Keith Williams Suspended Two Weeks, Will Miss Four Games

[knapplc]

So you're devilishly handsome, too?

[Mavric]

If Eichorst isn't a prototypical lawyer I don't know who is (emphasis added).

“Keith is the same guy I hired a year ago,” Riley said. “He might be a better guy. And he made a terrible mistake. We have decided to support him and give him an opportunity to work with our kids.”

Said Eichorst: “He’s a young man that’s worthy of an opportunity of redemption here. So we’ll see how it goes, but I have a lot of faith that he’ll do the right thing moving forward.”

Williams is 45 years old, just a couple years younger than Eichorst. He’s one of the highest-paid public officials in the state — $400,000 — in charge of developing college students on a campus (like most in America) where alcohol abuse is rampant.

At 2 a.m. during fall camp, while a five-star recruit was in town, he got drunk before getting behind the wheel and putting other’s lives in danger. It doesn’t reflect well on Williams’ judgment. And it raises questions about how many times he’s done the same thing without causing an accident.

...

College football programs are constantly attempting to walk the tightrope between “what’s right” and “what’s critical to success.” NU may have made the exact same decision if Keith Williams were a graduate assistant or a soccer assistant or a security guard at the front desk. But it’s hard not to be skeptical.

OWH

[cm husker]

Another hallmark: Repeatedly referring to a third DUI, and one that caused an accident during which the offender was so drunk (or stupid?) that he couldn't differentiate between his car and health insurance, as an "error in judgment."

[Count 'Bility]

If youre driving down the highway and have to sh#t, but you decide to wait till the next exit, then proceed to sh#t your pants, are you a perennial pants-shitter? or was it an error in judgement that caused a series of events that led to your pants being filled with feces?

[cm husker]

Well, that's a rather grotesque analogy.

 

It sort of begs the question: do people sh#t their pants on the highway often?

 

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

Let's collectively hope it's the last.

[Landlord]

If youre driving down the highway and have to sh#t, but you decide to wait till the next exit, then proceed to sh#t your pants, are you a perennial pants-shitter? or was it an error in judgement that caused a series of events that led to your pants being filled with feces?

 

 

Come on Count. If that happens, then think about all the number of times that person must have driven with sh#t-filled pants. He was just unlucky to get caught this time.

[Landlord]

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

 

'...in reality' isn't the proper set of terms to use for a sentence that is literally conjecture.

[Guy Chamberlin]

So you're devilishly handsome, too?

 

Oh yes.

 

Especially for my age.

[Count 'Bility]

Well, that's a rather grotesque analogy.

 

It sort of begs the question: do people sh#t their pants on the highway often?

 

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

Let's collectively hope it's the last.

The fact of the matter is that no one other than Mr. Williams can prove or disprove it to be fact.

[cm husker]

 

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

 

'...in reality' isn't the proper set of terms to use for a sentence that is literally conjecture.

 

 

 

Sure it is.

 

Here in the real world (i.e., reality), rational reasonable people conclude all the time that if the sun rose today, it probably rose yesterday yesterday in Japan, even if they weren't there to see it.

 

But we can certainly deal in a fairytale world where overwhelming circumstantial evidence means nothing.

[cm husker]

 

Well, that's a rather grotesque analogy.

 

It sort of begs the question: do people sh#t their pants on the highway often?

 

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

Let's collectively hope it's the last.

The fact of the matter is that no one other than Mr. Williams can prove or disprove it to be fact.

 

 

Williams could never disprove it.

 

Proving a negative is next to impossible.

[GBRFAN]

Rational reasonable people don't compare taking a drink with the sun rising.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

But in reality, every rational, reasonable person can conclude that this wasn't the first time since his last DUI that Williams drove drunk.

 

 

'...in reality' isn't the proper set of terms to use for a sentence that is literally conjecture.

 

 

It's the proper term for reality, though.

 

"Conjecture" is the accurate word, but I bet you "literally" can't find a single person willing to bet his or her life that Williams only drove drunk those three times.

 

It's not unfair to assume Williams has a drinking problem. It's compassionate. The man needs help, not rationalizations.

[Landlord]

"Conjecture" is the accurate word, but I bet you "literally" can't find a single person willing to bet his or her life that Williams only drove drunk those three times.

 

 

Can you literally find a single person willing to bet their life that Williams didn't?

[knapplc]

 

 

I think we're all comfortable saying that occurrences of a thing outweigh observations of a thing. You just can't punish a guy based on conjecture.

 

We're rolling the dice a little here. Anyone who isn't concerned is probably a little crazy.