quote:

---

quote:

---

And cuppy, Liucci, as well as all the Hitler Youth who lurk on the Shag are going to just let it happen. Because they are too clueless to get in touch with anyone at the Cushing Library and in John Sharp's office and have them put together an actual history of their 12th Man "tradition" that explains Gill's 1964 statements.

---

He's confused "clueless" with caring. No one cares enough to bother. That should tell you something about your life choices, Randy.

---

When Randy goes Godwin's Law, he's done.

It is still amazing to me that the shag is a poster moderated forum (for the most part) yet they have whole heartedly chosen to let Randolph Duke be the internet representative of their institution.

And they think we are crazy.

that tigerdroppings link is great. he is a stupid MF, but he thinks he's brilliant.

More from our esteemed colleague:

quote:

---

Pass the amendment to end their status as a branch of The University of Texas, segregate the PUF, let them piss that public endowment money down the drain due to classic **** bad judgement and then make them come to grips with the fact the best years of their school's existence were the years they were a branch of great burnt orange Satan that they blame all their problems on.

---

Geez. He's not taking our move to the SEC well at all.

Think he'll go a little berserk if/when tu loses its AAU status?

What a jackwad! I have a copy of the 1933 Longhorn where the 12th man is mentioned. Idiot.

quote:

---

Aggies are absolutely owning Duke, lol.

---

On the Internet, yes.

But "owning" isn't a strong enough word for what one Aggie did to him in real life, which is what made him the way he is.

Someone needs to ask Randy that if we are still a "branch" of tu(which he blabbers about incessantly) why were we able to go to the SEC?

...much less have our own system of universities, our own chancellor...

I seriously doubt that a great # of Shag posters are UT grads.

quote:

---

Someone needs to ask Randy that if we are still a "branch" of tu(which he blabbers about incessantly) why were we able to go to the SEC?

---

I want to know if his ex-wife still enjoys the "branch" of an Aggie.

from the teasip traditions page:

quote:

---

In 1839, the Congress of the Republic of Texas ordered that a site be set aside to meet the state's higher education needs. After a series of delays over the next several decades, the state legislature reinvigorated the project in 1876, calling for the establishment of a "university of the first class." Austin was selected as the site for the new university in 1881, and construction began on the original Main Building in November 1882. Less than one year later, on Sept. 15, 1883, The University of Texas at Austin opened with one building, eight professors, one proctor, and 221 students and a mission to change the world.

---

If they are the great and powerful Oz of Texas Universities why did it take 44 years to open the school?

Texas A&M History:

quote:

---

The State of Texas agreed to create a college under the terms of the Morrill Act (July 2, 1862) in November 1866, but actual formation didn't come until the establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas by the Texas state legislature on April 17, 1871. A commission created to locate the institution accepted the offer of 2,416 acres of land from the citizens of Brazos County in 1871, and instruction began October 4th, 1876. Admission was limited to white males, and, as required by the Morrill Act, all students were required to participate in military training.

---

In comparison it took a grand total of 11 years for A&M to go from vision to reality

The only reason he is so passionate about this is because his beloved school has no traditions to hang their hat on that don't involve A&M, or were all but eliminated because of the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, which changed students' attitudes toward long-established University traditions, and many were abandoned and forgotten, including the red candle hex. By the mid-1980s, there were no football rallies at all on the campus.

History of Texas Fight: was written in an attempt to counteract the songs and yells of the Texas Aggies, which were not too complimentary to our Student Body and some of which tended to ridicule 'The Eyes of Texas'.

"Long before I entered The University of Texas in 1909 and until about the year 1928 the Aggies had one of the most effective and awe inspiring songs used by any student body any where any time. 'Farmers Fight' at that time was their sacred College song. It was to them what 'The Eyes of Texas' had always been to us. The song was a repetition of the words 'Farmers Fight' sung to the well known bugle call 'Taps' in the same slow tempo as the bugle call is used by the army for lights out at night.

Hook'em horns hand gesture: The Texas Aggies had their "Gig 'em" thumbs-up sign. With a big Texas vs. TCU game coming up on Saturday, why can't Texas fans have their own hand signal?

Clark liked the idea, and decided to introduce it at Gregory Gym rally. He demonstrated the sign to the crowd, and declared, "This is the official hand sign of the University of Texas, to be used whenever and wherever Longhorns gather."

quote:

---

Our esteemed colleague:

quote:

---

I've just finished up a rather big project and am getting caught up on crap. I was laughing at my thread over on TOS, the one that idiot "doctor" started where he was gloating over the fictitious $35 million each SEC school made from SECN (what is it about **** and fictitious stories?).

One of them sure put me in my place. He is pretty sure he has disproven all my 12th Man research. Apologies for hijacking the thread for a moment, but I need to slap a nut squeezer back into his place.



DVM97
11:25a L AG
What a jackwad! I have a copy of the 1933 Longhorn where the 12th man is mentioned. Idiot.
They have the mentality of little children in that they don't grasp even simple concepts very well.

Well, DMV, here is the problem.

In paragraph 7 of the complaint the school filed against the Colts, the university explains the school's 12th Man "tradition"


Since as early as 1922, Texas A&M has used the mark 12TH MAN (hereinafter, the "12TH MAN Mark") in connection with sporting events and numerous products and services. The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M's football team in time of need.
The 12th Man trademark is supposedly connected with E. King Gill starting in 1922. While you may find occasional incidences where the phrase may show up in a school yearbook, those incidences mean nothing unless they are directly connected with E. King Gill. What we are wondering is how the school corroborates their claim that the phrase was adopted in 1922 in connection with E. King Gill. (Of course we know there was absolutely ZERO connection between Gill and the phrase or any school "tradition" between 1922 and 1939 because Gill himself repeatedly told is that in 1964)

The problem is that we know the claim the phrase was connected with Gill in 1922 is a fraudulent statement. Keep looking through those yearbooks and find me an example of E. King Gill being associated with the school's 12th Man tradition. There isn't one until 1962, almost 40 years after the school claims. And in the 1962 yearbook, Gill is cluelessly referred to as "King S. Gill" (hardly a revered hero when you don't even know his name).

So that is the issue. Not whether the phrase was sparingly used in the yearbook, but how the school corroborates its claim that in 1922 it started using the phrase as a remembrance someone the school pretty much forgot about for forty years.

Show me any instance you can find from between 1922 and 1962 where the school in any way connected its 12th Man tradition with E. King Gill as the university claims in its federal court filings. Not occasional instances of the phrase in a yearbook every year or two, but specific instances where the phrase is connected to E. King Gill as was explained in the federal court filing. Here's a hint - they don't exist, because the claim the university started using the phrase "12th Man" in 1922 in remembrance of E. King Gill is a fraud. If they existed, they would be on display on campus with the other Gill memorabilia. No one believes the university has thousands upon thousands of examples of Gill connected with the phrase "12th Man" from 1922 to 1962 that the school is just too humble to put them on display. They have ZERO. Its the biggest **** lie in the history of the school. Its a fraud!

And that is what is going to be explained, hopefully soon, in a major publication. Whoop!

---

---

This means he is checking this thread.

Hey Satterfield, your ex-wife thinks you are a short-****ed, and neurotic turd.

How about 1937, after an exhaustive 2 second Google search:



Not that I would take the time to read that paper and see if EKG's story was referenced.

I often forget this started out as a bet with a law school buddy from Michigan about how obsessed Aggies are with UT.

quote:

---

Charles M. Satterfield, Iii, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Monsanto Company; Solutia, Inc., Defendants-appellees, 238 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2001)
Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 238 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2001)
Argued October 25, 2000Decided: January 22, 2001

Plaintiff appeals the judgment entered March 29, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stanton, J.), dismissing his complaint for restitution of the value of his scrip interest from defendants Monsanto Company and Solutia, Inc.
Affirmed.
JOSEPH A. BARBACCIA, Freeport, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
LOUIS F. BONACORSI, New York, New York (Robert R. Reed, Bryan Cave LLP, New York, New York, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CARDAMONE, POOLER, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Charles M. Satterfield, III appeals the judgment entered March 29, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Louis L. Stanton, J.), granting summary judgment dismissing his complaint, which had sought restitution for the value of his asserted stock holdings in defendants Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Solutia, Inc. (Solutia). We affirm that judgment substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Stanton in his thorough opinion. See Satterfield v. Monsanto Co., 88 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). We write because the subject of this appeal, which involves scrip, is one we have had little occasion to comment upon.
The complaint was dismissed because plaintiff's ancestors, from whom his interest derived, failed to take any of the required actions that would have put them or him in line to receive stock. Plaintiff brought the instant suit full of expectation that he could get something when nothing had been done and thereby improve his inheritance. Such expectation is in this case doomed to disappointment.
The facts are simply stated. Seventy-six years ago plaintiff's great-grandfather bought 50 shares of $1 par value stock in E.L. Smith Oil Company. Three years later in 1928 the par value was increased from $1 to $10, converting the holding of 50 shares to 5 shares, though the district court notes that no evidence suggests that the 50 shares actually were exchanged. When Smith Oil merged in 1938 with Lion Oil Refining Company (Lion Oil), every ten shares of $10 par value stock in Smith when surrendered entitled the holder to one share of Lion Oil. Thus, plaintiff regardless of whether he had held the 50 shares of $1 par value or had exchanged them for 5 shares of $10 par value in Smith was entitled, under the merger agreement between Smith Oil and Lion Oil, to one-half a share of Lion Oil. This small fractional shareholding entitled plaintiff's predecessor, again under the agreement, to a "Bearer Scrip Certificate for such fraction," which could be aggregated with other scrip certificates to be exchanged for full shares of stock in Lion Oil.
On the face of the certificate itself was a notice that it was not a stock certificate and that the holder was not a shareholder of Lion Oil. The district court found no evidence that the one-half share scrip certificate was aggregated with other scrip to entitle plaintiff's predecessor to any full shares of Lion Oil stock.
Within a short time period after the merger, Lion made three offers to buy the $1 par Smith stock for 85 cents per share, the price at which the merger was consummated. After the merger, Lion stock split twice, in 1947 and in 1949. Both were two-for-one stock splits that plaintiff maintains first doubled his half-share to one share and then in 1949 to two shares. In 1955, Lion merged with Monsanto in a stock-for-stock merger. At the time of the merger, Lion maintained a reserve stock account for the Smith shareholders that had not yet surrendered their Smith shares or their scrip. As a consequence, Satterfield maintains that this two-share interest in Lion Oil entitled his predecessors to receive stock in Monsanto after the merger with Monsanto in 1955 as well as stock in Solutia when Monsanto spun off Solutia in 1997.
We turn now to a brief analysis of the law governing scrip certificates. Scrip is to be distinguished from fractional shares of a business corporation. The latter entitle the holder to voting rights, to dividends and to a share in the corporation's assets upon liquidation in proportion to the fractional shares held. Unlike the fractional shareholder, the holder of scrip is not entitled to exercise any shareholder rights unless the scrip certificate so provides. See 11 William Meade Fletcher et al., Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations 5087 (perm. ed. rev. vol. 1995).
Under Delaware law, which the parties agree governs this suit, scrip conveys only an expectancy interest, not a vested ownership interest in a corporation, except as set forth in the scrip certificates themselves. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, 155 (1999); Schreiber v. Carney, 447 A.2d 17, 26 (Del. Ch. 1982) (warrants); see also Helvering v. Southwest Consol. Corp., 315 U.S. 194, 200-01 (1942). Here both the merger agreement between Smith Oil and Lion Oil as well as the Lion Oil scrip certificates explicitly stated that Lion Oil scrip holders were not shareholders of Lion Oil stock and were not entitled to the benefits enjoyed by Lion Oil shareholders.
Moreover, because the Lion Oil scrip was not outstanding stock, and because neither the merger agreement nor the scrip certificates conferred any protection against diminution in value, any Lion Oil scrip to which Satterfield's predecessors were entitled could not have participated in the stock splits of 1947 and 1949. See Lynam v. Gallagher, 526 A.2d 878, 882 (Del. 1987); see also Anderson v. Somatogen, Inc., 940 P.2d 1079, 1081-82 (Colo. 1997). As a result, Satterfield's predecessors never aggregated sufficient scrip to trade for a whole share or more of Lion Oil stock, and they were therefore not entitled to any Monsanto stock or Solutia stock during the 1955 merger and the 1997 spinoff.
We have considered all of Satterfield's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.

---