Some readers who commented earlier cite (very rigidly, in fact) the violation of some sort of universal principle — a deviant, morally deficient act by the author in his decision to post a self acknowledged work of “assumption.”

All this hoopla in reaction to what’s undoubtedly on every Pitt fan’s mind: What caused this kid to leave campus? A player more often than not referred to as the “future” of Pitt football; a noted commodity and (gasp) “franchise player” (as reported by recruiting sites and numerous ‘other’ sources in a variety media).

Anyone suggesting that they haven’t “speculated” or demonstrated concern for Pat’s departure — and what it potentially means to our program — is fooling him-herself. And right, like searching the web to ascertain the potential motive/ problem(s) effecting a player’s departure isn’t widespread, valued and desirable to many fans (as illustrated by the umpteen thousand “subscribers” who annually renew memberships to services such as Scouts, Rivals and publications like ESPN etc.).

For those of you inalterably affected by a perceived disservice to humanity and all that’s good in the world, tough titty. Everyone makes a mistake once in a while; it’s a pretty human phenomenon. Just ask Paul Zeise about recent statements suggesting that dog-fighting is equivalent to, but no worse than, rape; an argument of “suggestion,” not a reflection of personal opinion.

“It’s really a sad day in this country when somehow … Michael Vick would have been better off raping a woman if you look at the outcry of what happened.”

People should be scolding each other for this being true instead of scolding him for pointing out the obvious.

Maybe scold your self with slap on the ass, yeah?