ND vs BC at Fenway. BC tickets $5.4K | Page 3 | The Boneyard
.-.

ND vs BC at Fenway. BC tickets $5.4K

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yawkey Way said:
Why you have a concern on the number of my posts on here is unclear to me, when you have 4 times the numbers of posts I do.
Expand ...

The word you are looking for is "irritant" not concern.

I have more posts on here because I am a long-time poster and UCONN fan and post on topics that extend well beyond just BC (as you do). Now, you know that of course, which speaks volumes about your need to drive an agenda.

Carry on.....
 
Considering BC is in a city with well over 5 times the population of Hartford (not even counting Cambridge, Somerville, Newton or Brookline), with public transportation taking you there straight from the city with incredibly easy access, I'd sure as hell hope they could get a few thousand more people to show up than UConn can.

What a childish point to try to make. Think before you post, son.
 
uconndogs said:
The word you are looking for is "irritant" not concern.

I have more posts on here because I am a long-time poster and UCONN fan and post on topics that extend well beyond just BC (as you do). Now, you know that of course, which speaks volumes about your need to drive an agenda.

Carry on.....
Expand ...
I am not " driving an agenda ". That said, when I find a poster on here an " irritant", I simply put them on my ignore, and as such they no longer exist to me. I have done that to only 2 posters on here, but it does work. They no longer are an " irritant " to me, as they no longer exist. So my suggestion is for you to put me ( and any others ) on your " ignore " if you find my postings an " irritant ". That saves us both time, energy, and tends to keep the dialogue on the topic a bit more civil... and on topic.
 
uconndogs said:
Ain't going to happen Yawkey ;)
Expand ...
You could be right. I think its a sensible solution for him however. But its up to him in the end as to what he ultimately decides to do, of course... and as it should be, imo
 
Yawkey Way, I usually find your posts on here to be quite arrogant. However, I must say that as hard as I have looked in this thread, I really do not see it. Many of your posts support the idea that ND and BC will both come out as winners. I agree with much of what you say. I however, disagree not with your thoughts about the number of people watching the game - I suspect you are likely right, but that I really do NOT care. I wont be watching this game until the miraculous happens to the Judas University and the backstabbing BC, which is they both LOSE in the same game. Therefore knowing this wont happen - the best I can do is not contribute to the one way that they are likely to both win and that is in the ratings. So to my fellow Huskies, my suggestion is: don't watch or listen to the game. Don't wager on the game. Don't hate the game, just ignore it!

Personally, I really do not respect either of these schools. Neither school has benefited UConn and in fact has done the complete opposite. I do not see that changing but should either of these schools do something that helps UConn in a positive way, I and many others (I suspect) would be glad to change their opinions. I do respect most other universities. I do find Syracuse to be hypocritical. ...and there are a few schools outside of UConn that I even admire though none as much as UConn.
 
.-.
Yawkey Way said:
You could be right. I think its a sensible solution for him however. But its up to him in the end as to what he ultimately decides to do, of course... and as it should be, imo
Expand ...

Why are you referring to me in the third person when responding directly to me? lol...........starting the weekend a little early Yawkey?
 
Stray_Dog said:
Yawkey Way, I usually find your posts on here to be quite arrogant. However, I must say that as hard as I have looked in this thread, I really do not see it. Many of your posts support the idea that ND and BC will both come out as winners. I agree with much of what you say. I however, disagree not with your thoughts about the number of people watching the game - I suspect you are likely right, but that I really do NOT care. I wont be watching this game .
Expand ...

Thats fine. If you are not interested in this thread topic... or in this game.. " don't care ", and won't be watching this game, ( for whatever reasons, actually ) I can respect that. There are thread topics on here that don't interest me, or I could care less, etc. So I either don't read them ( most of 'em ) or don't post on them. I allow however those that do care about that topic, find it to their interest, and choose to post on it, to do so as they please. So I can understand and appreciate that you have no interest in the BC- ND game in Boston, and won't be watching it, and as I said, thats fine too, Stray_ Dog.
 
Last edited:
....and see, we can come to an amicable solution! Now if only BC, ND, and UConn could find a way to improve on this first step! LOL - sarcasm is heavy.
 
uconndogs said:
Why are you referring to me in the third person when responding directly to me? lol......starting the weekend a little early Yawkey?
Expand ...
haha!... could be.. ' Missed that " you " were in fact " he ".

Anyway, my suggestion still stands, ie if you find my observations, assessments, comments, etc an " irritant " to you ( not my intent ), then simply put me on ignore. That is what that feature is for, and it does work effectively ( as it has for 2 posters on here for me ). Just a suggestion from me to you with a sensible and relatively easy solution for this for you.
 
Last edited:
Yawkey Way said:
haha!... could be.. ' Missed that " you " were in fact " he ".

Anyway, my suggestion still stands, ie if you find my observations, assessments, comments, etc an " irritant " to you ( not my intent ), then simply put me on ignore. That is what that feature is for, and it does work effectively ( as it has for 2 posters on here for me ). Just a suggestion from me to you with a sensible and relatively easy solution for this for you.
Expand ...

My response is the same - ain't going to happen Yawkee
 
.-.
TerryD said:
I think that ship has sailed when UConn rejected the previous scheduling deal with ND.
Expand ...

It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them. Uconn decided the terms presented to them did not fit their needs at the time, so a mutually agreed too contract for future scheduled games between Uconn and ND did not take place. I'm not privy to the terms presented, but I can respect that apparently Uconn could not strike a deal with ND on terms they could live with back then, when the 2 schools met.
 
Last edited:
Yawkey Way said:
It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them. Uconn decided the terms presented to them did not fit their needs at the time, so a mutually agreed too contract for future scheduled games between Uconn and ND did not take place. I'm not privy to the terms presented, but I can respect that apparently Uconn could not strike a deal with ND on terms they could live with back then, when the 2 schools met.
Expand ...


I practice law for a living, so I am familiar with contracts and their negotiation. My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.
 
TerryD said:
I practice law for a living, so I am familiar with contracts and their negotiation. My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.
Expand ...

I'm glad someone understands it. I sure don't.
 
.-.
TerryD said:
My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.
Expand ...

I don't disagree with this observation, neither of them, as a matter of fact, TerryD
 
Last edited:
Yawkey Way said:
It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them.
Expand ...

That's a special post to make as a response to an attorney.

....... and to think Terry D wasted three years on law school.
 
uconndogs said:
That's a special post to make as a response to an attorney.

.
Expand ...

I didn't think it was anything " special".. we even both agreed on the point he was making. I respect his commentary on this topic so far, and the fact that he is an "attorney" is irrelevant to that courtesy I have extended to him in his replies on this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
334
Guests online
9,513
Total visitors
9,847
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,398
Messages
4,435,560
Members
10,291
Latest member
RelentlessD


p
p
Top Bottom