Sure looks like Briles and Shillinglaw believe it. BLR and all the BMDs too.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sure looks like Briles and Shillinglaw believe it. BLR and all the BMDs too.

---

Uhhhhh, no, I don't think they believe the "no repercussions" line. That's all you George.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sure looks like Briles and Shillinglaw believe it. BLR and all the BMDs too.

---

Uhhhhh, no, I don't think they believe the "no repercussions" line. That's all you George.

---

So just a coincidence that the NDA issue caught their attention at the exact same time the response in Shillinglaw eviscerated them ......

that makes all the sense in the world

boognish_bear said:

---

Well...this question sure sounds familiar...

---

Somebody needs to get Keyser to talk to this writer and let him know that's not how BORs work.

Just don't ever represent yourself if you get sued. The streets are cruel.

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

boognish_bear said:

---

Well...this question sure sounds familiar...

---

The bigger questions....do any of them sell dildos or have any of them wrecked a bank? They must be eminently qualified for BOFR duty.

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

Yessir. Hence not only WSJ but also the totally gratuitous pleading in the Shillinglaw case.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

---

Answer the questions from the previous post please.

Like most issues we will never get an answer since we have not / will not see the settlement between Briles and Baylor. That said, most NDAs are not typically binding in a court. That is certainly what was said in the fall of 2016 when the WSJ article "opened the door".

MSU going with the Cody Carlson/Tom Muecke approach for their interim...let's see how their post-scandal leadership compares to Garland

Edit: Oops....reading fail. I didn't read carefully the first time and thought they were naming co-interims. My bad.

If they are as good as Muecke/Carlson, MSU is in good hands.

MSU's former AD from the 90s says shame on the MSU BOR for leaving Dantonio and Izzo "out to dry" to face the tough questions that the BOR should have been facing.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

---

The answer is simple, it is just one you have a hard time accepting. They did it to end the wild scapegoating rumor that there was no good reason to fire Briles. That is not my speculation that is their own words.

While it was Gray, Harper, and Murff were the ones speaking - This assuredly was done with the blessing of the full BOR. Same with the information in Shillinglaw.

For all practical purposes, they achieved their goal, to end it ..... except for the most devout CABers, many of which are the ones starring your post

Keyser Soze said:

---

Answer the questions from the previous post please.

Like most issues we will never get an answer since we have not / will not see the settlement between Briles and Baylor. That said, most NDAs are not typically binding in a court. That is certainly what was said in the fall of 2016 when the WSJ article "opened the door".

---

I answered your first question. The second cannot be answered without knowing the terms of the original NDA (part of Briles' original contract as extended). The NDA is binding in court, unless the court compels the release of information. In civil court, that is problematic since such information would only be compelled in defense of a claim. Meaning, information covered by the NDA could be ordered released only if the regents petitioned for it as defense to Briles' claims. If Briles were simply to use it to prove his claims, he would be exposed in a suit for breach.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

---

The answer is simple, it is just one you have a hard time accepting. They did it to end the wild scapegoating rumor that there was no good reason to fire Briles. That is not my speculation that is their own words.

While it was Gray, Harper, and Murff were the ones speaking - This assuredly was done with the blessing of the full BOR. Same with the information in Shillinglaw.

For all practical purposes, they achieved their goal, to end it ..... except for the most devout CABers, many of which are the ones starring your post

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I say "BLR etc" clearly as shorthand for whoever was criticizing the BOR, and you respond with these old canned talking points. Are they on cue cards? Or saved in a word doc for easy cut and paste? Are you a person or a bot?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I noticed how the BLR and the left wing (hey let's give an outstanding young alumni award to somebody who represents abortion doctors and Gitmo terrorists) BLF have both disappeared. The BLR tried for some accountability, but it obviously didn't work. Glad I never gave either group of clowns any money.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I noticed how the BLR and the left wing (hey let's give an outstanding young alumni award to somebody who represents abortion doctors and Gitmo terrorists) BLF have both disappeared. The BLR tried for some accountability, but it obviously didn't work. Glad I never gave either group of clowns any money.

---

I actually agree with most of the BLR reform ideas - I believe some were accounted for in the 105 recommendations. That said, the BLR would not have come into existence without a wealthy guy being really pissed the BOR fired Briles.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I say "BLR etc" clearly as shorthand for whoever was criticizing the BOR, and you respond with these old canned talking points. Are they on cue cards? Or saved in a word doc for easy cut and paste? Are you a person or a bot?

---

as if you have not repeated the same ***** and moan a 100 times before

siap

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I say "BLR etc" clearly as shorthand for whoever was criticizing the BOR, and you respond with these old canned talking points. Are they on cue cards? Or saved in a word doc for easy cut and paste? Are you a person or a bot?

---

as if you have not repeated the same ***** and moan a 100 times before

---

At least I have to engage in (admittedly repetitive) thought and typing. You're a pull-a-string-recording based on buzzwords.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

And it was done precisely for their own personal benefit. They didn't like BLR etc criticizing them. So they damaged Baylor greatly in an attempt to assuage their own egos.

Beyond that, anyone who can critically read a pleading leaves disgusted knowing they went off half cocked and then oversold their case.

---

BLR - the founder of which said

"If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship."

when meeting with regents in June of 2016 ..... that BLR?


Noticed how BLR is fading into the sunset after Shillinglaw ?

---

I was not aware that quote was attributed to anyone. Link?

boognish_bear said:

---

---

The collective heads of SJWs are exploding.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

---

The answer is simple, it is just one you have a hard time accepting. They did it to end the wild scapegoating rumor that there was no good reason to fire Briles. That is not my speculation that is their own words.

While it was Gray, Harper, and Murff were the ones speaking - This assuredly was done with the blessing of the full BOR. Same with the information in Shillinglaw.

For all practical purposes, they achieved their goal, to end it ..... except for the most devout CABers, many of which are the ones starring your post

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

Did you happen to ask why this Regent and the vast majority of them just sat on their hands while this was going on and why they did nothing to respond to these "few". I suspect some Regents realizing the body as a whole are fxck ups are trying to revise history and claim they were against "all of this" and perhaps it is even true. Well ....if so they were complicit in silence at the time. Which makes them as culpable as the "few" who were screwing up the school.

PartyBear said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

So in December of 16 when lawsuits are filed why where they not afraid of the NDA then?

Did Cannon's manifesto of petition violate a NDA or not?



Side note - thinking NoBSU was spot on your purpose

---

Because it was a knee-jerk reaction to the WSJ attack simply trying to stop the one-sided narrative; legal posturing that is normally effective when the other side cares about whether they are bleeding money. They never planned to follow through, they just wanted the attacks to stop. Cannon knew the NDA was going to handcuff any such suit. The question you must ask yourself is: Why were regents allowed to personally use information that all regents had signed NDAs not to disclose? From the same pool of information which they, as a board, refused to release for reasons related to privacy concerns.

The answer is simple. Protection of the regents personally, outweighs any and all other consideration.

---

The answer is simple, it is just one you have a hard time accepting. They did it to end the wild scapegoating rumor that there was no good reason to fire Briles. That is not my speculation that is their own words.

While it was Gray, Harper, and Murff were the ones speaking - This assuredly was done with the blessing of the full BOR. Same with the information in Shillinglaw.

For all practical purposes, they achieved their goal, to end it ..... except for the most devout CABers, many of which are the ones starring your post

---

No. It was not done with the full blessing of the BOFR. In fact, one regent told me specifically it was a few regents managing this debacle and they had no idea of this action or others until after they were done. Since that was the case, your assumption as to the response for Shillinglaw is an assumption too. Our BOFR is a very fractured group of 30+ people.

---

Did you happen to ask why this Regent and the vast majority of them just sat on their hands while this was going on and why they did nothing to respond to these "few". I suspect some Regents realizing the body as a whole are fxck ups are trying to revise history and claim they were against "all of this" and perhaps it is even true. Well ....if so they were complicit in silence at the time. Which makes them as culpable as the "few" who were screwing up the school.

---

Short answer: yes. They have NDAs and can't go publicly off the reservation lest they be held personably liable and that's no secret. There's not enough space for my long answer and that's much more confidential.

And what specifically were they complicit with?

MSU students crash MSU BOT meeting to protest bringing in Engler as interim. How did that kid get up on the board room table? Looks like a scene from The Breakfast Club.

Why do we put up with these children?

Should be suspended, expelled or arrested...students are there to learn and such actions reflect their deep need for learning on a number of different levels.

boognish_bear said:

---

MSU students crash MSU BOT meeting to protest bringing in Engler as interim. How did that kid get up on the board room table? Looks like a scene from The Breakfast Club.

---

That's what a melting snowflake looks like.

That kid on the table is an attention ***** of the first order. All potential employers, please note his identity so that you'll understand why he's dancing on your board room table if the coffee machine isn't working.