BREAKING: You Can Grab Just One Butt-Cheek, Only for about Twenty Seconds; Better, Just Fondle It Gently

International radio industry sources are tweeting on the Deep Twitter:

Sean Bass:  Permanent Muser Tickerman.

Nothing too butt-worthy there, long-predicted outcome.

T.C. Fleming:  Permanent Midday Tickerman.

"Permanent," of course, being an HR term and not one that necessarily describes their likely tenures.

Someday, someone will tell me an interesting story about T.C.'s return to The Ticket.  Maybe pretty soon, who knows?  How, after a peculiarly graceless exit from a station that had given him generous exposure from extremely humble beginnings, and a much-ballyhooed but brief stint as a host in Pensacola, he has returned as a regular voice on The Ticket.

The man has some skills, as I've suggested in the past.  So perhaps the Western Hemispherical Catman is exercising prudence in promoting someone who knows the station, its personalities, and its traditions, and who can put together a produced segment on short notice.  Probably not a talent that's easy to find.

Perhaps it's that.

Someone knows.

All right, get your hand out from under your trousers.
.

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman -- PART 3

We now have a couple of reports on today's hearing.

Very interesting.

A few observations:

(1)  Defendants' attorneys repeatedly condemned the lawsuit as "lies."  Of course, a defendant who denies the truth of a pleading is going to take that position.  But as I've noted, the court is not going to assess the truth of the complaint at this point so that isn't going to get the Cowboys/Jones anywhere.  And it sounds like it didn't get defendants anywhere today.

(2)  Weckerly's lawyer made the argument that the statute of limitations should have been stopped during any period that the defendant is out of the state, as he alleged in the original complaint.  Defendants' lawyer argued that the law didn't apply because Jerry is very well-known and could have been found at any time, in or out of the state, to be served.  The judge was skeptical of this argument, suggesting that Jerry was arguing that he should be treated differently from any other defendant. 

Score one for Weckerly.  However, I don't see how this overcomes the Cowboys' statute of limitations argument.  The corporate "person" of the Cowboys never left the state.

(3) This site suggested in an earlier post that a better argument for stopping the statute of limitations involved the concept of "duress," illustrated by the allegations that Weckerly was subjected to a variety of pressures from defendants to keep quiet, which would prevent her from taking advantage of the court system while the statute was running.

Judge, it's like Dirty Harry said in Magnum Force:  "A man has got to know his limitations."

Now, Weckerly has explicitly made that argument.  From the account in the Observer:  "Weckerly, Bowers said, accepted the money, which she didn't want, under duress and without a lawyer.  'Having just been a victim of sexual assault, she was coerced by forced payments and threats,' Bowers said. 'We've got a mountain of intimidation and threats.'"

 (4)   Weckerly's lawyer has also added conspiracy allegations.  I don't know too much about this.  I don't think Jerry can conspire with the Cowboys, which is why Weckerly has now added the Cowboys' lawyer as a defendant.   (I'm not sure whether a lawyer can be held liable for conspiracy for actions in the course of representing his client.  Maybe, under particularly outrageous circumstances.  No idea on this one.)  The point of the conspiracy allegations is to allow Weckerly to argue that the statute is extended for an additional period measured from the last act of conspiracy -- in this case, the alleged forced payments.

Another hearing is set for October 16.  The judge said that the parties could argue the facts at that time.  It sounds like it may be an actual mini-trial limited to the limitations issue, where sworn testimony will be presented.  This seems a bit premature -- I would have thought that the parties would have been given the opportunity for discovery on the limitations issue, but sworn testimony is sworn testimony, I guess.  Might also be presented via affidavit.  Again, no idea on this one, although I would think that the pretty short hearing date might marginally favor Jerry.

It's hard to say, and we'll see what Weckerly can prove or credibly testify to on October 16.  On balance, I'd say this round went to her.  The judge could have ruled that even if Weckerly proved her allegations the statute would still have run out and he would have dismissed the case.  But it appears to my unschooled eye that the judge thinks that Weckerly's legal theories on the limitations issue are correct, and that if she proves what she's claiming factually -- the case will proceed.

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman -- PART 2

[[PRIOR RELATED POSTS:

        Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

        Speculation AND a Rant]]

*     *     *

We learn today that Jana Weckerly has amended her complaint to allege that -- well, we're not entirely sure how it's amended because the Court has sealed the new complaint and imposed a gag order on the parties and counsel.

But the reports are that the amendment alleges that she was "coerced" not to disclose the events giving rise to the pathetic Jerry photographs by the forced deposit of money into her account.

Thots:

(1) While the Musers thought that if the Cowboys' payment to Weckerly could be proven through bank records it would be bad for Jerry's case -- with which I agree -- I'm guessing that this may have more to do with attempting to beat back Jerry's statute of limitations defense.  Remember my account of this from the prior post.  She's got statute of limitations problems with her case unless she can show that she was somehow "unnaturally" prevented from acting -- subjected to "duress" -- during a time that the statute was running (or, as she alleged, Jerry was out of the state during a long-enough period of time that would get added to the end of the limitations period).  This would account for the odd locution that the money was "forced" on her to buy her silence.
.
(2) There's something else that no one is focusing on, which is that the first complaint alleged that the Cowboys forced her to sign a document, not described in her original complaint.  What was it?  Was it a document where she agreed either not to disclose the events, or possibly even not to file a claim, in return for the payments (i.e., a release)?  If so, that's bad news for a "duress" defense against the statute of limitations argument, unless, as her first complaint alleged, she was also unnaturally pressured to sign the agreement, which would be hard to prove if she accepted handsome cash for it. 

One way or the other, she has got to get around the Cowboys' facially appealing statute of limitations argument, although she doesn't need to show an extremely long period of time either of "duress" or Jerry being out of the state, in order to extend it past a period that would postdate the filing of her lawsuit.

If that document was a release, then it also could be a good defense by the Cowboys/Jerry to the substantive claim of assault and the other torts alleged.  But if it was only a nondisclosure agreement, then it would not preclude the civil liability claim (although the claim itself might breach a promise of nondisclosure -- will be interesting to see if the Cowboys file a counterclaim for breach of either a release or nondisclosure agreement).

(3) What effect will the sealing of this amended complaint and the gag order have on Roger Goodell's no-doubt energetic and fearless investigation of Jerry's misconduct?  Will he say to the Cowboys, "uh, what about these payments and the records she says she has?"  And will the Cowboys say to him, "Geez, sorry Rog, court says we can't talk about it"?  And would that be a good argument for stonewalling an NFL investigation?  I don't know how far a gag order extends, but I don't think it would trump an independent obligation of an NFL owner to cooperate with an internal investigation.  Don't know.

(4) OK, Roger Goodell, you pusillanimous pretender.  You're probably going see evidence pretty soon that Jerry paid off a stripper/hooker either to keep her quiet about something worth keeping quiet, possibly even the sexual assault of a drunken or drugged woman.  Wachoo gonna do about it?

(5) OK, Gene Jones, you laughingstock to some and object of pity and derision to most of the rest of us, wachoo gonna do about it?

"I read me some MTC 'cause I loooove me some redheads."

(6) OK, Dallas sports and news media (finally, an MTC connection), wachoo gonna do about it?  Gag order doesn't extend to investigative reporting.  Who will be the first to understand the potential dynamite this case represents and investigate and report it accordingly -- starting, perhaps, with what reporters "know" about similar Jerry behavior with other women?   

Who will be the first to ask Roger Goodell how he is investigating the sexual assault claim against one of his biggest supporters?

Who will be the first to ask the new "consultant group" of women whether they've been asked to consult on the Jerry Jones charges?

Who will be the first news organization to petition the court to unseal the record, and to appeal it if it is denied?  (Picture the Dallas and Fort Worth papers and every local TV and radio outlet and ESPN seeking this, and what effect this might have on how the judge -- who is elected -- rules on it.)

And who will be the first to ask  -- even if only theoretically at this point -- whether an ongoing drumbeat of unsavory details of Jerry's underground activities could affect the management or ownership of the Cowboys?

Waiting for the next pictures, the next hooker, the next lawsuit.

Or, more likely, the next payoff and interment of another sordid Niffle scandal.

A Tale of Two Jerrys

Was it a week ago?  I think so.  I was listening to the Tuesday 6:40 replay of the Monday 8:40 Fake Jerry interview.

Gordon started the bit not with his Cartoon Jerry foghorn voice, the one he always uses, but instead his Actual Jerry genuwine impersonation that he brings out once in awhile, but only rarely and briefly.  He only got through a phrase -- possibly even less than a sentence -- when he decided it wasn't happening the way he wanted, and he made a very brief reference to it not working and then shifted back into Cartoon Jerry for the balance of the bit.

But not this week.  He did the whole interview, for the first time I can recall, in his Actual Jerry voice.  Which, for my money, may be even more brilliant than Cartoon Jerry.

Gordon, you're getting me all  .  .  .  confused.

Wondering why, not that I care.  Both Jerrys are very funny.  I wondered briefly if Gordon might be thinking that Actual Jerry might be more amusing -- the shock of recognition -- to a national audience that might pick up one of the bits during a time that the Cowboys are more in the national  spotlight.

Nah.  Nah.  Anyway, it was excellent.

*     *     *

NOTE:  Earlier versions of this post made erroneous reference to a "5:50 replay."

Jason Garrett's Personality is 8-8

That phrase occurred to me the other day.  Just thought I would share it with you.

Other quick hits:

(1)  I said it about Wade Phillips;  I said it about Jerry Jones:  Why should we think that they talk to their underlings any differently than they talk to the public -- i.e., incoherently and ineffectually?

Same question about Garrett.  What evidence do we have that what he says to his players evidences any more creativity, emotion, accountability, or interest than what he says to us?

(2)  I try to keep ad hominem reasoning out of these pages.  However, I am going to grant myself a dispensation this occasion to say that from the moment of his hiring I have loathed Roger Goodell because I didn't like his smug, thuggish, privileged, self-regarding face.  I'd never heard of him and knew nothing about him, but I've disliked him ever since.

Everything I've heard about him since confirms my unfair first impression, even before the recent evidence of his unsuitability for running anything.  The Ticket guys have from time to time described encounters with him, to the extent one can have an encounter with someone as cocooned by his entourage as this grossly-overpaid monarch.

(3)  I have only spoken with one person about the Goodell interview with Norah O'Donnell, the one were he looked stupid, inarticulate, and truthless.   She said to me exactly what I was thinking myself:  This guy's a big, hard drinker.

Small-eyed, red-faced, blotchy, trouble forming sentences. However, I just googled "roger goodell alcohol" and the only thing I come up with is "drunk with power."

(4) I've been punching out on the Central Market "are you really into  .  .  .  ?" commercials for quite some time now.  They show no sign of abating.  I'm sure I've missed me some good Ticket lately.

I'm missing more.  I'm now punching out on the Evil Cat telling her owner about Dropcam.

The first reason I'm punching out on it is that the accent is stupid.  Can't decide whether to be British or East Coast Patrician, really inept.  There have to be better voice actresses around.  Maybe one of the no doubt thousands who really have an accent?

The second reason I'm punching out is that the narrative is stupid.  The end of the commercial forgets what's in the beginning of the commercial.

     --   The Evil Cat says "you're not here right now" -- meaning not present in the house, or else the whole Dropcam premise is nonsense -- at the beginning of the ad, and finishes by ordering the owner "now get in here and pet me."

     --   The Evil Cat says it "hates" Dropcam because it shows all of the naughty things she is doing, but then it says there's a "bright side" because the cat "can't wait" for the owner to view "what I'm doing to your sweaters."  The "bright side" is exactly what the Evil Cat claims to "hate" about Dropcam.  

Listening too hard again.

Apologies for all of today's negativity.

I do like The Ticket.  There.

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

OPEN THREAD: Create Ur Own Topix!

I know, it's always Open Thread around here, but thought we needed a little thread-freshener.

Here's my topic:  The David Newbury segment with David Moore (the latter on the phone) on yesterday's afternoon show (Newbury/T.C.) was the best ten minutes on the Cowboys I've heard this season.  The focus:  Tony Romo has been given too much power to run the offense, change plans, dance around until the play clock is a microsecond away from delay of game.   I can't remember the last time I heard a weak segment featuring either, and when they're both on, it's must-listen.

Will we hear The Boomtown (David & David) in a show this year?

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

A couple of posts back I threw out the thought that those photos could, under certain circumstances, affect the ownership, control, or management of the Cowboys.  Or, at the very least, this possibility should be considered by the commentariat (other than Your Plainsman).  It did not get much traction.

I would now like to revisit that topic in view of Weckerly v. Jones, et al., Civ. No. 14-10061, District Court for Dallas County, Texas.

Just some random thoughts upon reading the complaint.  Bearing in mind that your simple Man of the Plains is no expert in sexual assault lawsuits, statutes of limitations, and the like.  But I think there are some things an observer can take away from this with a little effort.  (Since I haven't heard these thoughts elsewhere, it tends to suggest to me that, um, I may be missing something.)

First, it's interesting that this was filed in Texas state court.  If Weckerly is presently a resident of Oklahoma, she could have filed it in U.S. District Court here.  Maybe she no longer lives in the Ardmore metro and has moved to Texas.  But if she does still live in OK and she could have filed in federal court, I wonder how her lawyer decided to file in state court.  One possibility is that a state court judge would be more likely to be sympathetic to the local team.  But the local team ain't making too many locals happy lately, so maybe the calculation is t'other way around -- a state court judge would be inclined to hammer Jerry to please his restless constituents.  Also, if it gets to trial, a state court jury might be more plaintiff-oriented.  The law the two courts would apply would be the same -- state law, because they are state law claims.  But, fairly or not, the bar widely believes that the federal bench (unelected) is more learned and more likely to apply the law somewhat more expertly than a state court judge (elected).  Would that favor one side or the other?  DNK.  (Also, some state-court plaintiff practitioners are less comfortable with the federal procedural rules.)   Don't have a strong conclusion on this -- just an interesting strategy move.

Second, I just heard Intentional Grounding read from some motions filed by Jerry's team earlier today, asking for a temporary restraining order and dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit is unbelievable and scandalous and a money grab.  In the absence of any factual record whatsoever, and in the presence (in the judge's mind, if not the record) of those pathetic photographs, the dismissal ploy is unlikely to work.    (I thought Texas didn't have a strict motion to dismiss, but rather an archaic form of pleading called "special exceptions."  I need to track down those filings.)

Third, at present it does appear that the technical issue is going to be the statute of limitations.

The lawsuit has several claims, each a tort:  (1) Sexual Assault; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; and (4) Conspiracy to Cover Up Sexual Assault.  The complaint alleges criminal conduct, but violation of the Criminal Code does not give rise to a civil claim beyond the torts described by the alleged conduct (I think; not sure about that).  The statute of limitations for tort claims in Texas for personal injuries caused by torts is two years UNLESS the conduct involves violation of the Penal Code in certain respects, in which case it is five years.  I understand that the encounter in question took place more than five years from the filing of the suit.  But, if the conduct took place in 2009, not a whole lot longer than five years.  Hold that thought.

So, is Weckerly sunk?

Her lawyer has thought about this, and alleges that the statute has been "suspended" pursuant to "TCPRC sec. 16.063."  (That's "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.")  Well, let's Google that and take a look.  It states:  "The absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence."  In other words, the limitations clock stops while the defendant is out of the state, starts up again when he gets back.  Well, that would not work against the Cowboys, the other defendant, which hasn't left the state as a corporate entity.   But Jerry?  The incident was alleged to have taken place in "May or June of 2009," so the deficiency is not going to be more than about four months.  Could she show that Jerry was out of the state in the aggregate longer than that since the incident?  A month per year?  Dunno.  But if I were the court I think I might at least let her proceed with discovery on Jerry's whereabouts at all times between the assault and the filing of suit.  Maybe there are some technical interpretations of that statute that make this all more complicated than I'm making it seem, but they haven't jumped out at me in my Internet reading.  So -- maybe not a bad argument for Weckerly.  Maybe.

But there's something else that really, really intrigues me that I haven't heard mentioned anywhere, at least as far as this limitations issue is concerned:

       --  Paragraph 26 states that Jerry and the Cowboys "threatened Plaintiff so that she would not tell the police." 

       --  Paragraph 27 states that they "intimidated Plaintiff and told her to keep quiet and not tell anyone else 'or else.'"

       --  Paragraph 28 states that they "bullied Plaintiff into believing that she would somehow be in trouble if she told anyone about the sexual assault." 

       --  And most intriguingly, she drops this nugget:  Paragraph 29 states that they "intimidated her into signing documents against her will, without giving her a copies (sic) or access to legal counsel."

       --  Finally, she concludes in Paragraph 30 that those actions "placed Plaintiff in imminent fear of her life, safety and well being."  

I only know what I read in Google search results.  But I am pretty sure that statutes of limitations clock gets stopped or delayed, or "tolled," as it is called, if the plaintiff has been subject to "duress" during that period that tends to discourage her from filing suit within the proper period of time.  

These four paragraphs describe situations where plaintiff was pressured not to take legal action, and may have been pressured under threat or fraud to sign a release (guessing at what the "legal documents" might have been, if they exist at all), all of which would have served artificially to have caused her to refrain from filing suit while the statute was ticking away.

However -- Weckerly has not alleged duress as a ground for delaying the operation of the statute of limitations.  An oversight?  Or something that her attorney thinks he cannot prove?   I think I might say more about that "document," if there was one, even if she doesn't have a copy.   DNK.  But if he's smart, he'll find some other ground for tolling the statute, and based on what he's alleged, that ground should be duress.  Which is something that itself would be subject to "discovery" before a court would rule on whether it were a factually supportable theory for beating back the limitations defense.  At the every least, I would think it would serve to keep the lawsuit alive.

The point I wish to make is that no matter what you think of Weckerly, her motives, or her truthfulness, the wisdom of Google suggests that there may well be enough in this complaint to survive the initial technical challenges.  Again, the complaint is very, very unlikely to be dismissed just because it seems crazy, as seems to be Jerry's initial legal position.  (Really -- does it seem all that crazy?  Or, in light of those photos, does it ring highly possible?)

Fourth: What if it doesn't go away?   The suit could go on and depositions would be taken and it would devolve into the classic he said-she said, and maybe these "legal documents" surface, and maybe more pictures, and lurid accounts of Jerry's misconduct.  Maybe it gets settled; maybe the court grants summary judgment against Weckerly based on the discovery in the case (i.e., her case turns out to be factually deficient based on the sworn record in discovery); or maybe it goes to trial.

A whole lot more interesting is what Roger Goodell -- or his successor -- will do.  If Jerry is accused of sexually assaulting a drunken young woman, with photographic evidence that something happened, and that case lingers with her allegations potentially subject to a jury's decision, his hand may be forced.  Irsay.  Rice.  Rampant NFL thuggery.  A tsunami of disgust over the Niffle's handling of criminal conduct of its constituents has got to have them running scared in the executive suite.

All kinds of other things could happen aside from NFL discipline (or worse).  Gene cannot be happy that a jury will be asked to decide if her husband f-f'd a young woman and got fellated while requiring -- or even inviting -- Weckerly to admire the performance.  What's her level of tolerance for thoroughgoing mortification?  Fans could vote with their season tickets (as they're already starting to do). 

"So, set 'em up, Joe  .  .  .  . "

Again, my sports-radio-related point in suggesting that the complaint may not be as cartoonish as it seems is that at some level this is a sports story because, now more than ever, it could impact the operation, if not the ownership, of the Cowboys.  That it happened five years ago is irrelevant.  The Niffle consumer (and his spouse) are in an ugly mood, and Jerry looks, acts, and sounds like the corrupt face of big-time American sports -- and incompetent in the bargain.  He'll probably survive, but if this story turns out to be her word against his -- that is, if this case not thrown out on limitations or other technical grounds and is headed to trial, whether it gets settled or not -- it's hard to see how Jerry can continue to be the ubiquitous public face of his team and influential in the inner sanctum of the NFL.  And that would be a big change for the Cowboys even if he doesn't sell the team or move out of management.

And, finally -- what if this isn't the only time something like this has happened?

Even that insufferable jocksniff Papa John might stop calling.

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Ron Washington

Like everyone else, I'm saddened by Ron Washington's departure and by the offered reason for it.   I have no particular insight on this.  But it reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago.  This piece ran on October 26, 2010.

Ron Washington and The Other

[Irrelevant matter omitted.]

To Ron Washington, baseball is The Other.

To Ron Washington, baseball is a, separate, sensate, volitional entity.  It is a thing unto itself that gives, takes, and speaks, and to whom one gives and from which one takes, and to whom one listens. 

Consider the way he talks about it.  I don’t have the time to research all of his interviews, but it appeared vividly in today’s press conference, when he said something like: When the game tells you to bunt, you bunt; when the game tells you to steal, you steal.   And in another recent interview, he said something like:   You take what baseball gives you, and you give what baseball takes.   There are numerous other examples along these same lines.  

Even his repeated use of the phrase "the game of baseball" bespeaks a certain reverence, a reverence one holds for the mysterious Other.

And even his Ticket-promoted signature phrase – That’s the way baseball go.  Doesn’t that sound a lot like Josh Howard saying that you can’t control what the ball do?  And, like that basketball, baseball is crazy.  (Fun?)  And you have to deal with its craziness like it’s an insanely possessive lover from whom you cannot escape, to whom you must return day after day to do her bidding, whatever she tells you to do, and you give to her what she demands.   You have to listen to what she tells you she wants, make sure you heard it correctly, and then deliver it right then and there so that she will give you what you want.

No, I don’t mean that Ron Washington has a peculiar sexual yearning for the game of baseball.    I mean nothing more than that Ron Washington thinks of baseball as a discrete being, equal parts demanding and benevolent, to whom direct and careful attention must be paid.  And if you do it right, with appropriate respect and loyalty, that attention will be rewarded with victory.

To Ron Washington, baseball is a spirit. 

His relationship with The Other is the source of The Passion of Ron Washington.

*     *     *

OK, we're back to September 2014.

It wasn't drugs.  It wasn't health.  He wasn't fired.   The possibility of depression has been mentioned; no one seems to know.  USA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that Wash texted him:  "I'll be back!  Need some time!"

As The Hardline said, the departure invites speculation.  Mine is no more informed than anyone else's, and less than many's.  

But I wonder if what happened was a something akin to an unbearable crisis of faith.  The game let the man down.  Turned its back on him.  Visited ill-fortune on individual players, robbed promising up-and-comers of their promise.   Robbed talented players of their desire to fight through adversity (Yu?).  And nothing he did changed a thing.   Loss after loss after dreary loss.

He had to get away, before another loss attacked his soul, maybe to talk to it, like Job, think about where the love had gone.

OVERLISTENING: Did Vinny Misspseak?

See it all the time.  A word here, a word there, we try to figure out what's going on, sometimes we overfigure.  This site has been known to do this.

I'm going to do it now.

Today's Picking Games Against an Unlucky P1.

Caller:  Vinny.

We learn that Vinny is in "tax."

Musers: "Generic."

Then a Muser said something said that I don't remember, and Vinny responded:

"Yeah, Fernando woke me up."

Did anyone other than your overlistening Plainsman slam on the brakes, veer into the JOAN RIVERS RIP billboard on the Tollway, smear Sausage McMuffin with Egg all over the windshield, and go: "Whoa -- the Unlucky P1 is not just some random spare caller waiting on the line on Friday morning, but is known to and selected by The Ticket, or Fernando, well in advance of bedtime Thursday night on some non-random basis?"

George (I believe), awkwardly, before immediately changing the subject:  "I don't think Fernando called and woke you up."

And that was that.

Vinny may have been making a joke.

Sure, gotta be it.

"Oh, hi, Fernando.   6:50 already?  Yeah, just woke up.  Sure, I'm feeling unlucky today.  How 'bout you, Fernando, do you feel lucky?  Well, do ya, punk?  Hey, it's a joke, from the movie, you know.  Hey, thanks for the wakeup, didn't want to miss my big moment on The Ticket..  See you later.  Go ahead, put Georgio on,  I'll give that big shaggy noble mon some picks, you betcha."

Comment moderation suspended.

BREAKING: Bad

The world of radio, and, in this case, the world of DFW radio, and, further to this case, the world of DFW sports radio, is pretty small.  News travels fast.  Sometimes it travels fast this direction.

The Ticket/Cumulus has terminated Logan Gourley.

This site does wants to be scrupulously fair to Logan, and does not want to unduly publicize this unfortunate event.  (Yeah, then why you posting this?  Well, you're not going to be hearing Logan on The Ticket any more, so most Confessors could figure it out before too much time passed.)  There are usually two sides to every issue.  Not always two equal sides, but at least two stories.  I only have one.

Reportedly, there were performance issues of the sort sometimes seen with young men and women of the present generation in their inaugural encounter with the requirements of professional employment.

Thought the guy had something, was at least holding his own among the latest generation of JV.

This site wishes Logan the best of luck.

Comment moderation temporarily suspended

BREAKING: Musers -- Possible Recalibration

I do not have details, but I have put a few things together and it seems as though there may be some kind of non-seismic shift in the Muser showgram landscape in the immediate offing.

I would like to stress that this is not confirmed by any person in a position to know for certain, but I'm getting some radar returns that the earlier interested Confessors tune in tomorrow, the better.

Sorry to be cryptic, but this is what I gots for you.

Comment moderation temporarily suspended.