|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Examples of abuse include an annual midnight band practice at Ohio Stadium in which men and women were expected to march wearing only their underwear. In one recent year, a student suffered alcohol poisoning at the practice. Students led the rehearsal, but staff members, including Waters, were there, too. Some other traditions: All new band members, or “rookies,” were given nicknames, many of which were sexually explicit. Rookies were forced to perform “tricks” on command. In one case, a female student was told to imitate a sexual act on the laps of other band members, including her brother. Several witnesses said that students performed a “flying 69” on tour buses, in which band members hung from the luggage racks and posed in a sexual position. Waters was on the bus when that happened as recently as last fall, according to a band staff member who quit last year. The staff member told investigators she resigned from the band because Waters would not address alcohol abuse on that trip. An “unofficial” songbook was part of the evidence that investigators provided to university leaders, with raunchy lyrics set to school songs at other colleges. |
Not being a dick, but you obviously didn't read the article. He turned the other cheek, it seems. He didn't make anyone do anything.
Don't forget, he also allowed [underage] students to abuse alcohol.
Of all the school/workplace firings you hear about, this is about as justified as it gets.
Quote:
that's in a position of authority would be fired for making students do sexually expicit things? Cmon now.
Not being a dick, but you obviously didn't read the article. He turned the other cheek, it seems. He didn't make anyone do anything.
He knew, but turned the other cheek. Where did you stand on the Paterno thing?
You might be tongue in cheek but I would say the same thing in earnest, except without trying to ascribe causality.
He was the school representative and the ostensible authority figure. If he allowed that to happen under his watch, he's culpable.
That's not a hard one to figure out.
But read the examples. The kids dangled from the bus rack in the 69 position. Oh boy. They made freshman do practice in their underwear once a year... oh the humanity. They gave each other sexually explicit nicknames. Really? College kids?
I dunno. Much ado to me.
All that shit wreaks of sexual harassment, isolates anyone who is uncomfortable with such behavior, and contributes to the environment in which 1 in 5 college women get raped on campus.
It's a violation of Title IX. Failure to stop that shit is as bad as if he had initiated and required such garbage in the first place.
If you're the band director, you should DIRECT the fucking BAND.
Nobody EVER gets "turning the other cheek" correct. It's not about just "taking it" as most people use it.
It's about demanding to be recognized as an equal.
vibe4giants : 3:07 pm : link : reply
It's turning a blind eye. Let's get our idioms right.
He turned his other cheek and revealed his blind eye
Turning the other cheek is about non-retaliation, answering hatred with love.
right?
Quote:
Also, that's not 'turning the other cheek'.
vibe4giants : 3:07 pm : link : reply
It's turning a blind eye. Let's get our idioms right.
He turned his other cheek and revealed his blind eye
Sexy euphemism!!
Perhaps "looked the other way" was intended?
Perhaps "looked the other way" was intended?
I think it's meant to be "turn a blind eye" and it's a ridiculous excuse to avoid being fired.
Perhaps "looked the other way" was intended?
yeah, that's what I meant... multitasking
Turning the other cheek is about non-retaliation, answering hatred with love.
The verse is:
Easily misinterpreted to mean what you (and most) think.
If you think about it, though- to be slapped on the right cheek would mean the "evil person" is striking you with his left hand. Not many folks strike with their left hand.
Unless of course you are being back-handed- which is a way one would express to another that they are a lesser person (bitch slapped if you will).
The act of turning the other cheek and exposing the left side of your face rather than the right would force the person to strike you as he would strike an equal- with an open palm from the right hand instead of a back-hand.
So, yes- it is somewhat about non-retaliation, but I think it is more about demanding to be treated as an equal- not a lesser.
I have no proof of this other than it makes sense to me and I'm the only one I need to convince.
Had a meeting just now and came back.. did not see the discussion going that way.
Read right after that, it's all about non-retaliation and loving your enemy and nothing about equality.
"And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
There is a very fine Director of Bands at that school that has absolutely fuck-all to do with the athletic bands.
Yeah sorry, that's fucking gross. Asshole should be fired.
I'm surprised you guys are satisfied with firing and don't want him to wear a scarlet letter on his shirt.
The guy was in a position of authority and let the juvenile delinquents "call the tune".
The guy was in a position of authority and let the juvenile delinquents "call the tune".
Blackbeard, sorry I just can't agree.
These are college kids. If you read the listed offenses, there's really only one that pops out at me (the brother sister thing) but fuck that. If someone asked me to do that it just simply wouldn't happen.
The other stuff? The sexual nicknames? The ONCE A YEAR freshman-practicing in their underwear? I don't want to get into a debate on this because I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just think sometimes we have to remember these are kids having fun. It definitely seems that it got carried away... but an "over-sexualized culture?" Welcome to fucking college.
Perhaps he had been warned to buckle down on this in the past and he never did. That would be another story. But with the information available as of now... firing a guy for not to stop slightly-above-moderate freshman hazing? Too much.
If the director knew of this (he obviously did) and did nothing, he grossly abandoned his responsibility to the students and the university.
oipolloi : 4:35 pm : link : reply
alive and well on BBI
This has nothing to do with Puritanism and everything to do with a school employee allowing potentially actionable harassment to happen under his watch.
When he's got them on a bus or at a practice, he is responsible for the group's behavior ultimately. It's no different than if a professor allowed this type of thing to happen in a classroom or a coach to allow it in a lockerroom.
You don't have to explicitly endorse it to be responsible for it.
You are part of the moral problem that this country is having in the past two generations.
One complaint (from a parent or student), one news article, and the University is faced with a situation where a school employee at a school sanctioned event allowed behavior whose only defense is "it's not really all that bad".
Not to mention, this spills into adjacent hot button topics of binge drinking, sexual harassment and hazing. There was no way the University couldn't fire this guy.
I still weep for the future that he has any part in educating the future generations of adults...no matter how small that group may be.
You are part of the moral problem that this country is having in the past two generations.
Mike isn't part of any moral problem (unless crappy posting is a moral problem:)), and based on your past posts its pretty clear you long for the 1950s and every wonderful little bit of that decade.
This isn't about morality, its about liability.
if this stuff goes on and no one reports on it, does anyone care?
no, and that's the way it used to be. hazing, orientation, bonding, takes shape in many forms - many of them crossing a moral and legal line, but there is a case to be made for them strengthening a team. Not saying that's the case here, but in some related cases.
Many of our high school and college sports teams, etc..
The problem is that the director took no steps to stop it. If the director says, "you're not doing X, Y, or Z at any band event, practice, or meeting, or at any other function of or related to the band, and if we catch you you're kicked out," and then makes at least some attempt to enforce those rules, he's probably still employed. Band directors don't lose their jobs because a bunch of band members get busted for underage drinking in a dorm or at a house party, but they do get fired if a bunch of band members get busted for underage drinking at an event that is implicitly or explicitly his responsibility.
But yeah, if kids are in danger (and that danger is always there with alcohol involved) and a school official is on watch, OSU is on the hook for anything that happens regardless of what moral outlook anyone has.
I stated in my OP that I hadn't formed a concrete opinion. These are some very fair points (except Blackbeard).
The only problem is : "Don't get caught!"
How many of you assholes have vulnerable daughters?
The only problem is : "Don't get caught!"
How many of you assholes have vulnerable daughters?
I don't think anyone suggested that.
All that was suggested is that the reason for the firing was liability, not morality.
this guy saw college adults being college adults doing things college adults do and let it go.
should he be fired? yeah, you can chose that. but it's nothing like Paterno.
Quote:
You may want to read Matthew again.
Turning the other cheek is about non-retaliation, answering hatred with love.
The verse is:
Quote:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Easily misinterpreted to mean what you (and most) think.
If you think about it, though- to be slapped on the right cheek would mean the "evil person" is striking you with his left hand. Not many folks strike with their left hand.
Unless of course you are being back-handed- which is a way one would express to another that they are a lesser person (bitch slapped if you will).
The act of turning the other cheek and exposing the left side of your face rather than the right would force the person to strike you as he would strike an equal- with an open palm from the right hand instead of a back-hand.
So, yes- it is somewhat about non-retaliation, but I think it is more about demanding to be treated as an equal- not a lesser.
I have no proof of this other than it makes sense to me and I'm the only one I need to convince.
I guess this is your "Freedom of Speech"
No. No one compared this to Paterno. The comment was much more subtle.
It's the only one that comes with a guarantee. If you don't go to heaven after you die, all you need to do is fill out a notarized complaint form and I'll refund all tithes and donations.
Tithes are also very low, 1%.
And if you act within the next five minutes I'll throw in the amazing slap chop at no extra charge!
Hurry before supplies run out!
It's the only one that comes with a guarantee. If you don't go to heaven after you die, all you need to do is fill out a notarized complaint form and I'll refund all tithes and donations.
Tithes are also very low, 1%.
And if you act within the next five minutes I'll throw in the amazing slap chop at no extra charge!
Hurry before supplies run out!
Please stay on topic and quit attention-whoring.
However the leap some people take to bring up Paterno and campus rape is just insane.
However the leap some people take to bring up Paterno and campus rape is just insane.
For the record, YAJ was the only one who did this. Not his finest moment.
The incidents described cover sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and underage drinking. All are serious issues and not to be taken lightly. They seemed to have been willfully ignored by the director for a long time. His fate is not unfair or unwarranted.
Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Equate: Consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Thanks. I really didn't think that needed explaining, but apparently it did for FEK.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
No one else took my comment and ran in the wrong direction with it.
Mike in Long Beach : 7/24/2014 3:06 pm : link : reply
You can't be serious with that comparison (and I'm normally all for equating two situations, even one is far more extreme, when the principle is the same).
Your analogy was coherent, but you have to know that it's far more acceptable to look the other way in some situations and some it is morally reprehensible. So even though your principal held water, you chose an example that was so extreme that it rendered your point disingenuous.
Now this is just flat out wrong.
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
So basically YAJ should dumb down his analogies so that people who are shitty at interpreting analogies don't misinterpret him? Is that really the standard we want to impose on discourse?
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
oops! sorry chris. that's not the appropriate usage of "sic."
maybe you should spend less time criticizing my lack of capitalization and more time actually, you know, understanding how to speak and write in English?
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
oops! sorry chris. that's not the appropriate usage of "sic."
maybe you should spend less time criticizing my lack of capitalization and more time actually, you know, understanding how to speak and write in English?
This is the perfect thread to compare my misuse of a rarely used Latin word with your chronic poor punctuation practice (i.e. laziness).
fair point.
fair point.
It surely does reflect better on you that you are too lazy to capitalize and that I may have slightly misused sic. Kudos.
But I'm actually not willing to concede that I've misused sic that easily. It is used to denote that an error is being reproduced from the original. Kindly point out how I've misused it.
Or if you'd rather, we could meet and throw down about it.
but somehow you still don't understand how this:
of course you don't. if you did, then you'd have to admit you were wrong.
Focus, people.
Well fucking no. That's just ridiculous. And while Mom's point is that just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean it's smart or you should, it's still a ridiculous assertion.
Just like YAJ's comparison of the OSU Band Director looking the other way to college kids fucking around too much and Paterno looking the other way as one of his coaches raped little boys... is fucking ridiculous.
Believe it not fellas, an analogy can be logically coherent and still be silly when the two things being compared are so drastically different. But to play the BBI game, no YAJ, I do not find it OK that Paterno looked the other way, but, from a moral standpoint, I do find it OK that the OSU band director did (though other posters have brought up very reasonable points about the liability angle).
Wrong.
This has been fun!
Link - ( New Window )
Well fucking no. That's just ridiculous. And while Mom's point is that just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean it's smart or you should, it's still a ridiculous assertion.
Just like YAJ's comparison of the OSU Band Director looking the other way to college kids fucking around too much and Paterno looking the other way as one of his coaches raped little boys... is fucking ridiculous.
Believe it not fellas, an analogy can be logically coherent and still be silly when the two things being compared are so drastically different. But to play the BBI game, no YAJ, I do not find it OK that Paterno looked the other way, but, from a moral standpoint, I do find it OK that the OSU band director did (though other posters have brought up very reasonable points about the liability angle).
You're just part of that twisted OSU marching band cult mentality.
History
Panty raids were the first college craze after World War II, following the 1930s crazes of goldfish swallowing or seeing how many could fit in a phone booth.[1] The mock battles which ensued between male and female students echoed the riotous battles between freshmen and upperclassmen which were an annual ritual at many colleges in the 20th century.
The first documented incident occurred on February 25, 1948, at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. Around 260 men led by the Omicron Sigma Omicron fraternity entered the Woman's Building (now Emmy Carlsson Evald Hall, a classroom building); the first party entered through heating tunnels beneath the building. Once inside, they unlocked the door for the remaining raiders to enter, locked the housemother in her apartment, and cut the light and phone lines. Although a few women reported missing undergarments, the goal was to cause commotion. The police arrived, and although no pranksters were charged, the news traveled, making headlines in the Chicago Tribune, Stars and Stripes, Time magazine, and the New York Times.[2][3][4]
The next incident was on March 21, 1952, when University of Michigan students raided a dormitory, which sparked panty raids across the nation.[5] Penn State's first raid involved 2,000 males marching on the women's dorms on April 8, 1952, cheered on by the women, who opened doors and windows and tossed out lingerie.[6] By the end of 1952 spring term the "epidemic" had spread to 52 campuses.
History of Panty raids - ( New Window )
Right, and that's not what it says either. You conveniently left out the "might otherwise be taken for" part.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
that's actually a very common typo, right behind "it's" instead of "its." happens all the time. in fact, my iPhone auto-corrects to "look the other way" when i write "turn the other cheek" because it's so common.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
wow, you're not actually this dumb, are you? in your case, maybe.
"might otherwise be taken for an error in transcription" = somebody mistyped something so you are correcting them.
YAJ didn't mistype anything. he used a phrase incorrectly. that's not what sic is for. it's not a matter of opinion. is this getting past your concrete skull yet, or do you need me to keep schooling you?
I have no idea how sic is used because I never used it. Probably never will. But it seems like you should have went for the solid double instead of swinging for a home run.
Quote:
Right, and that's not what it says either. You conveniently left out the "might otherwise be taken for" part.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
wow, you're not actually this dumb, are you? in your case, maybe.
"might otherwise be taken for an error in transcription" = somebody mistyped something so you are correcting them.
YAJ didn't mistype anything. he used a phrase incorrectly. that's not what sic is for. it's not a matter of opinion. is this getting past your concrete skull yet, or do you need me to keep schooling you?
I used sic to indicate that I knew what I was paraphrasing was incorrect. That is textbook sic.
so, to answer my question from before, yes, you are this dumb. thanks.
but i'm sure you knew that already.
chris r then fucked up when trying to correct you or YAJ (or both of you).
the difference is, adults can admit when they made a mistake, children can't.
and for those of you who are wondering why i'm making a big deal of this, or are just clueless in general (AGF), chris r follows me around from thread to thread pointing out that i don't capitalize words properly.
so, to answer my question from before, yes, you are this dumb. thanks.
Certainly you can't be this obtuse by accident.
From what I've already quoted: "or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription."
And you are correct about brackets vs parentheses. Its kind of like scoring a TD down 44 - 0 at the two minute warning.
how many fucking times were you dropped on your head as a child?
If only they gave black belts for back tracking.
one of these days you'll be all grown up and you can have a debate all by yourself.
Plus, I'm not even having the same argument as chris r. I don't give two shits how sic is used. It's the fact that you came on this thread swinging your dick around and completely whiffed. But this is just me addressing another one of your posts where you're dodging and/or backtracking the topic at hand that you started.
If you have a problem with people replying to posts on a public forum, you're free to leave.
Quote:
one of us makes a conscious decision not to capitalize because he's not being graded on his BBI posts, and the other of us doesn't know what "sic" is used for in modern English, but just throws it into a sentence anyway in an attempt to look smart.
fair point.
It surely does reflect better on you that you are too lazy to capitalize and that I may have slightly misused sic. Kudos.
But I'm actually not willing to concede that I've misused sic that easily. It is used to denote that an error is being reproduced from the original. Kindly point out how I've misused it.
Or if you'd rather, we could meet and throw down about it.
Nerd fight!
catch you on the next thread where you jump in late to pile on even though you added nothing of substance yourself. or, to put it more concisely, any thread you post on.
how many fucking times were you dropped on your head as a child?
For the millionth time, its not about an error in transcription, its about what could be perceived as an error in transcription.
Its not a very subtle distinction. You can do it.
Its not a very subtle distinction. You can do it.
explain to me how typing an entire four-word phrase can be perceived as an error in transcription.
this should be good.
M in CT : 11:43 am : link : reply
yes, now that you've looked it up, i see you now understand that it is used to correct an error - in most cases a spelling error, but i won't nitpick.
Quote:
turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way)
is not an example of you having corrected an error?
But wait...change of heart once told that there was an error?
M in CT : 11:56 am : link : reply
sic is used for spelling errors and errors in logical progression. not to correct misused idioms.
Tool.
M in CT : 12:53 pm : link : reply
then you are just as dumb as chris r and thus, not worth any more of my time this afternoon.
I love this because:
1) You've committed a grotesque amount of time to this argument (one in which you are wrong).
2) It implies that this would be worth your time if AnotherGiantsFan "wasn't as dumb as Chris," ...and yet, if Chris is so dumb, why has he gotten so much of your precious time? Do you like him more than AnotherGiantsFan? Why is a dumb Chris worth your time but a dumb AnotherGiantsFan isn't?
man, it is going to be rough to get through the rest of this day.
This has been going on long before American Pie
man, it is going to be rough to get through the rest of this day.
No. You are incontrovertibly wrong according to reason and have been throughout most your multi-handled posting history.
man, it is going to be rough to get through the rest of this day.
lmao, and apparently AnotherGiantsFan too.'
Why is it going to be rough getting through your day? And I'm still waiting for an explanation on why Chris R's futility is something you're OK delving into, but AnotherGiantsFans "you don't have time for.
don't worry, just send out another singing telegram next Valentine's Day. those always work out well.
don't worry, just send out another singing telegram next Valentine's Day. those always work out well.
lol, noted buddy. Good work on this thread.
Totally unexpected, wonderful surprise. Thanks all.
lmao
She goes on to say the name was not shameful or sexist, but a preferred name. Now, she says she feels objectified and sexualized from the way the university and media handled the situation. "And despite being mentioned several times in this report, not once was an attempt made by any on the investigating team to contact me and find out if anything that was being written about me was accurate," the woman said.
The woman adds, Waters never referred to her as her nickname, only her first name.
As the pilot flew the banner over the event, the crowd clapped. ABC 6/FOX 28 talked to band members parents in the crowd. Scott Mills says this year will mark his son's third year in the band. "I thought it was great. Wed saw everybody pointing and we looked up there and it was like. Jon's a great guy and the kids are devastated," Mills said.
Link - ( New Window )
He's like a carbon copy.
Color me un-surprised that young adults with (most likely) little real world experience outside of institutionalized education systems haven't yet developed a complete sense of the gravity of these situations.
We certainly have examples of just that thing here on this website.
Metlz -- I'm pretty sure he denies it, but I do believe that is the prevailing hypothesis.