IowaBison Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Thank you. Chapman supporters continue to deny that he lied to the AG when he said he did not demand that Potts be fired but did demand a higher salary and home improvements to stay on at NDSU. Chapman supporters also believe him when he told the press he did not demand anything. How can this be? He had to have lied at least once. That is a logical fallacy. The AG's Office could have erred. And you don't know if he did or not! As for Chapman rebuking the AG's opinion, this isn't good enough: Forum Article ? "Chapman and representatives from NDSU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 The AG's Office could have erred. So why hasn't the AG's office said so? Does the AG's office normally go out of its way to attribute false statements to people of Chapman's stature? Is it possible that maybe the AG's office has a tape or a transcript of the interview with Chapman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Jealousy and feeling threatened make people believe and say stupid things - right sioux-cia? Every time I read one of your and DI posts I have to wonder why you're still here? You can't repond to any of my posts or questions I pose to you related to Chapman so instead you choose to attack me personally. It's getting old. Your juvenile personal attacks, less than intelligent responses and not keeping at least minimally within the topic of the thread has not gone unnoticed by Admin. Consider yourself warned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think I taught Sioux-cia what LMFAO stands for. It's all my fault...... I love the pic of Chapman and the Easter Bunny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 That is a logical fallacy. The AG's Office could have erred. And you don't know if he did or not! As for Chapman rebuking the AG's opinion, this isn't good enough: [url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=132639 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think I taught Sioux-cia what LMFAO stands for. It's all my fault...... I love the pic of Chapman and the Easter Bunny. Yes you did and we are two of the classiest women on SiouxSports.com Just ask anyone who had some of my Buttershots at our last tailgater!!! Did you check out Chapman's arm. Chewbacca!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 So why hasn't the AG's office said so? Does the AG's office normally go out of its way to attribute false statements to people of Chapman's stature? Is it possible that maybe the AG's office has a tape or a transcript of the interview with Chapman? I think the most logical explanation is that the opinion mischaracterized Chapman's intented meaning by using the term "demand" in its strong sense. A new house and more pay were obviously not unconditional demands, because they weren't met and Chapman stayed. However, one could read the AG's opinion and feel that they were. I think that is Chapman's greivance. We do not know the specific language used by either the AG's attorney or Chapman, although the opinion is strongly worded. I'd imagine the AG's office has the interview on tape. Once again, why would Chapman care to contact the press stating that a new house and more pay were not demands? I don't see what the big deal would be if they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I don't see what the big deal would be if they were. Me either. If I had Chapman's job and someone asked me what it would take to keep me at NDSU, I'd certainly consider asking for more pay and better housing, not to mention a fancy car. So why are Chapman and company going out of their way to call the AG a liar about something that we both agree should be no big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 A new house and more pay were obviously not unconditional demands, because they weren't met and Chapman stayed. Those things don't materialize out of thin air. And given Chapman's obvious sensitivity about his "demands," it would be rather foolish to rush into providing the "requests" while insisting that they weren't "demands." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Yes you did and we are two of the classiest women on SiouxSports.com Just ask anyone who had some of my Buttershots at our last tailgater!!! Classy as Nascar and mullets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Classy as Nascar and mullets. I'll vouch for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I'll vouch for that! Um, thanks for that. I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Me either. If I had Chapman's job and someone asked me what it would take to keep me at NDSU, I'd certainly consider asking for more pay and better housing, not to mention a fancy car. So why are Chapman and company going out of their way to call the AG a liar about something that we both agree should be no big deal? I prefer the term unfortunate mischaracterization to lie. My assumption is that Chapman wants the 'truth' out ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 My assumption is that Chapman wants the 'truth' out ? By your definition, "the truth" amounts to differences in semantics. So why the vehement denials from Chapman and company? Why doesn't the AG's office simply review the tape or transcript of Chapman's depostion and -- if wrong -- issue a statement saying that it "mischaracterized" Chapman's "request" as a "demand." If "the truth" was on Chapman's side, why wouldn't the AG's office say so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 By your definition, "the truth" amounts to differences in semantics. So why the vehement denials from Chapman and company? Why doesn't the AG's office simply review the tape or transcript of Chapman's depostion and -- if wrong -- issue a statement saying that it "mischaracterized" Chapman's "request" as a "demand." If "the truth" was on Chapman's side, why wouldn't the AG's office say so? I agree with all of your points, PCM (although the use of vehement is rather strong). And I don't have an answer for any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think the most logical explanation is that the opinion mischaracterized Chapman's intented meaning by using the term "demand" in its strong sense. I agree with all of your points, PCM (although the use of vehement is rather strong). And I don't have an answer for any of them. The most logical explanation and the answers to PCM's points are that Chapman lied. PERIOD!! Until Chapman and Co. can show that the AG's report 'mischaracterized Chapman's intended meaning' (geeze, louise!), I and many others will believe that Chapman and Co. are lying to the press, the public and their supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Scott Hennen, host of WDAY's Hot Talk program, weighs in on Joe Chapman's behalf with this blog. UND faculty member Tom Petros posted a response to Scott's blog here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Scott Hennen, host of WDAY's Hot Talk program, weighs in on Joe Chapman's behalf with this blog. UND faculty member Tom Petros posted a response to Scott's blog here. Heavy sigh! It's amazing how some people can latch on to the type of factless, biased, drivel people like Hennen can spout with a straight face! Yet those same people will poo poo Petros fact filled post because he is a UND employee. *shakes head, rolls eyes* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI IN FARGO Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Heavy sigh! It's amazing how some people can latch on to the type of factless, biased, drivel people like Hennen can spout with a straight face! Yet those same people will poo poo Petros fact filled post because he is a UND employee. *shakes head, rolls eyes* Only because it doesn't fit with your version of events do you dislike or are critical of Hennens story. Oh and let me guess you probably don't agree with his politics either which would explain alot of your posts beyond your dislike for NDSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Only because it doesn't fit with your version of events do you dislike or are critical of Hennens story. Oh and let me guess you probably don't agree with his politics either which would explain alot of your posts beyond your dislike for NDSU. It is possible to like Hennen, usually agree with his politics and disagree strongly with him on this particular issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Only because it doesn't fit with your version of events do you dislike or are critical of Hennens story. Oh and let me guess you probably don't agree with his politics either which would explain alot of your posts beyond your dislike for NDSU. *shakes head, rolls eyes* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI IN FARGO Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 *shakes head, rolls eyes* "smiles and know's he's right" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 ... Hennens story. It's so hard for me to keep all these straight: Does Hennen's "story" align with Paulson's "story", Chapman's "story", Hoeven's "story", the NDSU Development Foundation's "story", Ritchie Smith's "story", or the Attorney General's official findings and opinion report? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It's so hard for me to keep all these straight: Does Hennen's "story" align with Paulson's "story", Chapman's "story", Hoeven's "story", the NDSU Development Foundation's "story", Ritchie Smith's "story", or the Attorney General's official findings and opinion report? If not for the following, it would all be perfectly clear to you, . ..... it doesn't fit with your version of events....., .....don't agree with his politics, .........your dislike for NDSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Is the whole Chapman/Potts/NDUS thing really that big of a deal in the real spectrum of life? Crap like this happens on a daily basis in our government, we just don't hear about it. I think it's all rather booooorish. Can somebody make me a hot beef sandwich? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.