I am rather amused at the insinuation that I am illiterate. That aside, let’s see how another trOJan spins my rather straight-forward reply:

I am aware that not bringing charges is not necessarily the same as being innocent. That’s why I never said they were, necessarily. I only said it doesn’t make sense to indict a program based on allegations that not only were never proven, but were not even brought for lack of proof.

No, you didn’t say it, you simply implied it. What’s so particularly amusing is that you qualify your own qualification:

That’s why I never said they were, necessarily.

Sounds the same as “I supported it before I opposed it?”

As for Mr. Sanchez, my reply to your short-sighted comment wasn’t meant as personal advice to him. If given the chance, I wouldn’t waste my breath offering him advice, so let’s make that clear.

I’m sure Mr. Sanchez appreciates your advice on how to handle allegations of rape. Could it be, perhaps, that he wanted the whole thing behind him, as sensible people have done seeing no charges brought?

The funny thing about this, is that your mere speculation doesn’t really rebut my simple premise: those who have been called a rapist and don’t fight like hell to fight that, in the court of public opinion, look pretty guilty.

Let’s compare Mr. Sanchez to another popular Los Angeles athlete: Kobe Bryant. He was accused of rape. And rather than simply let it go away, he conceded the sex, but fought the word rape. He took the fight to every MSM source that would listen. He did the whole news conference with the wife routine. He didn’t just “put it behind him” although, like Sanchez, charges were ultimately dropped.

You can create excuses for your guys or you can be honest with yourself: if someone accused you of a horrible crime, would you sit on it and hope it blows over, or would you fight for your name?

Well, strike that. You’re a trOJan, so you don’t have much of a name to begin with.

Moving on:

Why is it that you didn’t include a definition of libel if you’re so certain I’m unaware? Is it that the definition—defaming an individual with a false statement in print—is perilously close to your writings, if only you had named the individual specifically?

I’m sorry I didn’t take the time to provide you a legal education. My bad. What’s so amusing is that you try to accuse me of libel before saying I didn’t actually commit libel.

Is it that the definition—defaming an individual with a false statement in print—is perilously close to your writings, if only you had named the individual specifically?

Let’s break that down. “The definition . . . is perilously close to [my] writings.” See, right there, it looks like you’re saying I’m coming close.

Now for the definition you provide: “[D]efaming an individual with a false statement in print.”

Then, the most amusing part of this: “[I]f only you had named the individual specifically.” So basically, if I had named the individual, it’d be a libel. If I didn’t (and I didn’t), then it’s not a libel. Isn’t it fun to insinuate people do things, only to qualify it and admit they, in fact, didn’t do the thing you claim?

Simple advice: close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Let’s assume for a minute, I did do what you claimed: I named an individual. Now, last time I checked, truth is an absolute defense to defamatory actions. Can you find a single statement of fact I’ve made that is not true?

No, you can’t. And why can’t you? Because your fellow trOJans seem to love getting in trouble. And it’s not just speculation. It’s pretty well-documented, but hey, we know you guys love to ignore the facts.

Frothing at the mouth? Oh, puh-lease. You think this is frothing at the mouth? You clearly don’t work in the criminal justice system. And apparently, you haven’t been around this whole interwebs thing much. My comment? The one without any swearing? The one that didn’t result in simple flaming? The one that didn’t resort to TYPING IN ALL CAPS to make it “more” right?

Yeah, I am soooo frothing at the mouth. Quick, lock up the kids! NorCalD503 is frothing at the mouth!

Anyway, I guess the only thing they’re teaching you guys across town is the ol’ straw man argument. It’s nice and all, but seriously, that’s the best you can do?

Here you have smugly claimed the basics of criminal justice as some sort of clever retort to an argument I did not make, assured us that you are more qualified to decide the guilt of any individual in Southern California than a judge and a jury, and given advice on handling false accusations of rape, holding that if one does not follow your advice, then they are of course a rapist.

Claimed the basics of criminal justice? Yeah, I did spell it out for you. An argument you did not make? Wow, is spin part of the freshman curriculum there? You see, saying something like this:

[I[ndicting USC’s football team based on sexual assaults and murders that were not proven in court seems a bit silly. Granted, OJ was found civilly liable, and many Angelinos seem to think that trial was a farce (I’m not from the area so I’m not as exposed to the details of the case), but on the rape charges, do you have some information the prosecutors don’t?

To me, that sounds a lot like an argument along the lines of “UCLA fans are so weak for saying U$C is dirty when it’s never been proven in court; it’s so not fair to call U$C players dirty criminals when nothing has been proven.”

My “clever retort” as you put it, pretty much took you behind the woodshed. I know you don’t want to admit it, but yeah, I pointed out that your guys are dirty. They’re criminals. And it’s not like I’m just making this up. Sure, not every incident turned into a conviction, but as I pointed out, being innocent and simply skating for insufficent evidence are two very different things.

Now, I’m pretty sure I didn’t claim to be all-knowing and wiser than all of the judges and juries of Southern California. But, who knows, I mean I was "frothing at the mouth" and all. In fact, I can’t find anything I said that is even remotely close to what you claim I said. But, hey, like I said before, delusion is a particular favorite of you trOJans. I mean, I’m sorry I offered my opinion on this subject. This isn’t your police state buddy: that whole First Amendment thing sort of allows me to, well, state my opinion. Just saying.

Follow my advice or you’re a rapist? Well, that’s a rather interesting interpretation of this:

Did Mr. Sanchez go through the process of requesting he be declared factually innocent? I haven’t heard so yet, so, while you’re given the right to remain silent in the courts, in my mind, and in the court of public opinion, when someone calls you a rapist and you don’t defend your name to the very end, the silence is awfully damn deafening.

Again, I’m sorry my opinion offends you, but, again, let’s be honest: the innocent defend their good name; the guilty simply try to slink away.

Finally, throwing out doctored SAT scores as conclusive proof of the “quality” of your “education.” Wow. I wish my school could take the best part of each SAT I took (beginning in the seventh grade, again in the ninth, and finally in the eleventh) and combine the best score of each section of those three to get an artificially inflated score!

Maybe that’s because UCLA is content with being ranked, based on a complete picture, much higher than U$C in every publication.

USC: 53% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher

UCLA: 91% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher

USC median = UCLA bottom 10%

Let’s ignore the fact that saying “[l]ast post before I peace out” is basically the interwebs equivalent of “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

Once again, you are a one-man U$C spin machine. Did I call Sanchez a rapist? No. I said he was accused of rape. And I said he never did so much as deny the accusations. Then I proceeded to state that, in such cases, in the court of public opinion (which, in case you didn’t catch it, is not a court of law where he enjoys all those constitutional protections), the failure to defend his name was pretty damning.

But, spin away my friend!

Then saying something foolish like this:

And Norcald, simply stating that your response "took me out behind the woodshed" doesn’t make it so.

Without responding in anyway to my post is basically you saying “Nuh-uh!” Wow. Very persuasive.

But, thank you for pointing out the whole handicapped parking situation. I’m glad you brought it up. Because it is a perfect illustration of how UCLA and U$C are different.

Although, to be honest, comparing parking in a handicapped stall to allegations of murder, rape, drug possession, and felony resisting arrest is kind of like comparing apples to oranges, but I digress.

At UCLA, there was a scandal. Players were doing some not-so-cool stuff (getting handicapped parking placards, parking in handicapped stalls) during Toledo’s reign. And, at UCLA, those players were punished. If I recall, DeShaun Foster sat. A lot.

At U$C, in comparison, player after player is caught in criminal situation after criminal situation. And yet, no one gets punished! Felony resisting arrest? No punishment! Possession of narcotics? No punishment! Solicitation? No punishment! Double murder? Invite that guy to practice!

You see, we know we’re not perfect. No one is. But when our players do something wrong, they’re punished. You guys, on the other hand, just look the other way and have Mr. Magoo do the investigating.

The best part, though, trOJanBadger, is that you have been called out time and time again. We shoot down your ridiculous comments.

You cry and whine and try to tell me how it is. Yet, you can’t, or more likely, won’t answer the simple questions:

I haven’t seen you defend this point that is becoming painfully obvious: That U$C is becoming a school of not only being arrested, but for whatever reason not being punished by the school for it. You seem to be avoiding this point, and I’d like to see you address it clearly and directly.

trOJanBadger, why do you suppose it is that no one from justsc has ever sued for defamation about comments such as these? Why do you suppose that the institution itself hasn’t sued for defamation?

Can you really deny that there is a pattern of questionable behavior at SC that is becoming more and more prevalent?

Post after post, including mine, which, yes did take you behind the woodshed and gave you a proper whoopin’, you ignore. Instead you, as noted above, “spew meaningless words” and continue to ignore the crux of the discussion.

Typical trOJan: lie, spin, and obfuscate (let me know if you need me to define that for you too, since, well, you’re a trOJan).

TrOJans claim stupid things like:

Umm, last time I checked, we’re not the ones spinning, ignoring, and outright pretending this whole list of classy acts never happened.

Oh, trOJans. You’re so very amusing.

Almost as amusing as this:

There’s a big difference between some of the accusations against USC players (the hazing thing, drinking, fighting) and murder and rape.

Yes, they are very different things. But there’s one common thread of all of those things: trOJans have done every one.

But, don’t worry trOJanBadger, if you close your eyes and keep saying “nuh-uh!” and ignoring the hard questions, maybe, just maybe, to you, it’ll all be true.

I know it’s early, but trOJanbadger has earned today’s BN Golden Ostrich

For your bravery in the face of the evils of “facts” and “logic”.

But seriously guys, he brought a knife to a gunfight, and then you guys brought out RPGs. This wasn’t even close to a fair fight. Another trOJan gets tooled by BN.

how it is to enjoy your #1 ranking?

and this.