...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
Technically Bay Ridge (Brooklyn) not Dyker Heights (Brooklyn).
I wish this subject would just recede into the background forever. But alas, Sandusky will be sentenced mid-October, so we are bound to relive it all over again.
He's being sentenced on my wedding anniversary.
He's in jail for life. Let this shit die.
predatorial types still out there, and that's alleged to be the case. There have been several reports of parties with wealthy businessmen in Philly, boys. . . I have long since long any desire to hear details, but--personally--I want these people in jail. These are abuses of power.
This is a college football blog.
The college football related story is pretty much over. Sandusky is in Jail, and Penn State has been punished. I want pedophiles in jail too, but we don't need this crap on this site anymore.
don't read it.
Eatin' for Pahokee is no longer a football story, either. Granted, it is far to the other side of the story spectrum, but it is significant news. Bury your head if you like, but to not spread this kind of story is to do a disservice to those abused. The more people that are aware of exactly what went on, the more vigilant they will be to prevent it in the future.
So, mgobules, are you saying that regurgitating this story in mgoblog is going to have a direct effect on child abuse in the NY or Philly areas? That if the story gets pounded into the ground here, even one child molester 500 miles away from Ann Arbor is going to inexpllicibly stop?
I love mgoblog, but I think you might be giving it too much credit. This is merely a case of Andy Rooney's observation that it feels good to hate wrongdoers being spot on. I'm sure there are plenty of great blogs where the focus is child abuse. Maybe threads like this one would be more appropriate there.
I'm tired of people trying to turn mgoblog into PSUgoblog.
There are still the perjury trials for the Penn State administrators Curley and Schultz. According to the MGo lawyers who weighed in, perjury convictions are rare, and I suspect they will be found not guilty. The Penn State conspiracy nuts are already, well nuts, but there will be a different level of craziness when the Joe Pa apologists start proclaiming that a "not guilty" verdict means Curley and Schultz are innocent and that the Freeh report has been proven in court to be false.
I, for one, don't want to "see this shit die" until two things happen:
1. All the crimes that Sandusky committed and all the people who helped him commit them are brought to light. If this is true then there is an entirely new string of victims out there and from what I read it's highly unlike Sandusky just became a pedophile in his late 40's. Odds are he was doing this for some time beforehand and just like at PSU, powerful people used their influence to silence those who could stop him. Who else did this monster destroy?
2. The idiots at PSU (I'm looking at you BSD) own this problem and quit trying to play the victim card cause their precious football program got slammed. Every time I hear them trying to defind saintly JoePa or claim the Freeh report was biased and not factual I want to scream. And until they accept it I hope they never win another football game.
So I don't want it to die. Not yet.
This story is not close to being over Two criminal trials are coming up, in January, I think, and then there are the civil suits which, if not settled, would go to trial. I also believe the feds have been hard at work investigating the story, with emphasis on "believe".
Wow. Classy comment, there.
Guilty as charged, I'm not too pc
Can we get 'placeholder' posts in the place of ones that were deleted? Something like "Post was removed due to X"...
The only reason I know jonvalk wasn't replying to the OP, is that I saw that scumbag post before it was deleted. It can get kind of confusing if you delete a post without deleting the reactions or putting something in the place of the incendiary post. A lot of times it looks like we have completely irrational people posting overreactions to random posts.
We all know that never happens on this site.
I'm not gay myself, but I have no issue with anyone's decision of sexuality, as it is their's to make. To compare homosexuals to a pedophile, who's preference happens to be of the same gender, is sick, unwarranted and frankly, it's pathetically ignorant. And to say you'd expect a "gay mafia" to be in Ohio (hardy har har!) as well as to use the term "queer" in a clearly derogatory fashion is just as pathetic and ignorant. Grow up and grow some balls.
Queer is still used as a derogatory term (see above) although some folks do identify as such in a non-derogatory sense. My nitpick would be regarding sexuality as a decision, but I still appreciate the overall sentiment so I will leave nits unpicked.
I never distinguished whether I believed the decision is made by the actual person or their genetics in my statement, nor am going to go there on MGoBlog.
"I have no issue with anyone's decision of sexuality, as it is their's to make."
*Edit: Don't mean to be overly critical of you. I pretty much agree with your post. It's just that it did very much seem like you took a stance on the question.
This term is controversial because it was reappropriated only two decades ago from its use as an anti-gay epithet. Furthermore, some LGBT people disapprove of using queer as a catch-all because they consider it offensive, derisive or self-deprecating given its continuous use as a form of hate speech. Other LGBT people may avoid queer because they associate it with political radicalism, or simply because they perceive it as the faddish slang of a "younger generation."
What you fail to realize, is that queer only recently was accepted back by the homosexual community (and clearly, not all have accepted it back). In the context of speaking about sexual orientation, it was at one point a purely derogatory term. Thusly, there are still homophobes who use it as such. So it's much more to it than "any term can be used in a derogatory context."
I think what may help you understand it a bit more, is that it is more akin to the use of the "n word." Like the gay community had done earlier with the word queer, the black community has tried to reclaim it to the point where use of the word amongst themselves is more accepted (in a sense) in everyday conversation. However, if someone from outside of that community tries to use that word in a clearly negative way, the meaning of the word defaults back to it's original derogatory definition. (disclaimer: I am black I still don't feel comfortable using the n word regularly).
So, when it comes to queer, you're kinda right, but CleverMichiganReference and I are right too, and the guy that was the reason for my initial comment and got booted is a douche, so let's leave it at that.
The gay friends I have might refer to each other as "queer" and mean it as a term of endearment, but would be offended if a stranger just showed up and started calling people queers. Sort of like the "n" word can be acceptable among the African-American community.
Oops, didn't read jhender85's above post. Pretty much same sentiment here.
I'm aware that the homosexual community has made a concerted effort to "take back" the term queer, that's why I said he used it in an attempt to be derogatory. When it comes to trying to be a bigot, its the thought that counts.
A person's sexuality is not a decision. You don't choose which gender you are attracted to. You're just attracted to them, plain and simple.
I agree with everything else you said.
I have thought a lot about this and I'm not entirely sure I agree with that notion. I am not in anyway homophobic, I believe people's sexual preference is their own business and don't mind either way what that preference is.
What I wonder about is this idea that a persons sexuality isn't their decision. I mean...I agree that people don't necessarily choose who they are attracted to, but that isn't what defines a persons sexuality is it? Just becuase you are a ttracted to someone doesn't mean you have to have sex with that person.
I would never consider myself to be homosexual or even bisexual (NTTAWWT) but I can admit when another man is attractive. I don't want to jump in bed with them, but they are attractive. I guess what I am saying is their sexuality is their decision, you have to make the choice just like a heterosexual makes the choice to sleep with a member of the opposite sex. I don't believe that a person is a homosexual just because they find members of the same sex attractive, but when they make the choice to engage in relations with them, then they become homosexuals.
I have an uncle who claims to be homosexual and I have had this discussion with him a few times and asked how the hell he knows he is a homosexual if he has never been in a same sex relationship before and actual had sex or even kissed another man. Sure he finds men attractive, but I would wager lots of heterosexual men do as well, it doesn't make them homosexuals in my opinion.
Anyway, that is just me thinknig out loud as this is something I have thought a lot about at various time and again, I have no problem with anyones sexual preference.
Its ok, we all have man crushes on Tom Brady.
Yes, it's what defines sexuality. There's a big difference between acknowledging someone is attractive and being attracted to them. It's kind of insulting to minimize that difference because so many suffer the consequence of same sex attractions, often by early teenage years, before meeting your standard. Do they not count?
I have a homosexual uncle also, actually married 20 years + 3 kids before finally coming out. If I were to say "Why did you tell anyone? Not like it matters, you haven't been with a guy," I think he'd be horribly offended. I'd be acting like it's made no diff in his life ($100k in alimony later!) and it wasn't difficult to tell us.
Why would anyone admit to this unless he knew for sure? Having a partner isn't the only way to know either. If you're thinking of guys all the time, if you do "want to jump in bed with them," if you do...other stuff, that's a dead giveaway of being homosexual.
Back to lurking. Thanks for making lecture slightly less boring.
I knew as I wrote my post that I wasn't saying what I wanted to say, it's a difficult discussion and one I can't eailsy find the words for when trying to present my point. The main point of my post was that I 1) don't think you can really consider yourself a homosexual unless you actually practice being homosexual (which you obviously disagree with, but such is life) and 2) that you have a choice.
Since I tried and failed to express why I felt that number 1 was the case I won't bother with that again, but for number two I simply believe you always have a choice in everything you do. There may not be two really good options, but there is always a choice. I acknowledge that this is only of consquence if you agree with my first point (which you don't) that a person isn't actually a homosexual until they actual induldge in a relationship, but that was the main focus of the above posts...that people don't have a choice in their sexuality.
Hey guys this is MLive. Have you seen one of our favorite posters? He goes by the name of scottva1 and man is he HILARIOUS. If you see him please send him back - we miss his witty repartee and highly enlightened view of human sexuality.
will find a way to blame this on the B1G & the emperor of Catalina Island.
Who knew that Michigan and Ohio State would be so jealous of Paterno and so determined to keep Penn State down that they would conspire to plant a pedophile on his coaching staff! Those sick bastards!
Fun Fact - the man who founded Avalon, the largest (only) city on Catalina Island, was from Grand Rapids.
I love Catalina. Really great hikes and diving/spearfishing especially around the Two Harbors area.
This is really not relevent to college football or the Big Ten. And OT season is OVA!
There isn't all that much going on yet, and I do agree that this story is more related to our discussion here than JLS bankruptcy.
I did change my vote to a neg when you upvoted your own thread after people started negging you, though.
I try to follow this advice when I'm about to create a thread.
Unfortunately I have to second that move Justin. I 100% agree with the post and I'm glad he put it up.
But you just don't upvote yourself when you're facing some oppostion. You just don't. And for the record when you did it it was only running 2-4 against. Not that bad really.
Edit: That's pretty silly Mr Mod who wacked my extremely tame avatar. My wife in a bikini, showing absolutely nothing but a M bikini top at long range, is defintely sfmk. Hell Mr Kass himself had no issue with it and liked that we were the only two people on the board who put pics of our wife up as our avatar.
The worst part is your current avatar isn't even wearing a bikini anymore. Scandalous!
That decision got reversed pretty quick.
The thing that bothers me most about this story is that it is surfacing 30 plus years after the fact and the potential offender is dead. What are the chances that we will ever know the true story?
As far as letting the Penn State story die, I will gladly read a weekly thread about the tragedy if it means someone will have the courage to expose abuse somewhere else.
...in the world than most people want to acknowledge. So from that standpoint, I hardly see it as an irrelevant discussion to be taking place in any community.
And given the nature of college football, with its recruiting emphasis on young men (but still minors) and the many fans who drool over them, then it is certainly a relevant subject for discussion in football communities (such as this blog). If some fans want to continue to live in a fairy tale world then they are welcome to step away after watching the games. But for anyone who is interested enough to dig into forums like this is simply going to need the thick skin to accept the bad with the good. There's just no getting around that.
I would upvote this. I don't buy the "let the story die" crowd's stance at all. The OP clearly states what the post is about so if you are coming by just to neg it then don't read. I definitely think this is a way bigger issue that still has details surfacing and I am interested to see how it is dealt with.