Favorite team:USA 
Location:Baton Rouge
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:23172
Registered on:9/15/2008
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

You know Kyren Lacey was 24 hen he played for LSU, right?
As was Harold Perkins and several others?


Kyren Lacey did not play a single game as a 24-year-old and Harold Perkins is only 21 currently. :lol:
quote:

Why this scenario works


Adds two new states (North Carolina & potentially Florida if FSU


:lol:

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 12:37 pm to
Let me make this easier for you since you can't seem to answer the question.....intentionally killing your own kids makes you categorically a bad parent and a bad person.
quote:

They are.

The defense has to show some credible evidence of NGRI then the burden shifts to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't insane.

That's why this is a total cluster frick of a trial.


That's unfortunate.

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 11:39 am to
quote:

That is not what I said at all, and you know it. This whole topic has turned into "boys rule, girls drool."

This is what I said:

"It's the most horrifying thing to think that someone you know - who is a great person and loved by all - can just snap and do something like this."

I do not know Lindsay Clancy. I stated that numerous people on the witness stand went to bat for her. This is factually correct.


Well let's cut to the chase.....do you think she was a good mom? Do you think she was a good person?

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 11:38 am to
quote:

It is



Ahh, well then, congrats! The exceptional mom child murderer just may get off.
Unless Massachusetts is different than nearly every other state, yes it does.

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 11:23 am to
quote:

Ultimately, the prosecution was not clear in what they were trying to prove, hence the "reasonable doubt."


The state has to prove that she killed her kids. That's a pretty low bar given that the defense does not dispute that she killed them. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove that the murder was justified or should otherwise be excused.

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 11:14 am to
This is what you said:

quote:

It's the most horrifying thing to think that someone you know - who is a great person and loved by all - can just snap and do something like this.


You didn't say that people testified that she was a great person. YOU said she was a great person, and for that you are rightfully getting laughed at and ridiculed.

You'll find character witnesses willing to go to bat for even the most evil of people, as Scruffy has already pointed out. That doesn't mean they deserve even an ounce of sympathy.
quote:

Troll or not, I cannot believe we are building massive data centers and sucking up resources for this kind of shite. Think how much "compute" went into this.

If this is real, I feel very sorry for you. One of the worst things about the internet is that it creates a bridge to connect people to act upon the worst impulses. You should be shamed for this antisocial behavior, not finding a community to support it. People who support you are just as bad as the freaks supporting Lindsey Clancy or Luigi Mangione. If you can go to a Chili's and be brave, just go to the bar and bravely talk to someone.

If this is a troll, get a life.



Sooooooooo......I'm guessing you're out on a double date?
quote:

She was noting what several family members and friends, including her Mother In Law, testified at trial.


That's fine. "Sweet and exceptional moms" and "great people" don't strangle their three young children.

re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

Posted by UpToPar on 9/1/26 at 10:40 am to
quote:

I've already said I don't think she had psychosis


So you don't think she had psychosis, killed her three children, and still think she was a "sweet and exceptional mom"?
quote:

“But I’ll put it this way. Having dealt with the NCAA many, many times. Having handled the Chamblas case, you can see his signed jersey behind me. I totally understand how the law works in this area. But the SEC is vastly different than the NCAA when it comes to the legal claim that the plaintiffs are advancing. It is not going to be possible for them to sustain that claim.”


Groundbreaking legal analysis there.
quote:

SEC board


What's this? This place as been the Tiger Rant for the last two weeks.
quote:

Can't say that I've ever watched any of his press conferences.

But I do read news blurbs on basically all the SEC teams just to keep up generally with the conference.


If you would have read a little further, you would have saw that Wright practicing does not violate any rules, new or old.
We're less than a week away from week 1. :lol: The Texas Tech situation happened 6 months ago.
quote:

I admit, i wandered over the Tiger Rant


We're flattered. You're in good company though. Captdalton and the rest of the SEC Rant retards live on there so they can bring all of the breaking LSU news over here. This board is ate up with LSU.
quote:

Cant file a TRO and force teams to play you though. Each school can stand to lose one televised game this year.


Do you really think that would happen?
quote:

You mean other than Lane Kiffin saying today that Dae’Quan Wright is on the roster and practiced today?


You still watch Lane Kiffin press conferences? :lol:
quote:

Kiffin thinks hes above everything else. This is just the facts. It will either work out or it wont.



Kiffin has nothing to do with the article in the OP. Did you read it? The article is about a third-party placing bets to hedge against potential bonus payments to Kiffin if he hits certain milestones. It also mentions South Carolina doing the same.
It feels like it’s huge. Not really because the game itself is a must win, but because I frankly don’t think Clemson is very good, so if we lose that means we aren’t very good.