ugarte

i got some of my prerequisites out of the way at queens college during the summer and i'm not even a good athlete

lost in all of this is that it was a really good interview! JB asked solid questions and Yianni avoided cliches. Good work all around.

What's clear is that nobody coming to Cornell had any illusions about what Koll wanted them to do - greyshirt or start immediately. As @Spladle88 said, Yianni was probably the rare 800lb gorilla who could have pushed back but he's been pretty clear about being a team player. The real option for other wrestlers isn't enrolling as a freshman over the objection of your coach, it's going to Columbia. I think @klehner is being a little needlessly defensive but others are being needlessly accusatory and tbh there really isn't much disagreement: coaches run their programs and the athletes are expected to follow their instructions - even before they officially matriculate.

lol to this whole thread. even "yianni has a slightly better chance than zain..." is a howler in retrospect with both of them cruising to the podium. hoping yianni can get one step higher.

So did Max Dean

i mean it's not like he did research. we emailed each other.

hey come on i'm in both places! I'm not dan, HE'S dan! i was responding to what i thought was an inappropriate "i know who you are" which sounds imo like an attempt to intimidate even though in retrospect i don't think it was. he's just weird.

why? we won! (in arbitration)

Wild. Just looked this up. Turns out it was Bulgaria not Hungary, but this is a very cool story.

Kind of. Before Section 230, the majority of courts wouldn't hold the website owner liable for third-party comments, but the majority isn't all. That still left a lot of judges who had the opinion that at the very least it was a fact-intensive inquiry, and they wouldn't dismiss a claim right off the top even if everyone conceded that the host of the content didn't actually *write* what they were accused of. More than anything else, Section 230 is a great PROCEDURAL device that takes the guesswork out of applying the First Amendment to content hosts. So, you're right, the pre-230 landscape was a quagmire of litigation, but not so much because the First Amendment didn't apply, but more that judges are fallible and results were inconsistent and the uncertainty was creating real problems for anyone who wanted to operate on the internet at all. The earliest case I can remember involved Prodigy, who was absolutely not in the business of monitoring the massive amount of content being posted through their service. For all the talk about censorship from Big Tech, and how they "hide behind" 230... if you did away with 230 you'd have much less media (of all kinds, including fora like this one) and what was left standing would have *much more* censorship.

yes, that's what he said and what i was agreeing with

Section 230 only really protects what the First Amendment already protects, it just makes it less easier to defend yourself in court because Section 230 gives them even more specific defenses. People who don't understand the law (people generally, not you specifically, @GreatWhiteNorth), think that deleting *anything* means that you are therefore "publishing" anything that you don't delete, so Section 230 doesn't apply but that is the literal opposite of what the statute says. Section 230 gives website owners the ability to host anything without it being attributed to them AND to delete garbage they don't want on the site. Exercising one right doesn't undermine the other. You are right, GWN, that the "liability" of being associated with a very stupid conversation is what the board is avoiding when they delete all of us sniping at each other.

@Mike Parrish and @TFBJR are correct. There is no risk of legal liability to the forum's owners from randos posting speculation about ongoing legal matters. They don't want the discussion because it always goes off the rails and is generally uninformed. Even though it affects me - I both like posting about the law and driving conversations off the rails - I get it.

I would assume anyone could get that email as part of a FOIL/FOIA request under Oklahoma law as a public record. But I'm not sure what the implication is here. Hasn't Fix been very openly and notoriously getting paid as a CWC coach?

Wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA asked a question or two but if it is Mason Gibson/Cornell, the fact that the family is already in regular contact with the school because of his older brother probably complicates any adverse finding.