The Best NDNation thread of all-times???

[Ndaccountant]

Rocket addressed this quite eloquently a couple posts up. No one is dismissing it because NDN is advancing it. It's being dismissed because it's nonsense not rooted in any fact or evidence, and because their approach is clearly geared towards generating bad optics and a narrative above all else. The below phrases it better than I ever could...

It's a fact that he helped put a program in place. That fact implies there was some form of organizational knowledge that something was amiss. It's quite possible that he never was briefed on complaints leading up to that point. It's equally as plausible the he did have knowledge. It is known fact that he pointed to sexual assault as being a grave problem for the organization. Was there ever a point where he put the organization ahead of safety and morality? I don't know and I doubt that publicly it will ever be known. But as a catholic institution, I would argue ND has a vested interest to know, as any actions (accusorial or otherwise) risks damaging the mission of the Unversity.

 

[greyhammer90]

Lax and Rocket have this pretty well covered, but I'll just lay it out like this:

Genuinely expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration:

Good. Great. What the world needs more of.

Genuinely expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration by implicitly accusing a man of contributing to one of the worst sexual abuse cases in national history without any evidence:

Not good. Understand the concern, but it's not the correct way to go about it. There's other ways to raise the issue.

Outwardly expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration by implicitly accusing a man of contributing to one of the worst sexual abuse cases in national history without any evidence as an excuse to fire him:

Immoral. Evil. Likely a good majority of ND Nation.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Lax and Rocket have this pretty well covered, but I'll just lay it out like this:

Genuinely expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration:

Good. Great. What the world needs more of.

Genuinely expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration by implicitly accusing a man of contributing to one of the worst sexual abuse cases in national history without any evidence:

Not good. Understand the concern, but it's not the correct way to go about it. There's other ways to raise the issue.

Outwardly expressing concern over the immorality caused by the "win at all costs" culture of big money sports can have on an administration by implicitly accusing a man of contributing to one of the worst sexual abuse cases in national history without any evidence as an excuse to fire:

Immoral. Evil. Likely a good majority of ND Nation.

To be clear, I don't agree with what they are doing. All I am saying is that I am personally concerned that the leader of ND athletics may have put organization ahead of people and that ND is running a risk of looking hypocritical. Do with it as they may.

 

[IrishLax]

It's a fact that he helped put a program in place. That fact implies there was some form of organizational knowledge that something was amiss. It's quite possible that he never was briefed on complaints leading up to that point. It's equally as plausible the he did have knowledge. It is known fact that he pointed to sexual assault as being a grave problem for the organization. Was there ever a point where he put the organization ahead of safety and morality? I don't know and I doubt that publicly it will ever be known. But as a catholic institution, I would argue ND has a vested interest to know, as any actions (accusorial or otherwise) risks damaging the mission of the Unversity.

To be clear, I don't agree with what they are doing. All I am saying is that I am personally concerned that the leader of ND athletics may have put organization ahead of people and that ND is running a risk of looking hypocritical. Do with it as they may.

You're obviously being intellectually honest here, unlike the NDN crew. But let me touch on the two bolded sentences...

Right now the only evidence that exists is of him trying to solve a problem. So doesn't that sort of defeat the idea that we should be "concerned" about anything? There are so many leaps and assumptions to get from the publicly available information to the point where Swarbrick could be ethically connected to Nassar.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

To be clear, I don't agree with what they are doing. All I am saying is that I am personally concerned that the leader of ND athletics may have put organization ahead of people and that ND is running a risk of looking hypocritical. Do with it as they may.

Based on what? Until we find out Swarbrick has been suppressing complaints at ND for the sake of futball, we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt.

Unless of course you believe all faculty and staff are culpable by association with MSU during it's troubled years? You haven't put forth a single fact that should cause us concern but you keep saying you are concerned.

No one here has a win at all costs mentality. Or at least, I've yet to see someone come out and state explicitly "we should do whatever it takes to win". So we aren't rooting to have an admin that operates in that fashion, we are rooting for Jack Swarbrick because he's leading our university through some very treacherous times. Even his own want to devour him.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You're obviously being intellectually honest here, unlike the NDN crew. But let me touch on the two bolded sentences...

Right now the only evidence that exists is of him trying to solve a problem. So doesn't that sort of defeat the idea that we should be "concerned" about anything? There are so many leaps and assumptions to get from the publicly available information to the point where Swarbrick could be ethically connected to Nassar.

For me, the concern comes from the fact that I am not sure where this all ends. There is a witch hunt going on (nationally to uncover the atrocities), justifiably so. What happened with MSU and the fallout is just beginning. Now, we have the lawsuit against William McCabe & USA Gymnastics about to get underway in April. The difference here is that they are directly accusing USA Gymnastics leadership, saying they have proof allegations against him had been given to them starting in 1998 but nothing was done until 2006, when criminal charges were finally brought against him. Personally, I am waiting to see what happens here.

EDIT: With all this in mind, I am personally struggling to come up with a scenario where someone didn't seek out legal advice on this, realizing that the economic lifeblood of the organization could be publicly challenged by any unsavory actions. I realize it's hard to separate employee from professional affiliation, especially when they are as intertwined as they are in this case. I am generally curious and concerned on how this will play out.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Based on what? Until we find out Swarbrick has been suppressing complaints at ND for the sake of futball, we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt.

Unless of course you believe all faculty and staff are culpable by association with MSU during it's troubled years? You haven't put forth a single fact that should cause us concern but you keep saying you are concerned.

No one here has a win at all costs mentality. Or at least, I've yet to see someone come out and state explicitly "we should do whatever it takes to win". So we aren't rooting to have an admin that operates in that fashion, we are rooting for Jack Swarbrick because he's leading our university through some very treacherous times. Even his own want to devour him.

The first part of the bold is a bit of a strawman. No, not everyone at MSU is responsible. I am not aware of anyone putting that forward. But, for those in administration that were made aware of allegations, or those who advise the administration.....yea, it's fair to wonder if they helped enable.

I am concerned b/c I don't think this is over and all facts have been made public w/r/t USA Gymnastics. There are other lawsuits and I think this going to play out over the coming years.

 

[IrishLax]

For me, the concern comes from the fact that I am not sure where this all ends. There is a witch hunt going on (nationally to uncover the atrocities), justifiably so. What happened with MSU and the fallout is just beginning. Now, we have the lawsuit against William McCabe & USA Gymnastics about to get underway in April. The difference here is that they are directly accusing USA Gymnastics leadership, saying they have proof allegations against him had been given to them starting in 1998 but nothing was done until 2006, when criminal charges were finally brought against him. Personally, I am waiting to see what happens here.

EDIT: With all this in mind, I am personally struggling to come up with a scenario where someone didn't seek out legal advice on this, realizing that the economic lifeblood of the organization could be publicly challenged by any unsavory actions. I realize it's hard to separate employee from professional affiliation, especially when they are as intertwined as they are in this case. I am generally curious and concerned on how this will play out.

Why does it matter if they did? Or what legal advice he gave? I literally do not understand how you are getting from Point A... Nassar being a monster.... to Point Z where Swarbrick is somehow culpable for doing his job as a mid-level employee.

All this discussion makes me think of a personal example from my first job when I was 18 and working at a call center for a place that did student loans. There ended up being a giant fraud investigation because the company was classified as a non-profit but was taking advantage of people or something.

What you're doing now is the equivalent of someone coming back to me in another decade or so and being like "Ohhhhh Lax worked at that shady loan place... what did he know?!? How many bad loans did he process?" ... like it's absolutely absurd to me. Using you logic, teenage me working a summer job where I sat at a computer with a headset on and process loan applications == guilty for the fact that the CEO was playing fast and loose with tax laws, etc.

Swarbrick was not a decision maker, he was an employee. It goes without saying that a lawyer -- by law -- has to give sound legal advice to any person/organization even if they're scum. Unless he specifically violated law or gave unethical policy recommendations or wrote memos encouraging a cover up there is no logic whatsoever by which someone should be "concerned" or implying guilt by association. So with that said... show me even a shred of evidence of any of the former and I'd share the concern. The fact is it doesn't exist, so at best all of this posturing is premature. At worst, it's what NDN is doing... faux concern due to ulterior motives with the goal of getting someone fired regardless of any wrongdoing.

 

[RDU Irish]

At risk of being banned - or worse, sent to the political threads - this whole thing sounds a lot like Trump/Russia collusion.

 

[ACamp1900]

At risk of being banned - or worse, sent to the political threads - this whole thing sounds a lot like Trump/Russia collusion.

I'm trying to read through this like, "Isn't this thread supposed to be about NDNation??... These amateurs don't even know that if you're going to hijack a thread you do it on topics of deep meaning... like women or soup."

 

[Ndaccountant]

Why does it matter if they did? Or what legal advice he gave? I literally do not understand how you are getting from Point A... Nassar being a monster.... to Point Z where Swarbrick is somehow culpable for doing his job as a mid-level employee.

All this discussion makes me think of a personal example from my first job when I was 18 and working at a call center for a place that did student loans. There ended up being a giant fraud investigation because the company was classified as a non-profit but was taking advantage of people or something.

What you're doing now is the equivalent of someone coming back to me in another decade or so and being like "Ohhhhh Lax worked at that shady loan place... what did he know?!? How many bad loans did he process?" ... like it's absolutely absurd to me. Using you logic, teenage me working a summer job where I sat at a computer with a headset on and process loan applications == guilty for the fact that the CEO was playing fast and loose with tax laws, etc.

Swarbrick was not a decision maker, he was an employee. It goes without saying that a lawyer -- by law -- has to give sound legal advice to any person/organization even if they're scum. Unless he specifically violated law or gave unethical policy recommendations or wrote memos encouraging a cover up there is no logic whatsoever by which someone should be "concerned" or implying guilt by association. So with that said... show me even a shred of evidence of any of the former and I'd share the concern. The fact is it doesn't exist, so at best all of this posturing is premature. At worst, it's what NDN is doing... faux concern due to ulterior motives with the goal of getting someone fired regardless of any wrongdoing.

I am not sure that statement is correct. He was legal counsel and an employee of Baker & Daniels. Moreover, he wasn't some fresh out of law school associate. He began working with USAG in the mid 80's and was Partner for quite some time. To use your example, he wasn't a desk jockey pushing loans through, he was the consultant to the CFO.

In the deposition of Jack w/r/t swimming sexual assault scandals, Jack admitted he was aware of claims of abuse in Gymnastics and he advised them on it. I agree with all of you, that doesn't mean Jack pushed his hands into someone's crotch. He can only advise. But let me ask you this....if you are aware that abuses are taking place and you advise someone on what to do, what would you do if you find out that the abuse hasn't stopped? Would you take further action? Would you walk away from the client? Because of the nature of the advising, those details on what did or did not happen, they are not yet publicly known, but there are still plenty of lawsuits to go through.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I am not sure that statement is correct. He was legal counsel and an employee of Baker & Daniels. Moreover, he wasn't some fresh out of law school associate. He began working with USAG in the mid 80's and was Partner for quite some time. To use your example, he wasn't a desk jockey pushing loans through, he was the consultant to the CFO.

In the deposition of Jack w/r/t swimming sexual assault scandals, Jack admitted he was aware of claims of abuse in Gymnastics and he advised them on it. I agree with all of you, that doesn't mean Jack pushed his hands into someone's crotch. He can only advise. But let me ask you this....if you are aware that abuses are taking place and you advise someone on what to do, what would you do if you find out that the abuse hasn't stopped? Would you take further action? Would you walk away from the client? Because of the nature of the advising, those details on what did or did not happen, they are not yet publicly known, but there are still plenty of lawsuits to go through.

Ok, please let us know as soon as the news breaks that Jack is being investigated for not blowing the whistle after being consulted with confidential information of alleged assaults.

We wait with bated breath.

 

[IrishLax]

Called it!!!

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...d-usa-gymnastics-sex-abuse-policy/1079569001/

The issue has sparked message-board discussion, including this comment from ndnation.com: "The core questions are, what did Swarbrick know and what did he do in response to that knowledge?"

NDNation wins, they got their nothing-burger story with all the innuendo they could muster --

Two former USA Gymnastics presidents have cited a longtime power player in Indiana sports as one of the key people involved in advising USA Gymnastics on policies related to sexual abuse: Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick.

In an interview with IndyStar, Mike Jacki, USA Gymnastics president from 1983 to 1994, said Swarbrick discouraged the organization from distributing a booklet on child abuse to its members.

BOMBSHELL! But wait...

"I am not aware of 'complaint files at USA Gymnastics,' but ... I do not doubt that Baker & Daniels would have been consulted on matters related to at least some of the complaints themselves," Swarbrick said. "...As you are aware, I am not able to comment on what 'advice' the firm might have offered to its client."

"I am not aware of 'complaint files at USA Gymnastics,' but ... I do not doubt that Baker & Daniels would have been consulted on matters related to at least some of the complaints themselves," Swarbrick said. "...As you are aware, I am not able to comment on what 'advice' the firm might have offered to its client."

"I am not aware of 'complaint files at USA Gymnastics,' but ... I do not doubt that Baker & Daniels would have been consulted on matters related to at least some of the complaints themselves," Swarbrick said. "...As you are aware, I am not able to comment on what 'advice' the firm might have offered to its client."

So they got two disgraced USAG presidents to try to blame their law firm for their screw ups. And, at worst, he advised them that putting out a booklet would expose them to liability... which is probably true.

In short... Jack was a lawyer at a law firm, and did his job as he was asked. He either can't answer questions, and the ones he can answers he outright refutes any wrongdoing. And there is no evidence -- documents, memos, etc. -- showing any wrong doing.

Now let's watch how NDNation spins it...

 

[IrishLion]

I refuse to visit that website anymore, though I can bet they're all circle-jerking each other and congratulating one another on a job well done for getting mentioned in an Indy Star story.

Gonna be funny to see how they feel 6 months from now when Jack's job is still safe.

 

[IrishLax]

Seriously, check out this passage:

Jacki said he clashed with Swarbrick on the extent to which USA Gymnastics could discipline members.

"The one issue that came up on a regular basis with Jack on the child abuse issue," Jacki said, "was forcing me to accept that the only way we could terminate a member is if he was formally charged and prosecuted and convicted (in a court of law). Or charged and pleaded no contest."

Swarbrick said to IndyStar, "I never identified that as a requirement." He said Jacki hired Baker & Daniels when he left USA Gymnastics to become CEO of USA Skiing.

This doesn't even make sense. You are the client, Baker & Daniels is your consultant. YOU make the decisions, they give you recommendations. You can't be "forced" by the person you hired to do anything... this isn't two board members disagreeing on which way to go... YOU are the empowered decision maker. You can either accept or reject their legal advice, or even fire them if you disagree.

What actually happened -- Baker & Daniels probably told them that they'd be open to lawsuits if they terminated someone based strictly on an allegation that had not been adjudicated. How it's presented by the former USAG person -- "I was forced to not fire people who had allegations against them." Those are two completely different things, and only one of them (the one that logically can't happen) paints the disgraced USAG person in an acceptable light.

 

[IrishLax]

I refuse to visit that website anymore, though I can bet they're all circle-jerking each other and congratulating one another on a job well done for getting mentioned in an Indy Star story.

Gonna be funny to see how they feel 6 months from now when Jack's job is still safe.

I thought it was funny that the best they could muster was "the law firm maybe thought distributing a booklet was a bad idea because it could open them up to legal liability". And the next best was "the lawyer said if you fire someone over an allegation that hasn't been adjudicated you can get sued."

Both of those things are probably sound legal advice, and once again no memos, documents, etc. have been produced. Hearsay from two people we know were empowered decision makers and let everything go awry under their watch... trying to blame a law firm they hired for doing their job?

It's exactly the story we said there would be... not being able to answer questions because of attorney-client privilege, and when he could he refuted the hearsay. I'm waiting for someone to produce a document -- a memo, email, anything -- that shows Swarbrick doing anything that isn't simply his job as a lawyer.

 

[Picasso]

Swarbrick

Swarbrick

Does ND dump Swarbrick for his role in the gymnastics's scandal or was he just doing his job as an attorney? At a bare minimum did he advise his client to implement a process that protected the athletes and stopped any abuses going forward? If some of the allegations in the newspaper articles are true how can ND continue to employ such a person? Given the Catholic Church's missteps in this arena, I would imagine ND adjudicates this matter quickly.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Does ND dump Swarbrick for his role in the gymnastics's scandal or was he just doing his job as an attorney? At a bare minimum did he advise his client to implement a process that protected the athletes and stopped any abuses going forward? If some of the allegations in the newspaper articles are true how can ND continue to employ such a person? Given the Catholic Church's missteps in this arena, I would imagine ND adjudicates this matter quickly.

The misconception is that Swarbrick was in position to take action. Between his role as the liaison consulting entity for his firm and the client confidentiality laws, it would seem like the odds he had any involvement in the USAG sexual crime cover-ups are slim to none.

He ultimately could not make any decisions, but merely consult the powers that be in USAG to implement these changes. At the end of the day, he was a lawyer and his job is to defend his client from a legal perspective. Even if he knew, all he can do as a consultant is suggest they release the info and begin to take affirmative action to hold guilty parties accountable. Very reasonable that they chose against it, and Swarbrick could do nothing to stop them, as confidentiality laws forbid him from making the report. At least that's how I see it. Maybe wrong in the role he played, but that appears to be the case, from how I read it.

As Lax stated, the statements made by the guilty parties mean less than nothing. Their hands are muddied and they're merely trying to pass the buck over to someone else to take the blame. My guess is that after the smoke clears, it will have failed and the fingers will point to the true guilty parties.

 

[Crazy Balki]

I thought it was funny that the best they could muster was "the law firm maybe thought distributing a booklet was a bad idea because it could open them up to legal liability". And the next best was "the lawyer said if you fire someone over an allegation that hasn't been adjudicated you can get sued."

Both of those things are probably sound legal advice, and once again no memos, documents, etc. have been produced. Hearsay from two people we know were empowered decision makers and let everything go awry under their watch... trying to blame a law firm they hired for doing their job?

It's exactly the story we said there would be... not being able to answer questions because of attorney-client privilege, and when he could he refuted the hearsay. I'm waiting for someone to produce a document -- a memo, email, anything -- that shows Swarbrick doing anything that isn't simply his job as a lawyer.

Agree 100%. Seems based on all the articles I've read that Swarbrick did the job he was hired to do. So until there is hard evidence that he was any way, shape and form, involved in this outside of his role as a legal consult for USAG (which again, is bound by attorney-client privilege laws), then this is all speculation and hearsay.

 

[BeauBenken]

Does ND dump Swarbrick for his role in the gymnastics's scandal or was he just doing his job as an attorney? At a bare minimum did he advise his client to implement a process that protected the athletes and stopped any abuses going forward? If some of the allegations in the newspaper articles are true how can ND continue to employ such a person? Given the Catholic Church's missteps in this arena, I would imagine ND adjudicates this matter quickly.

Are we going to start charging attorneys for the crimes of their clients?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Does ND dump Swarbrick for his role in the gymnastics's scandal or was he just doing his job as an attorney? At a bare minimum did he advise his client to implement a process that protected the athletes and stopped any abuses going forward? If some of the allegations in the newspaper articles are true how can ND continue to employ such a person? Given the Catholic Church's missteps in this arena, I would imagine ND adjudicates this matter quickly.

Your conflating some real abstract info Picasso

 

[EvilleIrish]

"Timmy says:
April 8, 2018 at 8:54 am
I couldn’t agree more. I attended the game at USC in 2012 and ND continued to try to pass the ball instead of rushing for a touchdown. A mature lady, who had traveled from the midwest to attend her very first away game, was sitting next to me on the first row of the 40 yard line close to our beloved Irish. She yelled out “run the ball Brian” and Kelly lost his temper and approached her in the stands yelling and cursing at her to “shut the ++ck up and continued with other curse words and two coaches and a player tried to restrain him. He finished by asking a nearby Security Guard to kick her ” *ss the **ck out of here”. The guard ignored him. It was embarrassing and demoralizing. The lady cried as he went on his rant for 45 seconds before he was restrained and pulled back. Is this what we expect from someone who is clearly suppose to set an example for our youth and university? This story is correct. This is who he is and while I always cheer for the team, I always cheer for his departure as well."

This is an actual post on the site. Sad part is, there are a few on there who actually believe this.

 

[GowerND11]

"Timmy says:
April 8, 2018 at 8:54 am
I couldn’t agree more. I attended the game at USC in 2012 and ND continued to try to pass the ball instead of rushing for a touchdown. A mature lady, who had traveled from the midwest to attend her very first away game, was sitting next to me on the first row of the 40 yard line close to our beloved Irish. She yelled out “run the ball Brian” and Kelly lost his temper and approached her in the stands yelling and cursing at her to “shut the ++ck up and continued with other curse words and two coaches and a player tried to restrain him. He finished by asking a nearby Security Guard to kick her ” *ss the **ck out of here”. The guard ignored him. It was embarrassing and demoralizing. The lady cried as he went on his rant for 45 seconds before he was restrained and pulled back. Is this what we expect from someone who is clearly suppose to set an example for our youth and university? This story is correct. This is who he is and while I always cheer for the team, I always cheer for his departure as well."

This is an actual post on the site. Sad part is, there are a few on there who actually believe this.

 

[zelezo vlk]

And then everybody clapped

 

[NDohio]

"Timmy says:
April 8, 2018 at 8:54 am
I couldn’t agree more. I attended the game at USC in 2012 and ND continued to try to pass the ball instead of rushing for a touchdown. A mature lady, who had traveled from the midwest to attend her very first away game, was sitting next to me on the first row of the 40 yard line close to our beloved Irish. She yelled out “run the ball Brian” and Kelly lost his temper and approached her in the stands yelling and cursing at her to “shut the ++ck up and continued with other curse words and two coaches and a player tried to restrain him. He finished by asking a nearby Security Guard to kick her ” *ss the **ck out of here”. The guard ignored him. It was embarrassing and demoralizing. The lady cried as he went on his rant for 45 seconds before he was restrained and pulled back. Is this what we expect from someone who is clearly suppose to set an example for our youth and university? This story is correct. This is who he is and while I always cheer for the team, I always cheer for his departure as well."

This is an actual post on the site. Sad part is, there are a few on there who actually believe this.

It happened. That was my mom's, friend's, aunt's sister-in-law...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Timmy says:
April 8, 2018 at 8:54 am
I couldn’t agree more. I attended the game at USC in 2012 and ND continued to try to pass the ball instead of rushing for a touchdown. A mature lady, who had traveled from the midwest to attend her very first away game, was sitting next to me on the first row of the 40 yard line close to our beloved Irish. She yelled out “run the ball Brian” and Kelly lost his temper and approached her in the stands yelling and cursing at her to “shut the ++ck up and continued with other curse words and two coaches and a player tried to restrain him. He finished by asking a nearby Security Guard to kick her ” *ss the **ck out of here”. The guard ignored him. It was embarrassing and demoralizing. The lady cried as he went on his rant for 45 seconds before he was restrained and pulled back. Is this what we expect from someone who is clearly suppose to set an example for our youth and university? This story is correct. This is who he is and while I always cheer for the team, I always cheer for his departure as well."

This is an actual post on the site. Sad part is, there are a few on there who actually believe this.

/r/ThatHappened

And then everybody clapped

And then the ghost of Knute Rockne appeared and presented Timmy with a crisp $1 bill for his service in chronicling such an important and not-at-all-fabricated event.

 

[GowerND11]

It all stems from an article on NDNation blasting Kelly for what he said at the press conference about Jay Hayes. Thus another circle jerk was started.

 

[connor_in]

You sure it wasn't a woke 3 year old instead of an old lady?

 

[dublinirish]

online trolls always use the "elderly man/woman" as the victim to elicit sympathy. She was probably a homeless war veteran too.

 

[IrishLax]

/r/ThatHappened

And then the ghost of Knute Rockne appeared and presented Timmy with a crisp $1 bill for his service in chronicling such an important and not-at-all-fabricated event.

All this story is missing is someone making Kelly check his privilege and we’d have all the tropes covered.

It all stems from an article on NDNation blasting Kelly for what he said at the press conference about Jay Hayes. Thus another circle jerk was started.

What did he say?