the last thing on their minds and so the NCAA should not have punished the football team.

What I haven't seen is anything relating to the insular culture where everybody seemed to have deep PSU connections and so shared a way of thinking. That's why the board should be seriously purged and they should try to get some outsiders in key positions in administration.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I don't think that the organization is capable of doing that on its own. There is simply too much institutional resistance. That's why I think that the NCAA should have stepped in to fix things from an athletics standpoint. Obviously the state, feds, and school would have to fix the other areas.
07-15-2013 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #63
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 09:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  From PSU's standpoint, the best is probably just to let things play out and not draw attention to themselves by trying to change the penalties.

I think that fighting penalties will lead to either more negative PR if State is lucky, or increased sanctions and more negative PR is State isn't lucky.

I honestly think that State needs some serious changes, so I'm not against sanctions if it leads to change. But, barring change, I agree with what you said.
07-15-2013 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #64
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 08:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-15-2013 02:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(07-15-2013 02:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-15-2013 01:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(07-15-2013 01:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "nzmorane, are you suggesting that the problem at Penn State is that laws were broken?"
No. You misunderstand what I wrote. A poster said that the cover-up was motivated by a desire to avoid personal liability. I said that wasn't true because the people doing the cover-up didn't break any laws or do anything that would trigger a cause of action against them in a personal capacity. That means that there is no liability. If there's no liability, then I think that the people involved were motivated by something other than a desire to avoid liability.

"And that part of the assessment should be that other than Sandusky no one broke any laws???"
Absolutely not. The NCAA is not the judicial system. Whether or not laws were broken is a matter for the government. Whether or not PSU ran/is running a safe and honest athletic department is a matter for the NCAA.

"That situation went way beyond the technicalities of what laws were or were not broken."
I agree and have never said anything differently, nor will I ever.

"The blatant disregard for the welfare of children and the completely heinous acts that were involved set this case apart from any other college sports scandal I can remember."
I agree. That begs the questions: why did it happen and how can we stop it from happening again?
One man, Sandusky, committed a crime, and he is in jail for life. A couple school officials were fired. Maybe they should be charged and jailed for a cover up. No one else was abusing kids. This was not an institutional problem, it was a one man pedifile problem. It was dealt with badly by the administration, I will give you that, but this was not a football/athletics problem. This was an on campus crime by one man. I think these creepy people are all around us everyday, in schools, work places, etc. You can't blame the entire university, who acted quickly once this became public.

The problem is that nobody acted quickly or diligently. You argue that the administration acted poorly and when referring to a couple (very high ranking) school officials, you said "maybe they should have been charged and jailed for a cover up." You just implicated the leaders of the university and athletic dept. as possibly being criminally complicit then say that both the university and the athletic department as a whole handled the situation poorly. How is that not an institutional problem? And why did they possibly cover it up? Also, this had been going on for well over a decade. I'm not sure how you are jumping to the conclusion that the university acted quickly.

I agree that the actual abuses were the actions of one man out of a community that numbers in the millions. In my eyes, that is a terrible issue, but a separate issue. The problems, from PSU's perspective, are 1) the (lack of) safety nets in place to prevent this from happening (IMO, this is mostly an internal/possibly legal problem), and 2) insufficient action when they knew, or reasonably should have known (this is an internal issue and a NCAA issue IMO).
My point is that PSU is a lot more than two or three bad apples. I believe in dealing with the bad apples. JMHO. No more or less.

well I don't disagree with that. I am just of the opinion that the metaphorical barrel is part of what spoiled the apples and removing the rotten apples is nice, but removing the rotten apples and fixing the barrel is better.
If the barrel is indeed broken...
07-15-2013 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cardinals Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 508
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Louisville
Location: California
Post: #65
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Great. Another forum for people to claim that the real victims of this abuse scandal are Penn State fans.

No, "the people still at PSU are" NOT "equally victims of these individuals" ...not unless they were young adolescents who were raped by 60-year-olds. A fine, the loss of a few scholarships, and the loss of a couple of bowl appearances does not create any more victims. These are just tiny measures taken to punish a system that bred abuse and enabling at an institutional scale.

Once again: Penn State fans are not victims. They're simply paying a price for decades of profiting off a system that actually created real abuse victims. The punishment is miniscule when compared with the crime.
07-16-2013 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,944
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #66
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-16-2013 10:01 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  
(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Great. Another forum for people to claim that the real victims of this abuse scandal are Penn State fans.

No, "the people still at PSU are" NOT "equally victims of these individuals" ...not unless they were young adolescents who were raped by 60-year-olds. A fine, the loss of a few scholarships, and the loss of a couple of bowl appearances does not create any more victims. These are just tiny measures taken to punish a system that bred abuse and enabling at an institutional scale.

Once again: Penn State fans are not victims. They're simply paying a price for decades of profiting off a system that actually created real abuse victims. The punishment is miniscule when compared with the crime.

^^gets it
07-16-2013 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #67
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Since we're drifting a little, let me restate my point:

Other than the victims, football recruiting was the last thing on their minds and so the NCAA should not have punished the football team.

What I haven't seen is anything relating to the insular culture where everybody seemed to have deep PSU connections and so shared a way of thinking. That's why the board should be seriously purged and they should try to get some outsiders in key positions in administration.
I disagree. This would not have happened if people associated with the football program hadn't had a taste for young boys. It's totally the fault of the football program that this happened, and the football program was sacrosanct due to JoePa, so no meaningful investigation into allegations ever took place until well after it was all proven, and everyone was coming forward...

The NCAA should punish the football program. Penn State drastically altered the lives of who knows how many young men, stone walled every attempt to look into the issue, dragged their feet on the investigation, and now complain that people are being too hard on 'em...

They got off easy. I'd revoke their accreditation for multiple Cleary Act violations, which would wipe Penn State from the face of the Earth. Screw 'em...
07-16-2013 02:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #68
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(07-16-2013 10:01 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  
(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Great. Another forum for people to claim that the real victims of this abuse scandal are Penn State fans.

No, "the people still at PSU are" NOT "equally victims of these individuals" ...not unless they were young adolescents who were raped by 60-year-olds. A fine, the loss of a few scholarships, and the loss of a couple of bowl appearances does not create any more victims. These are just tiny measures taken to punish a system that bred abuse and enabling at an institutional scale.

Once again: Penn State fans are not victims. They're simply paying a price for decades of profiting off a system that actually created real abuse victims. The punishment is miniscule when compared with the crime.

^^gets it

This is my last comment on the subject. No one said this was not a mess. I just stated that it did not involve the whole university. Thousands of professors and students go to class everyday. If the leaders involved were indeed punished, who else do you want to go after, the Greek Philosophy professor? The next pedifile might show up on your favorite school's staff. I hope everyone upholds the standards and punishments in which you believe PSU should be held to. That is all.04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2013 02:45 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
07-16-2013 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #69
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-16-2013 10:01 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  
(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Great. Another forum for people to claim that the real victims of this abuse scandal are Penn State fans.

No, "the people still at PSU are" NOT "equally victims of these individuals" ...not unless they were young adolescents who were raped by 60-year-olds. A fine, the loss of a few scholarships, and the loss of a couple of bowl appearances does not create any more victims. These are just tiny measures taken to punish a system that bred abuse and enabling at an institutional scale.

Once again: Penn State fans are not victims. They're simply paying a price for decades of profiting off a system that actually created real abuse victims. The punishment is miniscule when compared with the crime.

Well, you're probably convinced that everything you write is profound. I never said that no else at PSU was free from sin. In fact, I mentioned the fanbase could have been more empathetic of the victims. However, just because someone attends PSU, does that make them responsible? Where does the line of responsibility begin and end? You, nor I, get to make that decision thankfully, as you'd have them all flogged for just being in the vicinity of the stadium. What a retarded comment.
07-16-2013 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,944
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #70
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-16-2013 02:40 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(07-16-2013 10:05 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(07-16-2013 10:01 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  
(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Great. Another forum for people to claim that the real victims of this abuse scandal are Penn State fans.

No, "the people still at PSU are" NOT "equally victims of these individuals" ...not unless they were young adolescents who were raped by 60-year-olds. A fine, the loss of a few scholarships, and the loss of a couple of bowl appearances does not create any more victims. These are just tiny measures taken to punish a system that bred abuse and enabling at an institutional scale.

Once again: Penn State fans are not victims. They're simply paying a price for decades of profiting off a system that actually created real abuse victims. The punishment is miniscule when compared with the crime.

^^gets it

This is my last comment on the subject. No one said this was not a mess. I just stated that it did not involve the whole university. Thousands of professors and students go to class everyday. If the leaders involved were indeed punished, who else do you want to go after, the Greek Philosophy professor? The next pedifile might show up on your favorite school's staff. I hope everyone upholds the standards and punishments in which you believe PSU should be held to. That is all.04-cheers

You seem to be suggesting no punishment should ever be handed out by an organization like the NCAA because there are innocent people impacted that are not involved in which ever rule breaking it is trying to enforce. That happens with every single NCAA sanction, so the real world doesn't work like that, and never has. Nor does loss of scholarships and bowl games for a football program impact the Philosophy Department.

Further, spend some time in State College. The insular hero worship culture, directly addressed by the Freeh report, continues to dominate and directly contributed to the institutional priorities demonstrated from the janitors on up to the college president, let alone the person who actually held the most power. That culture needs to be changed or put down. Unfortunately, other than some long over due institutional reporting procedures that have been put in place, there seems to be little actual change thus far.

If a pedophile shows up on any schools staff, I hope they immediately report him to police and not cover it up for decade(s). If they did, I'd want everyone's head on a platter, whether they were a good coach/recruiter or not because a sports team is not greater than an entire university, not to mention basic morality.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2013 04:10 PM by CrazyPaco.)
07-16-2013 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-15-2013 11:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-15-2013 08:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  They have violated the Cleary Act. In addition, if they knew they had a child molester roaming campus they knew there was an issue and they still allowed him to bring children on campus. People have sued for McDonald's having their coffee too hot. They don't have to be certain of losing for there to be a risk. People often pay if the cost of defending themselves exceeds the settlement costs.

And even if they hadn't committed perjury or violated the Cleary Act, what do you think the 3's chances of getting another job would be now? The same situation applied then. They knew there was someone who had been accused of molesting children and they didn't even distance themselves from him at that point. They would have to go far away where no one had heard of them or the situation.

In the real world people do think about their personal liability and personal job prospects. Its not some theoretical exercise about whether they would lose a lawsuit or not. They are much more likely to think about the impact on themselves than about Joe's reputation or a football team's recruiting. There's a reason the one guy kept that file on Sandusky and locked it up.

x

Once again, your understanding of the law is flawed. You should read the McDonald's case before you cite it. It's almost universally misunderstood, which is the only reason why it is considered to be the poster child for frivolous lawsuits. It actually isn't a frivolous lawsuit. It just has a weird set of circumstances, and it is easier to cite it than read it. McDonalds was sued because their coffee was unreasonably hot. I don't want to get too off topic, but the basic idea behind the case was that McD served a lady some coffee through a drive thru. McD knew that the customers who were ordering the coffee via the drive thru in the morning weren't drinking the coffee until later. So, to keep their customers happy, McD was serving really, really hot coffee in the morning, so it would still be hot when the customer finally drank it. To put things in perspective, McD's coffee was so hot that it was literally undrinkable. It would have burned the mouth of anyone who tried to drink it (she got skin grafts and spent a week in a hospital). And, despite its large deviation from the public's expectations based on standard industry practice, McD didn't warn customers of the extra danger. Essentially, they knew or should have known that their customers would use their product in a certain way, they then knew or should have known that the failure to disclose that their coffee was significantly hotter than the coffee of any other retailer, which could lead to injuries, and yet they didn't sufficiently warn their customers of the danger. Then, when their customers were injured, they were liable. There was a special relationship (seller-customer) and a deviation from accepted industry standards, so there was a duty to disclose, there were insufficient warnings, so there was a breach of that duty, the breach of the duty was something like 80% of the proximate cause of the injury and the actual cause of the injury, and obviously there was a significant injury. It wasn't just some random lawsuit out of nowhere for no reason. Even then, using your example, Jim Cantalupo (McD's CEO) was never sued.

I don't dispute that PSU hasn't been sued. I think that State actually just settled. I just haven't heard of anyone suing anyone in an individual capacity.

"People often pay if the cost of defending themselves exceeds the settlement costs." You are 100% wrong. All of them have indemnification agreements with the university. Had Sandusky won, his expenses would have been $0. The exact terms of the indemnity agreement is complicated and depends on the contract, but your general assertion is incorrect as it applies to their personal finances.

Your statement about their job prospects is misleading at best. Refusing to take half-measures is the definition of distancing oneself. There was a sex scandal at Syracuse where someone was (wrongfully IMHO) accused of molesting children, but JB, the Chancellor, and the athletic director all still have their jobs, and the former chancellor and former AD are still in good graces. So, when appropriate action is taken, there are no negative job-related personal affects.

Your statement about the "real world" is also wrong. The expectation of liability (or gain) is what drives people's decision-making process, which is what you are characterizing as a theoretical exercise. It's commonly referred to as a cost-benefit analysis, and if you aren't making at least a rough cost-benefit analysis in your head when you makes significant decisions, then you are irrational.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I doubt indemnification agreements handle all situations. They might have to sue to get coverage. And people don't want their reputation sullied in public or get sued. People think about that all the time in business. Its not solely, "will we win or not"? Its not solely a straight cost-benefit of 89% 0 loss, 10 % $X loss, 1% $100X loss. They don't want to face that 1% chance of $100X even if the average is $1.1 X.

As for McDonald's, if you drink coffee without testing it, you shouldn't be suing anyone. McDonald's is not responsible for someone leaving their brain at home.
07-16-2013 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #72
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-16-2013 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for McDonald's, if you drink coffee without testing it, you shouldn't be suing anyone. McDonald's is not responsible for someone leaving their brain at home.

To defend the good name of that McD lady. It wasn't that she didn't test it. It's that she tried to put cream in it and spilled it on her lap while wearing sweat pants. Apparently it was absorbed by the sweatpants, which not only looked ugly (I would assume), but stuck to her skin and burned her like highly caffeinated breakfast McNapalm.*

Morals of the story:
1. Take pride in the way that you look. Don't wear sweats...ever!
and
2. Stick to good 'ole OJ. It's cool, refreshing, and Otto-approved!

*I'm only half-joking. Apparently she spent something like a week in a hospital and got skin gaffes.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2013 07:08 AM by nzmorange.)
07-17-2013 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #73
RE: What I think that the PSU sanctions should have been
(07-17-2013 07:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-16-2013 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for McDonald's, if you drink coffee without testing it, you shouldn't be suing anyone. McDonald's is not responsible for someone leaving their brain at home.

To defend the good name of that McD lady. It wasn't that she didn't test it. It's that she tried to put cream in it and spilled it on her lap while wearing sweat pants. Apparently it was absorbed by the sweatpants, which not only looked ugly (I would assume), but stuck to her skin and burned her like highly caffeinated breakfast McNapalm.*

Morals of the story:
1. Take pride in the way that you look. Don't wear sweats...ever!
and
2. Stick to good 'ole OJ. It's cool, refreshing, and Otto-approved!

*I'm only half-joking. Apparently she spent something like a week in a hospital and got skin gaffes.

You're right. I forgot she spilled it. But its still a question of her spilling it, not Ronald.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2013 09:42 AM by bullet.)
07-17-2013 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.