Da' Dream Makin' Cold Blooded Sausage


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

This just in: The Red and Black still publishes blithering idiots who have no idea what they are talking about

We say so, because of this article, thankfully brought to our attention by the good folks at Sugar Falling.

Let's analyze the idiocy of Ms. Morris, FMJ style, shall we?
Mark Richt handed down a two-game suspension to Sanders Commings last Wednesday following Commings’ Jan. 21 arrest for simple battery.

Sounds simple enough right? Misdemeanor crime, some punishment.
Though I’m sure the details of the crime are better known to Richt than to myself, I have to question the rationale behind the meager suspension for a charge of assault on a woman when stronger actions have been taken for arguably less severe crimes.

Read that first part again. Essentially, though she doesn't have a damn clue about anything that happened, and the man who made the decision has a much, MUCH more intricate knowledge of what did happen, I'm gonna go ahead and run my mouth about it even though I'm completely ignorant of the situation.
... There are multiple witnesses in the case, and none of the accounts makes light of the incident. Yet Richt found two games to be sufficient punishment for Commings.

Again, he has been able to get a little more detail about the incident, than both the writer, and the "multiple witnesses" who were in downtown Athens in the wee hours, intoxicated, and we all know just how reliable drunken 20 yr olds are as sources of information. In a police report, that if there was actually enough evidence, both the ACC-PD and Solicitor's office have always shown a willingness to prosecute fully, have never pulled a Cervone, yet felt the reports were only worth a misdemeanor simple battery and not any of the much more serious charges warranted in cases of domestic violence.
Commings recently neglected to make himself eligible for the NFL in lieu of finishing his senior season at UGA. He started all 14 games last year for the University and tied for fourth on the team with 55 tackles — there is no doubt he is a huge asset to the team.

This has nothing to do with anything. Not on the point of domestic violence, nor on how Mark Richt hands out punishment as he has shown time and time and time again in a very long history of handing out punishment.
I am a Georgia football fan and would love to see a winning season in 2012, but it should not come at the cost of downplaying the seriousness that is violence against women.

It isn't, but glad you could climb up on that high horse to say something that was never in doubt in the first place.
Using Commings as an example, Richt has effectively told the rest of his players that not only is beating a woman OK if you don’t get caught,
Say what? I couldn't even begin to know about how to respond to how stupid that statement is. But let's continue, maybe she'll make a point that isn't idiotic and ignorant.
...but even if you do, you’ll only sit two games. Not only is this particular punishment shamefully light, but the fact that Richt has taken other arrests more seriously in the past again speaks to his devaluation of this crime.

Nope, she didn't.
Many fans will remember former quarterback Zach Mettenberger, who was completely dismissed from the football team following an arrest for five misdemeanor charges, including underage possession/consumption of alcohol, resisting/obstructing arrest and false identification.

These fans will also remember that part of Mettenbergers arrest was due to his treatment of a woman. So yeah, let's completely ignore that part of his crimes, because it doesn't coincide with the idiotic, ignorant, and incorrect point I'm trying to make. And let's ignore the fact that Mettenberger was a possible starting QB, so you were saying about valuing winning above appropriate punishments for significant wrongdoing?
Nick Marshall and Sanford Seay are two freshmen who were released just weeks ago for reportedly stealing from another UGA player. Freshman Chris Sanders was also released for “violation of team rules” according to Richt, but the law was not involved in any of the three men’s cases.

So let's again attempt to speak ignorantly about something on which we have absolutely no knowledge of any details, but can use as a general statement to cast idiotic and ignorant claims in an attempt to make a misguided point.
Good to know that beating a woman is worse than illegal drugs but not as bad as carrying a fake ID, underage consumption of alcohol or stealing.

And you draw this conclusion how? Oh, right, by being completely ignorant of the situations you are attempting to draw conclusions from. Good stuff.
I think Mark Richt needs to take a good, hard look at the “code of conduct” and “team rules” he sets for his players. What he says and does speak volumes about his priorities as a coach.

That's right, it does. Perhaps you need to take a good hard look yourself, considering you clearly have no idea what priorities he has shown repeatedly and consistently over more than a decade that would make your entire ignorant and idiotic rant look like, well, an ignorant and idiotic rant.

Glad to know that the Red and Black still hasn't changed, and neither has the moronic fools that get editorials published.


  1. Jane you ignorant slut (a classic that seemed particulary apt).

    I mean I know it is the R&B and they adhere to the same standards that a blog does (cough cough looking at you CCrider), but at least your average blogger uses points that support their argument no matter how clueless they may be. She completely jumped the shark (at least to me) when she tried to use Metz as the shining example of a player who received a more severe punishment for a lesser offense. Really....reallllllly? If Metz is your poster boy for how to act around women she must be a lot of fun after a home game. Just sayin.

    1. How dare you suggest that I use points to support my arguments. You Sir have crossed the line!

    2. Zach Mettenberger was NOT a starting player. In fact, he never played a down here. You make it SOUND AS IF Mark Richt does NOT kick players off who NEVER REALLY PLAYED HERE, while those who are STARTING PLAYERS are given FAR MORE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT as FAVORITES of Mark Richt.

      You ALSO make it SOUND as if that which Sanders Commings signed his name to, ADMITTING he abused the little co-ed physically, is ok. In fact there is NOT 1 POST to this blog saying that abuse of a little girl a student at my alma mater, is WRONG and not tolerated for any reason at any time.

      Your posts to THIS BLOG are all 100 % ostensibly making the POINT that there is NOTHING TO to the 17 February 2012 Open Records' Document with Sanders Commings' Signature on it admitting he abused a little girl physically with his 6' 2" and 217 lbs 4.46 speed # 39 in the nation cornerback, our # 19 while she is a student in good-standing at The University of Georgia.

      You ALSO fail to discuss AT ALL WHATSOEVER that the police report ALSO STATES that this is NOT THE 1ST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE for the football player.

      What Zach Mettenberger did warranted him being kicked off the team and/or transfer OUT, like the 26 others Mark Richt gave Scholarships to for this up-coming 2012 season, NONE of whom of the 26 will in fact play this 2012 season.

      Sanders Commings ? 2 games suspension PRIOR to his Signature is WEAK BY COMPARISON with the 3 who committed a FELONY of theft over $ 500 of cash and other valuables from a fellow teammate - when those 3 WHO NEVER STARTED A GAME and played only SPARINGLY were kicked off. And, note please the FAILURE to REPORT A CRIME in this case to the Police ?

      I return you now to your blog of Mark Richt NEVER should have suspended Sanders Commings, Sanders Commings did NO WRONG, and the Police and Courts will just throw this case out, while the rest of us want to READ the 17 February Open Records' Document with Sanders Commings' Signature on it.

      And, of course, I return you now to your Mark Richt DOES NOT give STARTERS special treatment while kicking off the 26 or causing them to be transferred out of his program whom he gave Scholarships to for 2012 not a one of the 26 of whom will play 2012, while studying the value to the team in terms of any of those 26 being STARTERS.

      What we all know is that if you are a STARTER, Mark Richt is FAR MORE LENIENT with you than if you are NOT. Why is that not mentioned until I have to login to do so gentlemen ?

      Don't abuse women.

    3. That random caps really helps drive your points home Anon.


    4. Nice reply on the facts that Mark Richt gives Favorite treatment to Starters, while for lesser crimes, he kicks players who do not start, off the team.

    5. Nice job giving facts that prove that point. Oh wait, you didn't. Like the woman who wrote the article, you make baseless accusations with no support or reality to back up your argument.

    6. -Anon from 2/23

      Thanks for the long post Sugar-Tits. I am going to call you that because you are a female. Now I am sure you will get back on here and say "Oh no I am 6'6 295lb MAN!" You will say that but it will be a lie. You see Sugar-Tits I know you are a woman because you missed the entire point of our post and fell back into an argument based on emotion.
      What we are saying here is that the reporter who wrote this for the R&B just wrote a bunch of crap without checking the facts. Now have we ever done that? Maybe, but we hold ourselves out as a humor opinion blog and one of our techniques is to fake ignorance about an issue and give it a humorous spin. This was presented as fact by the R&B.
      Now.......are starters treated differently? You bet you sweet pattotie they are. You know why? Football makes money Honey and the starters are the starters because they are the best you have on campus. What is most shocking to me is that Captain say your prayers, take your vitamins, and mind your manners, Mark Richt, is taking heat on this issue. Do you think some Co-Ed getting slapped in the mouth would keep a starter off the field for one second in Tuscaloosa? How about at Baton Rouge? LSU does not even have a policy for players testing positive on drug tests which tells me the Hat Molester could care less about "abuse".
      I further know you are sans a penis because you have allowed your emotions to create a fantasy world for yourself. You say:
      " I return you now to your blog of Mark Richt NEVER should have suspended Sanders Commings, Sanders Commings did NO WRONG, and the Police and Courts will just throw this case out"
      I don't read everything Brother Sanchez posts but I am pretty sure we have never said that. Although, I will now say that Sanders Commings should not have been suspended because he is a starter and therefore is treated differently because his monetary value is greater to the University than the average student. Let's move on. You say:
      " I return you now to your Mark Richt DOES NOT give STARTERS special treatment "
      We didn't say that either. Have you ever been here before? I think Richt is too quick to deal out punishment. I think he could ignore the rules and some morals a little more often to ensure more wins. Finally you say:
      "what we all know is that if you are a STARTER, Mark Richt is FAR MORE LENIENT with you than if you are NOT. Why is that not mentioned until I have to login to do so gentlemen ?
      Because a guy who could be a 1st rounder has 12 to 14 games to establish himself and the fact that he lost two games (as well as the reason why he will lose these two games) most likely cost Sanders 10-15 million dollars next April. That is a major punishment you moron! Additionally, here are a few extra facts just for you:
      -Women have the right to vote because MEN gave that to you. You are welcome.
      -Women who keep their maiden name so as not to be defined by a man are just using their Father’s surname so they are still defined by a man.
      -Women should never ever be involved in sports broadcasting, writing, or really anything to do with sports

  2. yeah, I commented on that post by Sugar is Falling earlier today...plain and simple, she didn't do any research for her write up. She just had a few bits and pieces of the stories she included in her article.

    The facts: Mett was released for lying to Coach's face about what happened. If he had been honest with Coach, he more than likely would have still had a place on the team after serving a 1/2 season suspension. In my opinion.

    The facts: The 3 players were dismissed from the team this year because they were caught in the act, had a chance to return the item/s without issue, but said "sorry, can't do that"..YEAH! IDIOTS!

    The fact: Coach Richt made a loud and clear statement to the team with his 2 game suspension of Sanders. The statement is, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PUT YOUR HANDS ON A FEMALE IN ANY WAY WITH MAL INTENT! REGARDLESS OF THE EXTENT OF THE BATTERY.

    The fact that by most accounts, the charges will more than likely be dropped by the DA, and Sanders still was suspended...and then when you add in the fact that he IS a major component to our D's chances of success...sends an even louder message to our team.

    The young woman who wrote that article needs to take a step back and realize where she went wrong on this piece and go back to her drawing board on how to gather information for any future piece….then it may not be a P.O.S.!

    All the comments over at the R&B let her have it too....

    GO DAWGS!!!

    1. Now did Metts lie or was he just ignorant to the fact that despite being a licensed breast firmness inspector one cannot simply go around squeezing on boobies uninvited?

  3. I also love where in the space of two lines the charge goes from simple battery to assault. If I am Commings I hope the gov't decides to charge me quick before this elevates all the way to first degree murder.

  4. I like how she infers that SIMPLE BATTERY equals BEATING A WOMAN.

    She should have spoken to a cop or an attorney about what SIMPLE BATTERY entails... as in the range of actions, from least, to most violent, that can result in a charge of simple battery.

    Prosecutor must prove 3 elements:
    1.) an unlawful application of force
    2.) to the person of another
    3.) resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

    Offensive touching = (1) Intentionally touches another person either with a member of his or her body or with any
    instrument, knowing that the person is thereby likely to cause offense or alarm to such other person;

    That can be just about ANYTHING, people...

    Scenario: someone is verbally berating you (which, technically, can be construed as committing assault), while you are trying to walk away... they keep positioning their body between you and your intended direction of movement, but not touching you). While facing them, you reach out and place the outside of your right forearm on the outside of their right upper-arm and move them out of the way, just enough to allow you to slide your body past them and escape the situation... you have committed simple battery.

    Now, I'm not saying this is what happened or close to it... I'm just saying that when someone is charged with simple battery, without an accompanying ASSAULT charge, the incident is typically extremely minor in scope.

    And when prosecutors, who ALWAYS take domestic violence VERY seriously, bring ONLY simple battery, it's like them saying, nothing major happened and no one was really hurt, but there was some form of non-consensual physical contact which was brought to the attention of law enforcement(LE) and LE can't just disregard it.

    But that AIN'T "BEATING A WOMAN".

    This article is rabble-rousing drivel. And poorly researched/written drivel, at that.

    1. Very concisely put kc. Agree completely.

  5. Can we send a link of this article to the editor of the R&B? lol