~ ~

Wednesday, March 12, 2014


We enjoy reader comments, and we've been getting more of them lately, including from a few regulars. We've heard from "Mr.OldGlories" and "MSUJiboo", and we get steady input from "MSUSpartan76" and of course, "return2glory". We even heard from "CMann" and "ATown" recently.

But you know how it is with trolls and such. We've started to attract a few who like to enter comments as "Anonymous" and then listen to themselves laughing over their hilarious perspectives. They do amuse themselves. We clean them up as fast as we can find them, but we've even had a delete/review/restore process with a series of anonymous comments that resulted in re-posted comments and a new screen name, "TheBlueWall". That's right, we've even talked with the blue-wall dude, and he's put up some feisty points. We may have questions about some of those points, but BW seems intelligent and literate and those are good things on a web site. So we can talk to him, and will plan to do so when he shows up again.

But we can't really find a way to talk to chUMps like this one, who posted his comment after one of the recent articles about the Michigan State Women's Basketball team:

Bwahahahahahaha!!!! Things have gotten so bad in EL, now they use the women's team to puff the chest. How the mighty have fallen. 
The chUMp doesn't notice the content of the article, in which it is clearly stated that the "mighty" HAVE NOT fallen. The story is about the last decade of success for the Spartans, though you can pick up along the way that MSU has always been very effective at beating the Wolverines. It's much more of a "continued success" story than it is a "mighty have fallen" piece. So this guy is pretty far off-track.

But again, that's why we call them "chUMps".

So then another chUMp shows up with this comment after, yes, another recent article about the Michigan State Women's Basketball team:
Nobody with half a brain cares about women's basketball. Same court, same dimensions, but two completely different games. Although I get it, you Sparty's haven't had a lot to cheer for lately, gotta take what you can get?
It doesn't take long to figure this guy out. He is somehow aware that the University of Michigan has had a women's basketball program for decades, yet says only people with half a brain (or less?) would care about it. It's the dead giveaway that this guy is a Walmart Wolverine with no connection to college now or at any time in his life. He has adopted UM as a personal joy ride, and uses a highly edited memory function to sustain his perpetual fantasy.

At the time of his comment, it had been about 9-1/2 weeks since the Rose Bowl victory. In his mind, that game did not happen "lately". The second-place standing in the Sears Cup fall sports season, in his mind, suggests that we "haven't had a lot to cheer for". Then there's all that stuff we've been saying about the Suzy Merchant Show.

Or even this news item that came up in the last 24 hours, which by most accounts would mean "lately". I know, it's an "academic thing", not like the TV shows most chUMps enjoy, but I mention it (and include the link) not only to refute his claim, but also to mock his non-university-affiliation. Clearly, he's a dolt, which is a general prerequisite for chUMp status.

Let me add that only a fool would call men's and women's college basketball "two completely different games". Again, that's the old days, and I mean the really, really old days. I would say the Rebecca Lobo Generation has already seen two general phases of overall player advancement across the women's college game since her playing days ended. The women's players of today are most definitely playing real basketball, same as the men.

Just no dunking, I get it. But I grew up in Jenison Field House watching Big Ten players who couldn't dunk. Well, they could, but it was a technical foul, so no slam-jams in games (not even in warm-ups). But I'm pretty sure it was real basketball. So only a few women have dunked, so what? Today's Division One women's college players are doing all of the same things that basketball players have done for decades. Rules have varied slightly from one league and/or era to another, but right now, the shot-clock is the only major rules differential between the two divisions. Men's clock is 35, Women's clock is 30. For whatever reason.

So keep the comments coming in, feel free to create a simple name that you can use in order to maintain a clear conversation, check for your typos as there is no "spell-check", etc. And if you're a chUMp, and you lay one of your eggs on our platter, we will most certainly delete you and prepare you to be roasted, just like this.

Posts from chUMps are for
our amusement purposes only.

****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****


  1. So if someone posts under the name "Anonymous," that means their the only person posting anonymously? I really hope your parents didn't name you SpartanMan82.. or is that an alias to keep your identity anonymous?

    As far as the "half-brained" comment, I'll admit it was a little over the top, but not sexist in anyway. If you want to debate how men's and women's basketball are the same product, by all means go ahead. I look forward to reading it.

    But it's not sexist. Sexist would be 80,000 Spartan fans chanting "little sister." To denigrate a group of men by referring to them as female, as if being female in some way makes them weaker, is just about the definition of sexism.

    I fully expect this comment to be deleted, just like every comment that makes you clowns look foolish.

    1. Shoot, lost my train of thought... Forgive me, but it did take two whole seconds to click the "down arrow", select "Name/URL", and type "Mr. Old Glories".

      Re-read the article, then think about what it is you're trying to say in paragraph #1. I know you think you've caught lightning in a bottle, but if you consider that using the moniker "SpartanMan82" is simply to make recognizeable his posts in this online forum, then maybe you wouldn't care at all what his parents named him at birth or what their motivation was.

      Regarding paragraph #3, can you just imagine how funny and edgy it would have been if MSU fans - in response to seeing their team referred to as "Little Brother" - had chanted... wait for it ... "Little Brother"?? Boy, that would have been a real knee-slapper!

      Side note - you must be out of your mind to imply that every last person in the capacity crowd that day - "80,000" as you say - was involved in the chanting. Maybe I should let you off the hook though, because I'm not THAT much older than you at 32 years of age. But you'll find soon enough that most fans outside the student section have zero interest in carrying on with chants.

  2. I suppose you have forgotten how chUMps, Skunk Bears, Walverines, and their ilk are so fond of denegrating Spartans by calling them "Lil Bro" and similar. Kindly note I use those disparaging terms only to the trolls that deserve them. Also note, that chUMpland started it right after Hart made is infamous, totally unsportsmanlike, insult on national TV.

    To your original question about "Anonymous," again you display your failure to comprehend the point. It has nothing to do with keeping your personal information private. It has everything to do with knowing which "Anonymous" posted what. Without a unique pseudoname, there is no way to differentiate your comments from anyone else that is too lazy to come up with a moniker. The instructions on how to accomplish this trivial task are directly above the text box in which you type your post.

  3. How old are you?

    There is no way that the number 76 is a birth year or graduation year, because I can't imagine an adult would tolerate unsportsmanlike conduct, regardless of who started it. If you Sparty's were the better men/women, you'd be above all the name calling..

    Congratulations guys, it only took seven years for you to become the very fans you dedicate this site to.

    1. The bigger question is "who are you", not in the sense of your actual human identity, but who are you on these threads? You would laugh at us to assume that all comments from "Anonymous" are from the same individual, though we have little choice but to examine that possibility first, as we read new comments. If it seems plausible that some un-labeled comments are from the same person, we might start to want to make that assumption, but we also might want to hold back from making such an unfounded leap. Which brings us to your comment about the Lousiville recruit, unless that wasn't you who made that comment. So you either are or are not that person.

      In this case, we're probably thinking you are "thebluewall" but you didn't label your comment. Sorry it's so hard to do. Too bad you can't log-in with your pre-made identity.

      That statement you made about unsportsmanlike conduct is funny with regard to your football team. Your star intimidator (of women) just apologized to one of our players for wrenching his face-mask during the last football game. Wait, I don't remember Lewan getting called for that, he would have been thrown out if he was called for that, wouldn't he? Oh, that's right, they don't call penalties on Lewan. He's sort of like the Aaron Craft of the blabbermouth offensive lineman crowd.

      Even your basketball coach didn't want to suspend the second one of his players who threw the elbows a few years ago. (OOPS, SORRY! That reference went back more than three years, and I know how hard it is these days to think back that far.)

      As for the seven-year framework, my interpretation is that the gradual advance of consumer communication technology led us to our ultimate conclusion on this web site, not so much seven years. Maybe you're talking about Dantonio, who knows. But if you're wondering whether we would have run this web site - - - if we could have done so - - - in the 90s or even the 80s, we would surely have done so.

      The arrogance is on your side of the fence. No matter how many times we point out the other side of the coin regarding UM, we don't self-proclaim our own greatness. You may infer it at your own risk, but you will be hard-pressed to find arrogance on this web site.

    2. Obviously I am not responding to an adult. I say that using YOUR criterion.

      We are not "Spartys," we are Spartans. Calling us Spartys is an insult. Calling us one form or another of "Little Brother" is an insult intended to demean us, our teams, and our school.

      Identifying trolls such as yourself with colorful sobriquets is just a form of the Biblical eye for an eye. I leaned a long time ago that the only way to deal with a bully was to give as good as was given. Those true Wolverines, those that well represent the University of Michigan by being respectful to all, I call Wolverines. Those who seem to believe that the only purpose of posting on the internet is to puff themselves up by posting insults, act disrespectful, etc., earn those colorful sobriquets.

      Age has nothing to do with it. Every human being can be abuse sufficiently to retaliate. I crossed the threshold of having been abused too much too many times by trolls claiming affiliation with UolM a long time ago

      It started when I posted on a UolM message board how impressive the 1901 season was, 11-0, average scoring of 55-0 and got abused, not once but scores of times.

      FYI, Skunk Bear is a LEGITIMATE nickname for the Gulo Gulo, and the most popular nichname in the western hemisphere, being more commonly used than Wolverine. That the Gulo Gulo is a bear cub sized skunk, complete with stench glands and a yellow stripe down the back just seems to fit when faced with infantile postings by UolM trolls.

      If we were better men/women, we would not name call, we would be above it? That's funny coming from a representative of a school that sings it is "The Leaders and the Best."

      So, it seems I am replying to an non-adult, inferior man/woman, based on your standards as stated.

      Seriously, with all the name callings, "stupid," "Spartys," "Lil Bro," and references to certain anatomical features, HOW OLD ARE YOU?

    3. Can you direct me to the UM message board where you got the torrent of emails about the 1901 season? I'd like to read them.

    4. It happened on CBS Sportsline.COM about 6 years or so. CBS has discontinued those forums, but regardless of that, they deleted stuff older than 6 months as a SOP (standard operating procedure).

      The gist of it was: "67-28-5", a nothing team since..., you guys vacuum (substitue freely), inferior, never will..., have no right to post on a UM board, blah, blah, blah, one after another after another -- all because of my chosen moniker... It was like a feeding frenzy.

  4. This entire site is to point out any and all faults of a single University. How does that not promote superiority?

    You guys are acting just like Michigan fans were during the Rich Rod years. Bringing up five and ten year examples to diminish what's happened, while still relevant, five and ten years are irrelevant to the current situation. Which is losing six of eight to the Wolverines in basketball, and watching your rivals play for a National Championship, while you try to convince yourself that a Sweet Sixteen is just swell. I give you creativity points for including women's basketball to lick your wounds. But I noticed you didn't even try to disprove the "two completely different games" debate.

    In all honesty you sound like bitter jealous old men when you whine about Lewan or Hart. Get over it and yourselves. With all the name calling (chumps, skunkbears, etc), seriously, how old are you?

    1. Your first paragraph is quite a leap on your part, as you never demonstrate a connection between the identity/purpose of the web site and your claim about it. You merely re-state it as a question.

      Reporting the success of the women's basketball program has nothing to do with licking wounds. I have been a season-ticket holder for quite some time after following the team for even longer. I can clearly see the only difference between the two sports is the gender of the players. That's what Title IX was designed to create, and now we have it. There isn't any "debate" on the point, and I remained silent on that point previously because the burden of proof is on you if you want to claim that there is a major NON-GENDER based difference between women's and men's college basketball. Go ahead, make your claims.

      As for age, we're much older than you. You are too young to remember the recent history of your favorite university. You think Hart played a long time ago, way back whenever. That's not the way it looks to us. Hart and Toussaint seem similar, much like Howard and his predecessors. But that's ancient history to you, just articles in the game programs you sometimes read during timeouts.

      You may have a shirt proclaiming the glory of re-named rugby scrimmages from the 1800s, but you will adamantly re-define relevancy in men's basketball as covering only the previous eight games.

      But you've really clarified a great point about the game-count. The statistical weakness of carving out the eight-game span is that is does NOT represent a trend-line evident in any previous series of games going back nearly 25 years. In other words, yes, you've got the 8-game span in your favor (thanks to a pair of one-point wins) but in every further comparison numerically rising into the 30s, the trend-line looks different. So if this 8-game span were placed, say 10-12 games ago in this series, it would appear to be the "outlier". It may appear different to you right now, but it's not quite different enough to out-weigh everything that came before it.

  5. There was an "Anonymous" from a while back who I really miss. He couldn't have been more proud of being a member of the Grammar Gestapo, and he'd attempt to debunk entire articles by pointing out the improper use of a single apostrophe. Mr. Buzzkill, The Least Interesting Man in the World. I really wish he'd resurface.


Please sign in using the method most convenient for you. We do not receive your login information. This function is provided by Blogger.