PonyFans.com

smu2004 wrote:

SMU1523 wrote:

I think 3 ft. x 3 ft. will work.

If anyone needs help with their signs being printed, let me know. I can help.

Great idea, but doesn't make sense...smu really did sweep uconn last yr.

It should be something to the effect of, "Last time Uconn beat Smu, I was there"

Thank you...thought I was the only one who noticed that for a moment.

Could also have something with Geno Auriema (sp?) with the thought bubble "is there even a men's team at UCONN?"

SMU1523 wrote:

LA_Mustang wrote:

Grant Carter wrote:I doubt ESPN is going to zoom in on a sign with an NBC logo.

Yes, definitely remove the NBC logo.

I disagree. We are taking a shot at NBC's head man. They could care less about a logo.

Looking back at the history of quality signs present at ESPN Gameday telecasts...pretty sure they aren't going to start burning books over the NBC logo. It's ESPN, while we all think they would prevent UNC signs that are in a negative light, they are actually bigger than this and could probably care less. Plus, they always have the stupid college kids argument.

NY Pony wrote:
Because he actually was present at the site of the events in question, but the events never really happened. You guys have given us the converse, your sign actually doesn't make sense

http://www.businessinsider.com/trust-for-brian-williams-has-fallen-2015-2

"Earlier this month, Williams said on NBC that the helicopter he was flying in was "was forced down after being hit by an RPG." Crew members who were on the helicopter that was actually hit by a rocket-propelled grenade then came forward to say Williams was on another helicopter that arrived at the site later."

Please explain again how the sign doesn't make sense.

Brain Williams Lying Scandal:
Helicopter was hit by RPG, Williams said he was on it. The truth comes out that he wasn't on it.

Brian Williams Sign:
SMU swept Uconn, the sign implies that Williams is saying he was at the game, he wasn't.

FYI - the President of ESPN, John Skipper, graduated from UNC. And I hear he is VERY passionate about his alma mater. There's a reason you'll find almost no mention of the UNC scandal on ESPN.

SMU1523 wrote:

NY Pony wrote:
Because he actually was present at the site of the events in question, but the events never really happened. You guys have given us the converse, your sign actually doesn't make sense

http://www.businessinsider.com/trust-for-brian-williams-has-fallen-2015-2

"Earlier this month, Williams said on NBC that the helicopter he was flying in was "was forced down after being hit by an RPG." Crew members who were on the helicopter that was actually hit by a rocket-propelled grenade then came forward to say Williams was on another helicopter that arrived at the site later."

Please explain again how the sign doesn't make sense.

Because he was there... He was also in NO during Katrina when he said there were bodies floating in the French quarter. He was there but there was no flooding in the quarter. The story isn't that he lied, it's that he exaggerated to a ludicrous point. And BI is as reliable of a source as bleacher report, fyi.

NY Pony wrote:
Because he was there... He was also in NO during Katrina when he said there were bodies floating in the French quarter. He was there but there was no flooding in the quarter. The story isn't that he lied, it's that he exaggerated to a ludicrous point. And BI is as reliable of a source as bleacher report, fyi.

I think the sign makes sense and I can't imagine that I am the only one, since it was Docabel's sign idea anyways. If you have a better way of wording it, please give it a try. Is the New York Times an okay source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/media/soldiers-in-brian-williams-group-give-account-of-2003-events.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

SMU1523 wrote:

NY Pony wrote:
Because he actually was present at the site of the events in question, but the events never really happened. You guys have given us the converse, your sign actually doesn't make sense

http://www.businessinsider.com/trust-for-brian-williams-has-fallen-2015-2

"Earlier this month, Williams said on NBC that the helicopter he was flying in was "was forced down after being hit by an RPG." Crew members who were on the helicopter that was actually hit by a rocket-propelled grenade then came forward to say Williams was on another helicopter that arrived at the site later."

Please explain again how the sign doesn't make sense.

Brain Williams Lying Scandal:
Helicopter was hit by RPG, Williams said he was on it. The truth comes out that he wasn't on it.

Brian Williams Sign:
SMU swept Uconn, the sign implies that Williams is saying he was at the game, he wasn't.

The issue was that he said the bird he was in was hit. It wasn't.
The issue was that he said he saw bodies floating through the French quarter during Katrina. There weren't any.

The Brian Williams issue is that he took events that happened elsewhere and created a narrative out of fictional accounts involving him. I love the sign and that you already made it...understand that sucks to make another, but it doesn't follow. Why? Because Brian Williams WAS in Iraq on a helicopter, and WAS in NO during Katrina...he just lied about what happened when he was there.

The idea is that what he claimed was impossible. He couldn't have witnessed the Gettysburg Address with Pres. Lincoln, or been on the lunar landing, because that is impossible. Theoretically, he could have witnessed both SMU wins over UCONN last season. Are we splitting hairs? Absolutely. So what.

SMU1523 wrote:

NY Pony wrote:
Because he was there... He was also in NO during Katrina when he said there were bodies floating in the French quarter. He was there but there was no flooding in the quarter. The story isn't that he lied, it's that he exaggerated to a ludicrous point. And BI is as reliable of a source as bleacher report, fyi.

I think the sign makes sense and I can't imagine that I am the only one, since it was Docabel's sign idea anyways. If you have a better way of wording it, please give it a try. Is the New York Times an okay source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/media/soldiers-in-brian-williams-group-give-account-of-2003-events.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

FIFY. "I was there when SMU beat UConn... Ever"

SMU1523 wrote:

NY Pony wrote:
Because he was there... He was also in NO during Katrina when he said there were bodies floating in the French quarter. He was there but there was no flooding in the quarter. The story isn't that he lied, it's that he exaggerated to a ludicrous point. And BI is as reliable of a source as bleacher report, fyi.

I think the sign makes sense and I can't imagine that I am the only one, since it was Docabel's sign idea anyways. If you have a better way of wording it, please give it a try. Is the New York Times an okay source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/media/soldiers-in-brian-williams-group-give-account-of-2003-events.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It was Docabel's idea...but you fuckedd up the wording! You had 1 thing to do! His wording was "In 2014, when UCONN beat SMU...???" You can't try to use the fact that someone else came up with an idea as your reason for it being right...then screw-up what the person said!

docabel wrote:"In 2014, when UCONN beat SMU...???"

Here you go buddy. This is what Docabel said.

Puckhead48E wrote:

docabel wrote:"In 2014, when UCONN beat SMU...???"

Here you go buddy. This is what Docabel said.

Fair enough, I will change it. I can admit when I am wrong.

I like the version that you printed out. Some people are a little too uptight about the nuances. It could be read in multiple ways.

I get the joke.

Or take your pick of any Rob Lowe - meat head, paranoid, skinny arms, peaked in high school, etc

What would Harvard fans do?