Think/Know: Week 4

* I know that that UCLA has one of the best backfields in the conference – and it’s even better than we thought

Rick Neuheisel called Derrick Coleman the team’s most valuable player through four games, and it’s hard to disagree. After Johnathan Franklin went down with a hip injury after a good start – six carries for 36 yards – Coleman took over and gained 100 yards on 20 carries. They were impoortant carries, too, punishing carries that paid off in the end.
Coleman had three critical first downs on UCLA’s last drive to keep the ball away from the Beavers, running five straight times for eight, five, three, three and six yards.
Coleman could’ve had two more touchdowns, if not for Jordon James’ four-yard end-around and Anthony Barr’s two-yard burst up the middle. That kind of variation bodes well going forward for a running game that already ranks second in the Pac-12, and 28th nationally, at 214 yards per game

* I think UCLA’s kicking issues have not been solved yet

Jeff Locke admirably manned up to his issues on Saturday – having two kicks blocked, one a field goal, one a PAT – and he was not blaming a vicious hit on an 85-yard touchdown punt return for his problems. Locke is a very bright football player and should be able to correct the flaw that led to two low kicks, but the delirious fog that set in after 51- and 49-yard field goals against Texas disappeared pretty quickly.

* I know the defense will need to play more aggressively against Andrew Luck

UCLA has let the opposition nickel-and-dime their nickel and dime, and that simply won’t work against THE BEST QUARTERBACK EVAR. Really, though, Luck is a fantastic quarterback not because of his arm strength or his accuracy or his timing. What takes Luck from great to Heisman-worthy is his pinpoint-precise decision-making. Like Case Keenum in Week 1, Luck will find the open man, for five yards or 50, and he’ll be happy to do it.
The Bruin cornerbacks have played surpringly passive for a duo that has the body, speed and mindframe to bully opposing receivers, and that comes from the top down. Through four weeks, there have been countless third-and-short situations when the DBs were seven, eight, nine yards deep, letting the offense dictate the result. Andrew Luck can’t have such an easy go of it.

* I think that UCLA cannot continue to play so conservatively

Rick Neuheisel told the media after the 27-19 win over Oregon State that it was his fault on Jordan Poyer’s 85-yard touchdown return near the end of the first half.
He should’ve apologized for putting the Bruins in that position in the first place.
UCLA continues to play with Tea Party conservatism, never moreso than the “two-minute” drive that wasn’t. With 1:41 left in the first half and the Bruins leading 21-3, UCLA had a chance to essentially end the game. The offense was clicking to that point, scoring touchdowns on three of its five possessions, though one was just a four-yard drive after a Sean Mannion fumble in the OSU red zone. UCLA had gained 173 yards on just 24 plays – an average of 7.2 yards per play – while Oregon State had gained 31 yards total on its previous four drives, showing very little big-play ability.
So what does UCLA do?
With three timeouts left, the Bruins call two runs up the middle, wasting nearly a minute of clock. Then, almost out of nowhere, they decide to hurry it up. First, a nine-yard pass to Nelson Rosario, then an uncharacteristic deep bomb to Randall Carroll which went incomplete, and a four-yard loss on a Richard Brehaut rush. Then the punt and the touchdown, and thisquick, the Beavers are back in the game.
Had UCLA simply run the clock out, that would be one thing. Forgivable, if conservative. But to go from passive to aggressive in the span of two plays was simply baffling and shows a continual lack of confidence in the offense.

* I think UCLA’s season is not over – far from it

The Bruins have not looked very good through four games, but at 2-2 and 1-0 in conference play, September treated UCLA relatively well in terms of bowl hopes.
Home games with Cal, Washington State, Arizona State and Colorado remain, and the Bruins should realistically go 3-1 . Then there are road dates at Stanford, Arizona, Utah and USC. If UCLA can win one of those games – and it can – then the Bruins should be bowl-bound. The Pac-12 has really become a league of 2-7-3 with Oregon and Stanford near-untouchable, Washington State, Oregon State and Colorado in the dregs, and six teams somewhat close together. Obviously Arizona State and USC are a notch ahead of Arizona, Utah, UCLA, Washington and Cal, but they don’t look unbeatable. With eight conference games left, the Bruins just need to play to their talent level, and they’ll be busy in December.

Share this post:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • ucla-of-the-rockies

    I KNOW we benefitted from a cake schedule during this first year of Pac-12 play, drawing OSU instead of Oregon and Wazzu instead of Washington. Of course, San Jose State was the ultimate gimme-game …
    That means a bowl berth by simply going 3-6 in the other nine games. To even struggle with the thought of post-season implications with this slate shows just how far we have slid off the cracker.
    I THINK we are getting way too used to mediocrity.


    If FAURIA isn’t used as a receiver this weekend against Stanford, I am done with Neuheisel. Just done.

  • Enough Already

    John Wilner says UCLA has the toughest schedule in the Pac 12… so maybe you are just blinded by rage (?)

    1. UCLA: Just what fighting-for-his job coach Rick Neuheisel needs: One of the toughest schedules in the country. The primary reason is the OOC portion, which features a season-opener at Houston (healthy Case Keenum, 280% humidity) and a Week Three home date with Texas. If that’s not tough enough, the Bruins then hit the road to play Oregon State and Stanford in consecutive weeks — all of which makes a 1-4 start a distinct possibility. UCLA would seem to catch a break with a bye before visiting Tucson, except the Wildcats also have an extra week to prepare. And this being an odd year, the USC game is in the Coliseum.

  • DoubleBruin

    I love your work and I know what you’re trying to say here but your Tea Party analogy doesn’t make sense to a politically conservative guy like me. For us, political conservatism is a good thing and you’re implying that it’s not. Even though I agree with most of the Tea Party conservative views, it does not mean that I agree with conservative play calling.

  • Mike

    I don’t get the Fog thing with Locke… Someone explain that last part to me?

  • Rich


    Relax and choose your battles. Jon merely used “tea party” as an adjective to modify the term “conservative,” and no positive or negative connotation was given to it — unless you’re too touchy and give it one.

  • My comment was not intended to compare the merit in the political ideology and football ideology, it was just supposed to be a play on words. I’ll think more carefully next time, DoubleBruin.

  • The MacLeaner

    How did I know Jon was gonna get heat for his innocuous political metaphor.


  • Tea Party Conservatives are idiots

    You now who else was conservative like Tea Party members, The Catholic Church during Galileo, they inhibited research, knowledge, enlightenment and understanding, they cheered for bad things to happen, all they while hypocritically calling themselves “Christians”, funny isn’t it? And I’m Catholic and I despise that historical fact. You know who else was conservative and didn’t like hearing progressive ideas? The Pharisees, AND they Condemned an innocent man, for confronting their Hypocrisy! he too, tried to bring Enlightenment, and caring, but they were blinded by greed and selfishness.

    You know who else was conservative? The Greeks, during the time of Socrates, they claimed he was “corrupting the youth” simply because he was telling people to think for themselves, seek understanding and rationality, they too tried to stop intelligence from improving society. Yes, here we are 3000, years later, and these selfish, greedy, corporate bankrolled, hypocrites are back, and they want to destroy society, all the while calling themselves, “Christians” while laughing at people who could not get healthcare. Hypocrites! Conservatism, is the ultimate form of a communistic dictatorship. Conservatism, has led to more bad than anything good in our society!

  • localbruin

    Journalist after bad home loss:
    “It was the locker room of not just a defeated team, but a defeated team. ”

    Journalist after satisfying road win:
    “If UCLA can win one of those games – and it can – then the Bruins should be bowl-bound.”

    Journalist, please spare us the depths of unwarranted pessimism and the heights unfounded optimism.

    Please focus some time now on discovering what went wrong with “super-human” Datone Jones and the “stout” Bruin front seven you wrote about all summer. Without their collective improvement from Swiss cheese to brick wall the Bruins will twist in the wind.

  • Anonymous

    Shouldnt it be the opposite? Why would UCLA press the recievers when Luck is so good? Why risk giving up big plays with such a good QB. Play off the receivers nad keep everything in front plz.

  • Anonymous

    So the Tea Party conservative wants to more or less destroy the institution that gave him a good education. After taking advantage of California tax payer money that supports institutions like UCLA, Mr. Tea Party now deems it unnecessary. In other words “Let ’em die!!!!”

  • Anonymous


    So saying that we should win one out of four road games is unfounded optimism? Just seems like a truthful statement considering that only one of those teams, Stanford, has looked anything close to unbeatable. Arizona looks bad, u$c struggled to beat a Minnesota team at home that just lost to North Dakota State at home and Utah lost to that same $c team. Maybe you should save the hyperbole for an instance when you actually know what you’re talking about.

  • FG UW fan


    I agree that the conference looks like a 2-7-3 combination.

    The thing is, many folks around there don’t know who the 3rd team is in the “3.” Clearly that group includes Colorado and OSU. But there are many who think it also includes UCLA in place of WSU.

    We’ll see.

  • Anonymous

    I know if the defense doesn’t do something to disrupt the receivers running the short underneath routes Luck will carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Every team so far has been very successful with the underneath routes against UCLA. Stanford will be more than happy to nickel&dime UCLA all game long, just like Houston did.

  • Bruintx

    What kind of knucklehead brags about having a Ferrari with all sorts of bells and whistles on it and then only drives it to Vons and back at 20mph?

    I guess the same guy who brags he has all these “playmakers extraordinaire” and then runs an conservative offense. Why bother recruiting these guys if you do not intend to use them to their strong points (or use them at all)? What a waste of talent.

  • MichaelRyerson

    TPCAI@ 11:00 am, that third cup of coffee was a mistake.

  • Bob Toledo

    I THINK that CRN can’t coach his way out of a wet paper bag and that many Tea Party constituents are douche bags.

    I KNOW that CRN will once again trow Brehaut under the bus after UCLA loses to Standford because of our poor defense and pathetic offensive play calling.

  • localbruin

    Had the Journalist been asked about the prospect of that one road win a week ago, he’d likely have had a far more pessimistic view. The swinging gate of analysis here does little to build credibility. Ditto the Datone Jones whiff.

  • I predicted UCLA to win.

  • DoubleBruin

    Jon, thanks for reading and addressing my point.

  • “. . . idiots” demonstrates questionable judgment.

    The persecution Galileo faced was not due to Catholicism (Christianity), but to challenging established political power. I wonder, do Tea Party activists support or oppose governmental tyranny?

    The Pharisees used their political and religious influence to condemn the Christ. Do Tea Party supporters oppose or support religious Liberty? Do they support murdering the Son of God?

    The ancient Greeks had some notion of Liberty, though it was hardly as refined as that of the Founding Fathers. Do Tea Party members admire or condemn the Founding Fathers’ positions on human equality, individual rights, and freedom?

    Obviously, “. . . idiots” has been brainwashed by America-hating, Church-hating, historically-illiterate, fascist liberals. He must be a college graduate.

    How sad — and ironic! — that not only is he misinformed and unwilling (or unable) to think for himself, he actually condemns others who defend the last, best hope for humanity on Earth, a free society founded to protect each individual’s God-given, unalienable rights.

    “. . . idiots,” don’t be ashamed of your Christianity. You’ve been lied to. Thomas Jefferson said:

    “The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”

    And as for the proper role of government, the Founders declared that the purpose of political power is to secure each person’s rights from other individuals, from the mob (majority), and from politicians. That principle is articulated in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution.

    On the subject of whether Man exists to feed government’s avarice or government exists to protect our rights, Mr. Jefferson advised, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

  • ucla-of-the-rockies

    EnoughAlready: I’m sure rage, frustration, envy … (oh, lets stop there!) has influenced many Bruin football fans to say many things half-cocked.
    But truthfully here, one of my points was this: insert the other Oregon or Washington school in that schedule slot this year and we don’t qualify for a bowl. Period. Hell, may not anyways …
    Which would be sad in a soft-schedule year like this. I don’t agree with Wilner’s take on our schedule. And he really needs to crawl out from the rock that is squeezing his head into thinking the Pac-12 is anything but a weak BCS conference this year.
    Bottom-line is, if we go 3-6 in “meaningful” games we qualify for a bowl. Now that’s livin’ the good life in mediocre-land!

  • No Politics, Ricky is Just Stupid

    Your politics are off buddy. The conservative call would have been to run the ball and eat up the clock and not to do both. Also, the tea party is not really conservative in the way you think, they just don’t trust the government to come up with solutions.

    Thus in tea party terms Ricky is Obama and a confused idiot. To tea partiers, the team would be better off if Brehaut just called the plays.

    Actually, Ricky is a bit like Obama. He talks a good game and brought hope but is slowly destroying the Bruins/economy.

  • Marc


    You are one strange person; read some of your blog posts. You may consider seeking some help.

    I agree with most people; UCLA is better than this and it appears Rick does not share our sentiment. UCLA is a great university recognized around the world. Surely they should be able to field a contender from time to time. It has been a very long time, and people are getting restless.

    Rick needs to be told to drop his conservative approach or hit the road. He says that’s the identity of the team, but I’d guess otherwise. The kids surely want more than 61 offensive plays in a game, and .500 ball ain’t going to cut it any longer.

  • MichaelRyerson

    What? No Martin Luther analogy?

  • BruinPain

    Whoa! The thought police and politicos have been out in force. I thought we were talking football here but the meds apparently ran out. Moving right along, CRN has admitted that he sees the team as a power running team. The game plan against OSU was such an unbalanced offensive attack, which I think is odd considering the talent available. As I’ve said before, CRN shall not lead us to victory. Our play will continue to be very boring and painful to watch because of the conservative play calling. Need I say anything about the travesty known also known as our “defense.”

  • ucla-of-the-rockies

    MRyer: LMAO!
    And, any chance Benny can help CRN when this debacle is through?

  • localbruin

    Jon, OK, good call on the OSU win. Post-TX game report was a bit overboard on the downside. Now they’re going to a bowl? Hard to see that you’d have been as chipper on their chances to go to a bowl after Tx.

    Datone? What did you guys miss there? This guy might not even be starting by season-end.

  • timmah

    I’ll probably regret this but…Which part of Amillenialist’s post makes him strange? The part where he quotes Thomas Jefferson re Individual liberty or Jefferson’s view that Christianity before it was corrupted by clergy is the religeon most amenable to “liberty… and the…expansion of the human mind”? Yeah, that ol’ Tom, what a loon!!!
    Amillenialist was merely responding to the nonsensical rant by TPCAI with a cogent argument, the only thing he’s guilty of is wasting his own time. Pearls before swine, as the saying goes.

  • Marc, aren’t you a brave soul, preferring slander over substance?

    I value Liberty over tyranny, truth over falsehood, and the rights of the Individual over the power of the mob, yet you say I need help.

    Well done!

    (By the way, I believe that Jon’s pun was only to say that Neu is ultra-conservative; it wasn’t about politics.)

  • Sandy Underpants

    UCLA deserves better than this?

    THIS is UCLA football.

    Toledo, Dorrell, Neuheisel… It’s a pattern of slow and steady decline. I don’t know how the next HC will be worse, but I’m confident in Dan Guerrerro

  • ucla ex-dormie

    Gentle people,
    Those of you who can’t take a joke, please go and learn to take a joke.
    Ucla “I get the jokes” ex-dormie
    I read sports blogs to get the F away from politics. Don’t do this to me. A joke’s a joke, dammit.
    No, I’m not going to explain the jokes to you. You’re on your own.

  • Marc

    Read your own blog lately? Sorta crazy stuff on there; illegal immigrant from Kenya?!? I know some people like you; I think you need help. That’s all I am going to say.

    As to who you were “responding” to, it is unfortunate that the person chose to use Jon’s, once again, innocent reference to interject his politics, er, religion into the blog. Though, that person didn’t link their name to their blog, where one could read their posts.

    Your blog is full of strange thoughts that are not really routed in reality. That is why I suggest, perhaps, you seek help. It’s got nothing to do with whether you lean right or left, rather the nonsensical approach to conveying your leanings.

    UCLA is plenty controversial enough without having people interject their political/religious arguments to the conversations. I sit in section 22 and I can tell you, there are plenty of passionate people who cheer like crazy for the Bruins. I bet you’d get a lot of people at eachothers throats if politics and religion were thrown into the arena. There is a reason that those discussions are left to private affairs.


  • BruinPain

    You tell ’em Marc!

    And yes, let’s please keep this to sports. If I wanted crazy, I’d go back to BruinsNation. Go Bruins!

  • So, Marc, wanting to know whether a president is Constitutionally-qualified to serve is “sorta crazy”?

    You and I have to produce a birth certificate for any number of official purposes; how much more should the Commander-in-Chief?

    You are aware that Obama’s own grandmother says that she witnessed his birth in Kenya, aren’t you? Maybe you think that she’s “sorta crazy.”

    You must know also that Obama’s spent at least a million dollars preventing his records from being made public. Why? All sorts of records were released by Bush, Gore, and McCain. What’s Obama got to hide? Perhaps you think that a nation’s knowing the person they’ve elected is “sorta crazy.”

    What about the finally-released “this-is-really-the-official-one-we-mean-it-this-time” birth certificate? You do know that that document’s neither a single photograph nor scan, but a digital creation that’s been cobbled together from other sources. Or do you think that fifty-year-old typewriters change their fonts or produce identical pixel-structures when digitized, Marc? You’d have to be “sorta crazy” to think so.

    I’d like to visit Obama’s birthplace. Which hospital is that, Marc? Or was he born in two different hospitals? To think so would be “sorta crazy.”

    Asking for answers to those problems isn’t deranged, it’s a duty.


    Here’s one link pointing out some of the “anomalies” in the latest birth certificate:

  • The MacLeaner

    Holy crap – Obama’s birth certificate? SERIOUSLY?? On a college football blog.

    Jon, shut the comments down a.s.a.p. – the inmates are running the asylum…haven’t this type of nonsense since the UB/VB dorks were over here keyboard fighting.

  • MacLeaner invites you to defame him, at least on college football blogs.

  • BruinPain

    Hey AmilleBlah!

    Go visit Obama’s f’ing birthplace and hospital if you want to you crack pot if it will make you happy! Just do it on your time because this is a SPORTS BLOG! Get it? SPORTS BLOG! Now go haunt somewhere else. Go Bruins!

  • BruinPain, you live up to the latter, but dishonor the former.

    Which hospital is it, presidential historian?

    Perhaps a little less hyperventilating and a little more critical thought are in order for you. Are you sure you’re not a Trojan?

  • Ralph

    GEEZUS FREAKING CHRISTMAS! I blame porcelain doll DoubleBruin for being the ONLY person to take offense to Jon’s harmless adjective “tea party” describing Neu’s brand of “conservative” football. (This would SIMPLY mean “very conservative” to anybody not so prone to getting his panties in a bunch.) If you can’t take that comment, DoubleBruin, that’s your freaking problem.

    The rest off you political pundits should take your arguments elsewhere. Some of us come here to talk and read about UCLA sports.

  • ucla-of-the-rockies

    Preach it, Ralph!
    Straight-up, LMAO …
    OK, just sports Ralph, and just you and me:
    Stanford scores 50 or not?

  • Ultimate Bruin

    Thanks Amillenialist – you’ve replaced me as #1 donkey around these parts…

  • It was not DoubleBruin’s fault; though I don’t believe Jon made an improper pun, I can see where in today’s climate, where a person is mocked for refusing to bow down to Hopey-Changey even on a “SPORTS BLOG,” some might be sensitive.

    For the record, my politically-themed comments were in response to anonymous cowards who thought that they could slander me and others with impunity. Blame “. . . idiots,” “Marc,” “MacLeaner,” and “BruinPain” for the tangent.

  • UB, I’m pretty good, but I’m not a miracle worker.

    Don”t get your hopes up.

  • Whoever you are.

  • Ultimate Bruin

    Thanks for putting those “anonymous cowards” in their place. “Amillenialist” – is that your first or last name? I want to invite you to our next tailgate…

  • BruinPain


    What are you rambling about? Seriously. Others are talking about a conservative run oriented offense while you’re wishing you could find the President’s birth certificate, birthplace, and hospital…on a Bruin’s sports blog. When reminded of that this is a sports blog and their are more appropriate forum for your political beliefs, you reply that I’m one of several on his site who slander you…with impunity no less.

    In your first comment you state “Obviously, “. . . idiots” has been brainwashed by America-hating, Church-hating, historically-illiterate, fascist liberals. He must be a college graduate.” Aha, this is just a short excerpt of your initial mudslinging and you have the temerity to cry wolf when other posters point out your inappropriate behavior on this SPORTS blog? You have the audacity to say you have been slandered after your comments on this post?

    No, you have not been injured sir. Rather your views are neither welcome nor appropriate for a sports website. If you feel slandered then go among your kindred where you won’t feel that way. Meanwhile, I’d like to see this return to the matters of Bruin football. We have enough trouble with Neuheisel.

  • Marc

    I think we may have another Jared Laughner on our hands; perhaps the authorities should be notified. World news daily nutbag. You make like a G** D*** victim “responding” to the idiots. The truth is you really do need help, seek it before you harm yourself or somebody else.

    This is a F****** UCLA Sports blog. You apparently don’t get that, much like you probably don’t get most things.

    Turd bucket!

  • BruinPain, it’s only “rambling” to someone who can’t read.

    You admit in your own post that my comments were in response to someone demonizing a large percentage of the American people as “idiots.” And the Obama comments were merely a recounting of an unfortunate series of facts offered in reply to more defamation from Marc, who brought up citizenship here in the first place.

    Blame him. And try reading. Goodness.

    Marc, isn’t it ironic that you condemn my “‘responding’ to the “idiots” (your word, and “. . . idiots'” word, not mine), and then continue posting? I’d consider jousting with you, but you call facts “strange,” and your vocabulary is limited to four-letter words involving bodily functions. It wouldn’t be any fun.

    Clearly, your turd bucket is full.

  • By the way, Marc, Jared Laughner [sic] is a deranged liberal.

    Way to incriminate your own people! (Or is that a kind of confession?)

  • Marc

    Seriously, you are strange. the fact that you can’t see that only shows how deep you are in it. I apologize for jumping in the fray. I am not perfect, that certainly is true. Though, you are full of hate. Take your hate elsewhere.

    Back to what I truly love; Football.

    I know UCLA will not win at Stanford by trying to run out the clock from kick-off. UCLA will need to throw on first down and they will need to mix up their plays more to sustain drives. Stanford is not going to let UCLA run it up the middle two or three plays in a row as they were able to against Oregon State.

    On defense, I think they will need to bring pressure from different positions. I would suggest the occasional 7 or 8 man blitz. Let Stanford know that they are going to force the action. That will have an impact beyond the play at hand.

    I know that in order for UCLA to win this week, they are going to need to be a team not a bunch of individuals. That means no individual “highlight” hits from the defense men. That also means strong down-field blocking from the wide receivers on runs. Another important Team aspect is no finger-pointing on botched plays. Get back to the huddle and let each other know they got each others back.

    I think UCLA can pull the upset if they perform to their potential and do the things I mentioned. I’m sure other people have ideas of what they think/know UCLA needs to do to get it done this week. Let’s hear it.

  • ucla-of-the-rockies

    @EnoughAlready: Wilner apparently far-removed from mainstream sports media … ESPN panel calls this year’s Pac-12 a major “under-achiever” and enough so that it could cost Stanford a BCS title shot even if they run the table (a la Boise State in years past).

  • “you are full of hate. Take your hate elsewhere.”

    Really, Marc?

    Who wrote the following:

    “You are one strange person . . . You may consider seeking some help.”

    “Sorta crazy stuff . . . you need help.”

    “. . . strange thoughts that are not really routed in reality . . . you seek help . . . the nonsensical approach to conveying your leanings.”

    “we may have another Jared Laughner on our hands . . . the authorities should be notified.”


    “You make like a G** D*** victim “responding” to the idiots.”

    “you really do need help, seek it before you harm yourself or somebody else.”

    “This is a F****** UCLA Sports blog. You apparently don’t get that, much like you probably don’t get most things.”

    “Turd bucket!”

    That was you raging. In the business, they call that “projection.”

    What have I written that is “hateful”? Facts regarding Obama’s citizenship? That’s not hateful, that’s a Constitutional requirement. A brief historical lesson for “. . . idiots”? If someone’s going to smear an entire movement that wants merely for government to withdraw to Constitutional boundaries, then I’m going to respond.

    What have I written that is hateful? Be specific.

  • Now that I’ve got a few minutes, BruinPain . . .

    Marc brought up Obama’s curious nativity, not me. You expect me to remain silent when slandered, which I will not do. You agree with that in principle, as you won’t stay quiet even when someone tells the truth about you.

    No one had to “remind” me of the nature of this forum, as indicated by the apoplexy-free reply or two referencing my comments. You can’t expect to be discourteous to others and have that go unanswered.

    You imply (falsely) that you were only maintaining the integrity of Inside UCLA and not slandering me, but you wrote:

    “Whoa! The thought police and politicos have been out in force.” (Pointing out historical facts and outright lies is not “thought-policing.”)

    “You tell ’em Marc!” (Implying an endorsement of his nonsense.)

    “If I wanted crazy . . . .” (In light of your other comments, likely directed at me.)

    “Hey AmilleBlah!”

    “Go visit Obama’s f’ing birthplace . . .”

    “you crack pot”

    “this is a SPORTS BLOG! Get it? SPORTS BLOG!”

    “go haunt somewhere else.”

    As for “Obviously, “. . . idiots” has been brainwashed by America-hating, Church-hating, historically-illiterate, fascist liberals. He must be a college graduate”? That wasn’t “mudslinging” — how ironic! — initial or otherwise. It was a succinct (if forceful) articulation of what often leads many otherwise decent people to detest themselves, their religion, and the greatest civilization in the history of Man. (The honest reader will note my encouraging “. . . idiots” to reevaluate his self-loathing.)

    Was it false? Your hysteria indicates otherwise.