$2 Million Lawsuit

by **mrydel** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:53 am

jtstang wrote:Phxfan, what is it that SMU needs to do to satisfy the militant gay movement that it has not already done?

Everyone else, if the allegations are true, what business is it of Rompola's who's dating who? I mean is she really just scared of the competition? I do not buy this "it's just not good for the team" crap.

Most places of employment frown on intercompany dating. I met mrsmrydel at a previous job. Got permision from the boss to date. Eventually got married. Boss then had the board adopt a "no spouses" work force, and fired my wife. He was nice enough to ask which one of us wanted to be fired in advance.

Regardless of whether or not you like the policy, it was the policy. I do think team or work force dating can cause friction if allowed. Not everyone is loved equally by all as you are jtstang.

And FWIW, mrsmrydel also no longer lets me date within my job.

by **jtstang** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:57 am

I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

by **mrydel** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:03 am

jtstang wrote:I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

Are you not also sorry for me that I can no longer date at my office?

by **jtstang** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:05 am

mrydel wrote:
jtstang wrote:I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

Are you not also sorry for me that I can no longer date at my office?

Not really...that activity is fraught with peril.

by **smupony94** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:06 am

jtstang wrote:
mrydel wrote:
jtstang wrote:I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

Are you not also sorry for me that I can no longer date at my office?
Not really...that activity is fraught with peril.

I learned the 3rd time not to do that.

by **jtstang** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:57 am

smupony94 wrote:
jtstang wrote:
mrydel wrote:
jtstang wrote:I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

Are you not also sorry for me that I can no longer date at my office?
Not really...that activity is fraught with peril.

I learned the 3rd time not to do that.

It only took me twice.

by **smupony94** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:04 pm

jtstang wrote:
smupony94 wrote:
jtstang wrote:
mrydel wrote:
jtstang wrote:I'm sorry about your wife, but is that the SMU women's basketball team official policy as well? I doubt it.

Are you not also sorry for me that I can no longer date at my office?
Not really...that activity is fraught with peril.

I learned the 3rd time not to do that.

It only took me twice.

Bad thing was I was warned by the boss men although on all three so I kept leaving the companies I worked for and got better jobs each time. At least there are some positives. One gal took me for a nice chunk of change

by **jtstang** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:35 pm

Shoulda gone dutch.

by **smupony94** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:38 pm

jtstang wrote:Shoulda gone dutch.

Dutch girls are fun. Not the red light girls.

by **mrydel** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:07 pm

Mine is still taking me for chunks of bills. She said I could keep the change.

by **mathman** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:53 pm

Mrydel, I really, really hope your wife doesn't read Ponyfans.

by **Phxfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:40 pm

jtstang wrote:Phxfan, what is it that SMU needs to do to satisfy the militant gay movement that it has not already done?

Everyone else, if the allegations are true, what business is it of Rompola's who's dating who? I mean is she really just scared of the competition? I do not buy this "it's just not good for the team" crap.

Maybe ask Rompola what she said, asked, and when and under what circumstances these conversations took place and of course, why. SMU has really done about all it can, if they have already looked at this and found the allegations to be unfounded, then go to court. I have worked for companies that use a phrase such as "bringing discredit to the company/organization". I guess my question, considering SMU's prior behavior/attitude studies on this sort of thing, would be, is the administration/ Rompola telling the truth? It looks a very fishy to me. If the administration is not being transparent/or Rompola is not being forthright then heads should roll. If this should go to court and SMU loses, then it hurts SMU. Not just financially. That is really all I am saying.

by **mustangbill67** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:12 pm

Phxfan wrote:
jtstang wrote:Phxfan, what is it that SMU needs to do to satisfy the militant gay movement that it has not already done?

Everyone else, if the allegations are true, what business is it of Rompola's who's dating who? I mean is she really just scared of the competition? I do not buy this "it's just not good for the team" crap.

Maybe ask Rompola what she said, asked, and when and under what circumstances these conversations took place and of course, why. SMU has really done about all it can, if they have already looked at this and found the allegations to be unfounded, then go to court. I have worked for companies that use a phrase such as "bringing discredit to the company/organization". I guess my question, considering SMU's prior behavior/attitude studies on this sort of thing, would be, is the administration/ Rompola telling the truth? It looks a very fishy to me. If the administration is not being transparent/or Rompola is not being forthright then heads should roll. If this should go to court and SMU loses, then it hurts SMU. Not just financially. That is really all I am saying.

I do not have a clue where you are coming from or if you have an axe to grind yourself. The whole tenure of your posts seems to be that the truth lies with the Colis' although the only thing we have is a complaint, four affidavits and a plaintiff's attorney who seems intent on manipulating the press in favor of his client.

As a litigation attorney who has defended many of these kinds of cases over the years, it has been my experience that normally cases are settled short of litigation if there is any real exposure. I assume SMU has thoroughly investigated the allegations and believes it is on solid ground in defending this law suit. I have not read the affidavits but two of them are from the plaintiff and her sister, one is from a walk on player who is no longer with the team and one is from a star player who recently graduated. I do not know what parts of the complaint each affidavit is alleged to support. I do know that such affidavits are normally drafted by the plaintiff's attorney in such a manner to support the filing of the case. I also know that in many instances such affidavits seem to evaporate after close cross examination at a deposition. I do not know if this case was filed in federal or state court, but I would not be surprised if it went away on summary judgement. Just my opinion

by **Phxfan** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:55 pm

mustangbill67 wrote:
Phxfan wrote:
jtstang wrote:Phxfan, what is it that SMU needs to do to satisfy the militant gay movement that it has not already done?

Everyone else, if the allegations are true, what business is it of Rompola's who's dating who? I mean is she really just scared of the competition? I do not buy this "it's just not good for the team" crap.

Maybe ask Rompola what she said, asked, and when and under what circumstances these conversations took place and of course, why. SMU has really done about all it can, if they have already looked at this and found the allegations to be unfounded, then go to court. I have worked for companies that use a phrase such as "bringing discredit to the company/organization". I guess my question, considering SMU's prior behavior/attitude studies on this sort of thing, would be, is the administration/ Rompola telling the truth? It looks a very fishy to me. If the administration is not being transparent/or Rompola is not being forthright then heads should roll. If this should go to court and SMU loses, then it hurts SMU. Not just financially. That is really all I am saying.

I do not have a clue where you are coming from or if you have an axe to grind yourself. The whole tenure of your posts seems to be that the truth lies with the Colis' although the only thing we have is a complaint, four affidavits and a plaintiff's attorney who seems intent on manipulating the press in favor of his client.

As a litigation attorney who has defended many of these kinds of cases over the years, it has been my experience that normally cases are settled short of litigation if there is any real exposure. I assume SMU has thoroughly investigated the allegations and believes it is on solid ground in defending this law suit. I have not read the affidavits but two of them are from the plaintiff and her sister, one is from a walk on player who is no longer with the team and one is from a star player who recently graduated. I do not know what parts of the complaint each affidavit is alleged to support. I do know that such affidavits are normally drafted by the plaintiff's attorney in such a manner to support the filing of the case. I also know that in many instances such affidavits seem to evaporate after close cross examination at a deposition. I do not know if this case was filed in federal or state court, but I would not be surprised if it went away on summary judgement. Just my opinion

It is obvious that most on this board, the vast, vast majority on this board do not agree with my position. And what is my position? The whole thing does not meet the smell test. That is my position. My posts have been to defend my position. I don't know, nor does anyone else know who is lying and who is not? Who is omitting and who is not? If SMU/Texas did not have this previous "bad behavior" then I would have no problem. If this where Syracuse I would believe them. I want to believe the administration of SMU on this, but everything points the other way. SMU has a non discrimination policy. Did Rompola violate the policy? That is all. It may or may not get thrown out on a summary judgement. If it does not, settle before it gets into the mainline press. For SMU's sake.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:51 pm

Phxfan wrote:It is obvious that most on this board, the vast, vast majority on this board do not agree with my position. And what is my position? The whole thing does not meet the smell test.

What smell test? Do you find it 'fishy' for a coach to not want the drama of players dating, jealousy, break ups, and all the associated problems of players dating each other? This sounds unlikely to you?

Again, your bigotry against SMU/Texans is truly offensive. If I were to assume all Black people were guilty, based on past "previous behavior" of some Black people, that would obviously be racist to an insane degree. You are just as guilty.

$2 Million Lawsuit

Who is online