Conspiracy theories and lazy fact checking

by soundchaser on May 24, 2009 8:32 AM PDT Comment 40 comments

When people are looking for the truth, a lot of them end up cultivating conspiracy theories.

Here is an interesting comment from the Blog across towN. (my emphasis added)

Ten days ago, Yahoo Sports broke the story, which I thought was pretty big: A direct, specific allegation that Tim Floyd was seen giving at least $1,000 to Rodney Guillory as a payoff for directing OJ Mayo to the Trojans. Floyd has said nothing in the interim. Garrett has said nothing in the interim. USC’s lawyer said what lawyers always say – “We can’t comment” meaning she didn’t want to comment.

In the past ten days, the Times has done essentially nothing. There was a story on the story – with a question mark in the headline. Then there was a Q and A between Adam Rose (USC alum) and Craig Penrose (USC Alum). What a shock – Penrose saw absolutely nothing wrong. There is a nice children’s story called “The Emperor’s New Clothes” which was a lot like that interview. We also heard it a lot from Sgt. Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes.

That's from an email sent by one the resident legal scholars over there to Plaschke attempting to take the LAT to task for not "reporting" the Floyd story.

I'm wondering where they get was seen; where has that been reported? That's right, nowhere! This is an utter fabrication and exposes an obvious bias, not that we should be surprised.

But wait! It gets better: Plaschke responds not once but twice and his responses are surprisingly sharp and informative (emphasis added to drive the point home)...

From: “Plaschke, Bill” <Bill.Plaschke@latimes.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:08 AM
Subject: RE: USC Basketball

“the charges were made by a felon who is trying to sell a book…he is the only source…I’m not personally involved in it, but I’m guessing that we need more than one biased source to publicly crucify a man..if it were your reputation on the firing line, you would feel the same way..”

Ouch!

That is pretty significant, wouldn't ya say?

Here is Plaschke's second response after the sly old fella tries to bait Plaschke by "dressing him down" in response to Plaschke's response (again, emphasis added)...

“From: “Plaschke, Bill” <Bill.Plaschke@latimes.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: USC Basketball

So you think we’re NOT pursuing the story?..You think we HAVEN’T been calling people?…You assume that because we don’t write a story, we’re not checking out all leads?..We chase things hard, and it’s a sign of the potential weakness in this story that, for all our chasing, we have yet to find someone to corroborate.
…
Where have I been on this? I’m the Times’ lead general sports columnist, meaning I cover the biggest story. If you read our newspaper or website, you would know that the Lakers are my town’s biggest story. If I’m not covering them through the playoffs, then THAT’S a story.… I’m sorry you are so bitter about this, and cannot afford me the same respect that I have afforded you, but, hey, I understand, that’s how the world works these days

plaschke."

Game over!

The last paragraph is classic. Bitterness consumes this crowd to no end. After a while, listening to these guys is like hearing one hand clapping. I only bring it up because Plaschke articulates what many SC fans have been trying to say. I don't even consider myself a huge SC supporter; in fact, I was raised a UCLA fan by my UCLA-grad dad but some of the bile over at the Blog across towN is just pathetic. I don't want to be part of that crowd and just reading some of their posts is enough to make me feel like I need a shower. As Paragon has said many times, they have a great history and are a fine university with nothing to be ashamed of and plenty to celebrate. It's beyond me why some of their supporters act so insecure. But it's this kind of insecurity that makes fertile ground for these lame conspiracy theories.

I don't often agree with Plaschke; in fact, I frequently despise his goofy one-line paragraphs and may never forgive the way he ran a previous Dodgers GM out of town. But I have to admit he is dead on here. No worthwhile news organization is going to ruin their own reputation without having backed up a story of this magnitude with legitimate sources. And the LAT will not sit around and do nothing if there was a legit story of this magnitude. Plaschke does an excellent job of exposing this guy as nothing more than a hater with an agenda... is anybody here surprised?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.

2 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cool Post! But, the Virus has spread.

I actually think Plaschke is the best sportswriter that I have ever read. I don’t always agree with him, but his writing talent is second to none, IMO. A lost art these days. I can count the # of sports print stories that have truly touched me on 4 hands, and Plaschke has probably written half of them. Go Plaschke!

But, sadly, it is being reported that Noel Johnson has been granted an LOI release. The virus has spread. If true, who’s next, MoMo, or Floyd himself? And, will the fans ever be presented with hard evidence, or has the court of public opinion already decided the fate of USC’s b’ball program before the NCAA has even ruled? One of the derivatives of the slow investigation by the NCAA, and a quote from Al Gore in the movie Recount, is that “we can’t win, even if we win”. We are now officially losing. Noel Johnson was the future.

by DFWTrojan on May 24, 2009 12:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I saw it too

but there has been no confirmation. would like to see it somewhere else before running with it. There could be other things in the mix here as well. Family issues, etc…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 24, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Journalistic Integrity

I hope it is not true.

by DFWTrojan on May 24, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with a portion of what soundchaser is saying. I will be interested to see if the LAT does eventually come out with some thing more. Maybe there is no story. Maybe Yahoo! has said all there is to say. Or maybe the tin-foilistas out there are right and it’s a conspiracy!!! Either way, the LA Times has gone way down hill in my lifetime. I, for one, won’t shed a tear when they go bankrupt.

by impaulv on May 24, 2009 4:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i'll shed a tear.

i loved the comics page. and all the memories of our family’s parakeet… what would we have lined the cage with?

by Harsha on May 24, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too!

Coming from the Bay Area, practically all print media suck the royal . . . .? Especially the Mercury News. Contra Costa Times is decent. But the Chron? Ouch. They bite.

The Column One on the front pages of the Times are massive. Especially their coverage on Mexico and the drug cartels that’s been going on (the Times has printed this special coverage for the past 1 1/2 years! It’s truly one of the better forms of investigative/report journalism I’ve ever read)- they have won a few media awards for it. Check it out! It’s more than just enlightening.

I’ll miss the times. Their reporters are the best in local, national, and world coverage out here in the West as far as I’m concerned. Seriously, try branching out on other print media out here? You’ll be amazed at the amateurish reporting of others.

Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"

by BixBeiderbecke on May 28, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plaschke, or not?

That Bruin got bitch spanked. Got bitch spanked by THE most sensitive Angeleno in all The Angel-less. Very ironic, indeed.

It rarely, gets better than that!

(ok, ok Plaschke. you won this one- i’ll admit it THIS TIME. here you go, one of my last disposable tears i’ve been saving. for just this sort of occasion, when you categorically surprise me and do something un-formulaic and truly selfish. my god Bill? you ARE part human! why is it that you insist on having me (readership) believe you’re infallible and beyond reproach?)

by BixBeiderbecke on May 24, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I suppose,

when you arrange the context, you win every time.

I thought it was a draw really but I will allow that Plaschke has less time to hammer out his arguments.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 25, 2009 1:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're going to have to do better than that

that’s pretty vague and I have read the exchange over on BN…nothing is out of place here.

Plaschke is dead on…you NEVER run a piece unless you have AT LEAST TWO confirmed sources. That’s the basic tenets of journalism. USC and ucla fans alike may not like Plaschke for what he writes but he is still a respected member of the MSM and he is dead on here. Why in Gods name would you vilify someone over the words of a convicted felon? Funny how you clowns over there always say that your opinions have to be based in facts. Well, thats what we have here…I may very well be true, we’ll know soon enough but if it isn’t how do you justify your hypocrisy?

Anything to advance your agenda right? Typical of an attorney.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 25, 2009 4:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Advancing your client's rights

That’s a sacred oath, but we can go into that later.

Plaschke made some good points but merely providing his zingers without Fox 71’s retorts to me doesn’t really do anything for the argument. Both make sense depending on your outlook. I don’t believe he was attempting to vilify Plaschke either. It is just directing our disdain for the times, a disdain which has been turned up to 11 since the UCLA blog is run buy a Trojan.

And you say that way should we trust a convicted felon? My question is, if we never trust convicted felons, would one mob boss ever have be convicted? No drug lord, no criminal organization would ever fall. I’m not suggesting that your teams are like criminal organizations, I’m saying that felons don’t always lie. I’ll leave it at that because this is not the place to start a flame war.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 25, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats fine...

You can trust a felon all you want but you need to back it up BECAUSE he is a convicted felon. He can’t vote or hold a job with a security clearance because he IS convicted and because he cannot be trusted, he lost that right. This guy also has an agenda (book deal).

He may telling the truth then again he may not that’s why you need AT LEATS a second source. I think Plaschke is dead on it has to be corroborated…its the difference between being a legit news source and some blog or message board.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 25, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And besides. . . .

. . . .what THIS particular convicted felon ISN’T doing, is helping society rid itself from murderers, extortionists, drug dealers, or mobsters. THIS PARTICULAR convicted felon is getting his 15-minutes of fame, wrapped in the guise altruistic intentions, with the hopes of making some cash on the back end of it all.

So he gets booted from a lottery-pick’s inner circle, witnessing and probably participating in the very dealings he is accusing others of doing, and he got tired of being anonymous? What does he do? He forces you and I to KNOW his name and provokes some nutball to waste time and effort in compiling a monumentally retarded list of a hated school’s perceived wrongdoings. Talk about building machines to wash brains? An orgiatic circle-jerk of envy you BN-ers are, I must say.

And if I might add, it’s funny how you remark how Plaschke didn’t allow for an even-playing field by omitting that tool’s (Fox’s) retorts. What, pray tell, would be accomplished had Plaschke inserted those retorts? You, of all people, should talk of allowing even-playing fields of comments! I don’t see or read you challenging the principals over at BN for allowing contrary viewpoints on their threads? Those that are allowed to squeeze in something which challenges the party-line over there are quickly disparaged and banned from ever participating again. Fighting the good fight are you, Bruins102?

by BixBeiderbecke on May 25, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey that's how they run things

Never said I liked that particular part of their policy. As a matter of fact, I have complained about it on a number of occasions and so have others. I think a lot of good posters and debate gets blasted out in the attempt to discourage flame-throwers.

Not everyone over there marches in lock-step. I keep hoping that, by posting here from time to time, along with other Bruins, that they will once again allow real posters to engage in honest debate. Sometimes they do, albeit in an insulting manner.

I regret that there is more enmity over there than here towards the other but for some reason it has developed that way. I don’t know why it has developed so I really can’t say. Maybe someone who knows can enlighten us all.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 25, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's called tunnel vision and thoughts, and I can remember the times giving UCLA more ink in BB and mid 90s FB

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on May 26, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats very True

Remember Plaschke’s this is a bruin town rant…. etc. etc.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 26, 2009 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I’ll admit that I peruse no more than 20% of BN content, when and if I peruse at all. There have been times where I’ve read familiar SB Nation commenters like you posting replies and although I don’t read ‘em all, I’ve read more than a few where you were towing party line and quite enjoined in leveling a huge amount of vitriol to the fire.

Rose Bowl? (gotta tell you Bruins102. that’s where you lost me. couldn’t believe you’d write crap like that. but you did. great..)

by BixBeiderbecke on May 26, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The truth is

that BN blasts people that don’t flame. I commented once over there and was called “pathetic” by the blog’s admin. BN doesn’t allow debate, and argument. Why should they be afforded any consideration or privilege when they don’t follow suit. Its hypocritical for them to demand anything, from anyone, when their bias clouds everything that they say regarding USC.

Remember Brian Cushing, and Clay Matthews? I don’t remember seeing any retraction thread about those guys. But it was nice to see the air seep out of their original thread about the steroid accusations surrounding those players. That was a good example on how the news can do harm when a false story gains steam.

If the L.A. Times doesn’t find a corroborating source to this story, then it goes no further. They reported the alleged transaction. If they report it as fact, they open themselves up to a lawsuit. Just ask Brian Cushing about that. He is getting some cash from the website that published the false steroid story. The L.A. Times is watching its back. They are being careful. Guys like Fox21 are like children complaining about having to go to bed after bedtime. I read his retorts, and in a nutshell all they amounted to were accusations that he didn’t believe that the times was following up on the story, and basically called Plaschke a liar.

by frak on May 26, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frak's on it!

This is for Bruins102: not that I’m a glutton for punishment (ok, ok- i’m sadistic in a few things, masochistic in others- depending?) but, outline for me any one of your factual or even perceived reasons for consistently labeling Coach Carroll “Cheaty Petey”. I’m sure, at this point, it’s just a general term of non-endearment for y’all now- however, if there is any info on that you might have for us, indeed- indulge us.

by BixBeiderbecke on May 26, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is my initial post in the Cushing/Matthews debate

Not to circle like a vulture over these kid’s careers by promulgating unsubstantiated rumors, but this report by the same guy reporting on Cushing and Matthews above is being substantiated by ESPN. Seems like he knows something?

I still think we need to proceed carefully on this because rumors can kill these kid’s careers—rumors maybe not so much spread by individual posters—but by the groundswell (which we are a part of) that inevitably follows such things as these of a sensational nature.

I’ve said some mean stuff over there but don’t get me wrong, that’s the place for a Bruin to vent. Now coming over here you have to be more circumspect because you are a Bruin. Cheaty Petey is what I call him over there, I don’t here because it would create a backlash. I don’t like the guy, you do. You don’t worship John Wooden, we do.

Let me further disabuse you regarding the torts of defamation (slander/libel), but first I should say that I am not yet a lawyer and I cannot give legal advice. What I present here is for informative purposes only.

First and foremost, we are not talking about your plain common law libel. Because Cushing and Matthews are considered public figures, constitutional protections of free speech limit kick in. In addition to the common law elements of libel, you have to prove the additional element of actual malice: that the offending party knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. New York Times v Sullivan

This additional standard is very hard to prove and I doubt anything will come of it. But hey they can try. Be careful though, it might be a good reason to depo Pete and everyone else.

So I apologize if what you see over there offends you. A lot of what I see over here offends me (being a Bruin and a life-long Notre Dame fan) but I have this notion that you get the same out of it that I do writing mean thing over there.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 26, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here

Firstly, you can call our coach anything that pleases you, I will not begrudge you that at all. Secondly, it doesn’t bother me in the least what gets said over at BN, it’s their blog for their fans. This is academi

Lastly, it was (specifically) your post regarding our Rose Bowl win this year. Again, I’ll not begrudge anything you wish to write, especially over at BN. That’s really none of my business whatsoever. I was only asking “why call our coach Cheaty Petey” because of your post on the Rose Bowl win. You had insinuated that we cheated in the game or played dirty or whatever and you referred to our coach as Cheaty Petey on numerous other occasions as well as that specific post that night. So again, (without emotion or harassment) what is it with you (in specific) as it applies to calling Coach Carroll “Cheaty Petey”? When, where, how has he (in your perceptions or opinions) cheated while at USC?

(disclaimer: this is more of a “friendly” question. you’re not obligated to even reply or respond to it. I’m just asking as a favor to indulge us in why giving him that name)

For the record, I don’t necessarily “worship” John Wooden. However, I fully respect and have a very high regard of him. Always have, always will. He’s a legend and more importantly, a great American whose personal and professional accomplishments cannot be denied. (also, for the record: I don’t worship Coach Carroll either. I much rather like him and am more than just proud to have him as our football coach. May he coach our Trojans as long as he wants or wishes to)

by BixBeiderbecke on May 26, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You made me dig for that one

I don’t think he cheats, as in violates the rules of college football on the field. I think he lets an awful lot of bad people around his program. I don’t consider what he does cheating, I disapprove of the methods. That’s through blue-colored goggles as well. In others words just a pejorative nick-name.

You are probably referring to the angriest letter I have ever written about the subject. I was pissed about the late hit both in that game and the game before that wasn’t called (which you probably disagree with). I was angry about a few things. It was a pure vent post and I probably had too many beers.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 26, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you might consider

the fact that talented players attract agents. The more talent that is stockpiled, the more seedy people seek to cash in on it. Coach Carroll has pleaded with the NFL for help after the Bush mess to help police the agencies that seek to sign these kids through favors and gifts.

Maybe when you guys start winning a few games, you’ll have the same problems across town.

by frak on May 26, 2009 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

I’m glad you took the time to respond, when in actuality- you didn’t really have to. That says a lot to me Bruins102. You’re an ok-egg, I suppose.

I appreciate what you’ve written and I’m glad to know “the spirits” got a little of the better of you when that post of yours was written. (oh, the things i’ve written with an un-sorted mind!!! been there brotha!)

Thanks again, my respect for you has been partially restored. Take care.

by BixBeiderbecke on May 26, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No problem

I always respect a fellow motorcyclist, fine beer drinker, and, if I can say this, writer. You posts usually show impeccable style.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 27, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alot of what you see offends you??

Really??

Thats Rich!!

You must have a low threshold of pain because we aren’t even close to the level of hate towards ucla that your crew over there is towards USC. Use that education of yours and do some basic deduction…that you are even able to have a civil dialog here without getting mugged is proof enough that there is a higher level of tolerance of dissenting opions here than you will ever find on BN.

Maybe you should go back BN. I am sorry that we hurt your delicate sensibilities…I could go one but I am too busy laughing my ass off at this.

Unreal…Can I get you some cranberry juice?

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 26, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was I not clear when I said

I regret that there is more enmity over there than here towards the other but for some reason it has developed that way.

Never said that you should tone it down in general either. I pick my spots where I can add something to a rational argument. Sometimes I get abuse but I don’t take it seriously. The level of good ol rah rah “screw our rival” type is probably the same on both sites. However, you can come here and have a good argument without getting banned. Like I said in the earlier post, I don’t know why they do it, they just do.

Yes, if your getting up, I would like some cranberry juice but with some vitamin Vodka if you please.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 26, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfectly clear

I am just baffled that you think that we write a lot that offends you. I actually think that we are pretty tame.

moving on…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 26, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vitamin vodka?

Maybe the Bruin offers something of substance. What is vita-vod?

by DFWTrojan on May 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two words

Grey Goose.

I drank about a 1/5 of that and woke up feeling BETTER in the morning. Results may vary.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 26, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cheaty Petey

The whole thing is you all call yourselfs college grads but the last time I heard that kind of phrase was in in the 3rd grade.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on May 26, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not offended

What I see over there is laughable. I rather do enjoy a spirited debate or argument. I think it would be better if that blog was run with a lot less of the bile, but thats up to you guys to change that.

For the record i don’t have any problem with John Wooden. I afford him the respect that he deserves. I don’t mock the man, and believe that he has left the sport better than when he found it.

The fact that you don’t like Pete is understandable, but do you really believe that he cheats. Good luck trying to argue that point.

As for the Cushing thing, I think Brian does have a good argument for “reckless disregard as to its truth.” The false story could have cost him draft position, and cost him a lot of money in signing bonuses.

by frak on May 26, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

offensive

I agree with Paragon that it’s pretty laughable to say this site is equally offensive as BN. Do you really get offended that USC fans laugh at the recent tribulations of ND? I don’t know if ‘offensive’ would be the right word… maybe it hurts your feelings or something.

Can you at least admit that it’s a different kind of offensive over here? As a somewhat objective example, let me say that I work at a public school in California. Like all public schools, certain websites on blocked on campus to protect the delicate impressionable minds from certain content. I can access CC at work but for SOME REASON, BN is blocked as being adults-only. Does this surprise you?

by soundchaser on May 27, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is my view

We are talking about different levels here. On one level you have the “our school rules/our rivals suck” theme. This never bothered me too much but it does offend generally when one doesn’t believe in that sentiment. However, when you go to an SC site, you shouldn’t expect nice things said about the Bruins and vice versa. Basically, it is not offensive because it is expected.

The second level is what we are discussing here, and that is treating a Trojan who posts on BN with respect when they present a decent argument. It seems to me, and this is purely my interpretation, that Nestor does not want to discern between those who bring up good points and those who engage in drive-by flame wars. As I have said before, I don’t know why this is the case but it is lamentable to say the least. I have seen him tolerate posters with other views but I think that he has committed himself to the first level, that is he view is that the board is one for Bruins by Bruins.

I think that Paragon and Nestor ought to negotiate some sort of truce. Not blaming one side or the other, but I think that whatever animosity between the boards has gone on too long.

As far as the bile that is spewed, well, I look at it this way: If you were a reporter, or NCAA investigator, or any one else who was trying to form an opinion based on what you read on a fan-based forum, you are an idiot.

by Bruins102NCAA on May 27, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

About the bile

I think that BN is more responsible for that stuff that CC will ever be. I have a feeling that if Paragon went over there with an olive branch he would be beaten over the head with it. As I said before I posted a fairly innocuous comment over there, and was accused of trying to start a flame war, and treated in a fairly classless manner. Overall I found it amusing that my little comment was causing such a stir. I didn’t want to sink to their level of banter so I bowed out, thanking them for their hospitality. There were a few posters over there that objected to the negative way that I was treated, but they were in the minority.

I understand the blog by bruins for bruins thing. If thats the way they want it, then they should have it that way. I don’t think its necessary to disrespect anyone based on a sports rivalry. I also believe that Nestor generally dislikes and/or hates all things Trojan, which I think is taking the rivalry way too far.

I think you will find the friendly, tongue and cheek, mockery of bruins and ucla here at CC, but you will not find outward disrespect of anyone here that goes unchecked by the moderator.

by frak on May 28, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would be correct with this statement...

I also believe that Nestor generally dislikes and/or hates all things Trojan…

More than you will ever know.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 28, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Happening!

I don’t do off the wall…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 28, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes I got Banned over at BN

Maybe I deserved it maybe not, but to say I don’t care about UCLA is not true (played pick-up ball with Ben for two summers) I consider Glenn Bassett one of the best college tennis coaches of all time. I have know Cathy Riggs (Olivier) since 1976 and I hired one of her ucla players knowing that if she played for Cathy she would make a great associate. I doubt that Nestor has ever competed in sport above the HS level so whatever he has to say really doesn’t have merit, but you never can tell.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on May 28, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cathy Ricks (Oliver)

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on May 28, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

context

if you can give me one example of where I took something out of context and tarnished the meaning, I’ll take back whatever offended you

by soundchaser on May 27, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I usually don't like what I read from Bill

But this time he shows a lot of class, something I can’t say for the B(M)N guys but for every good person there has to be couple of bad ones. I am sure most over there voted for OBomer and now are saying they hate the dude, they just like to hate hate hate and more hate got the LOL.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on May 25, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs