1. I was/am annoyed by your choice of using "100% wrong" when you have no real clue if I am or not. I explained this before. I am willing to speak on what I hear/know, but I don't know who you are, what you're hearing, who you're hearing it from - I am not qualified to speak on what you hear/know. You are most assuredly not qualified to speak on me with any degree of certainty at all.
My source has a track record that forces me to place a great degree of faith in what he says to me. I'm not interested in asking why you differ with me. You're free to believe what you want, I'm ok with that. I just thought the definitive claim with no reason or substance was, poor taste. And still do.
2. Yea
3. I've told you what issue I had with your post. I can only respond to what you type. If you're having trouble getting your message across the way you want to, take more time with the message.
My primary source is Jesus Shuttlesworth. He posted the Dodds retirement a month before Dodds retired, two weeks before Chip "broke it' and then even said Dodds would first deny the allegation (which he did) and called the week in October it would go down. He also posted long ago that Saban and Texas were talking, which everyone and their dog denied until the AP broke their story confirming it all.
I like my chances here, even if I go by that source alone.
LOL, You are not going to let this go are you?
However, you are correct - I shouldn't have said you were 100% wrong (even though I believe your are and laid out my reasons for that belief). That was indelicate of me.
I completely believe you weren't interested that I differed - only that I did. You weren't open to discussion because there was nothing to discuss. It seems it was just your way or the highway.
And, by the way, through your own admission, you don't know who I am so you have no idea what my qualifications are. Therefore, you are in no position to tell me if I am or not. I certainly know you aren't because, once again and through your own admission, your "source" of info comes 4th hand - from a competing blog, it's moderator, who got the info from his "source", who got his from another "source" which is actually severally "sources" combined into one, which is then called a "Big Cigar". And, even though this source actually WAS 100% wrong on Saban, and the AD I might add, you are still invested in his sources anyway?
I assume the info gleaned from this blog motivated you to make this flat assertion:
"He's not reporting to Powers. Powers has given a blanket sign off on whoever Patterson gets. Patterson reports to BMDs, along with the committee that was pretty much selected by the BMDs."
What made this assertion wrong is the first sentence. Even though Powers will simply rubber stamp whomever Patterson picks, Patterson must, by UT protocol, submit his selection to him and the BOR's as well.
I will admit your second sentence is correct because Powers publicly announced he wouldn't be involved in the selection. I'm not sure what this has to do with UT protocol, however.
As far as your third sentence - well, it has to be pure conjecture for the reasons I have already explained. Look, Sirhornsalot, do you honestly believe that a UT employee will forego the UT chain of command, go outside of UT administration and report to Joe Jamail's or whomever's office, present his selection and ask whomever for his approval and if it was okay with him?
Now, do I believe that someone in the admin (probably a board member) would present the selection to a group of BMD's for approval? Most probably and their endorsement would have to be made before the BOR stamped their approval - or not. We won't be privy to that.
