Not trying to be a martyr. Simply stating the facts. I wasn't the one who said it was "a you problem."
Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Heads need to roll in Waco)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
Have to say I have never seen that.
Certainly have seen him offer a differing opinion. . . perhaps he painted with a broad brush stroke toward a group. . . .but will pay more attention. . .. . . again, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I didn't notice it.. .
Your use of ellipses is my favorite quality, by far. I wasn't trying to call you out, but rather trying to summarize a poster in a way a lot of people may understand. I tagged jshorn because he had been actively engaged in the thread. I'll be sure to tag you in the future to avoid further conspiring to slander your good name..
Well I guess I should say it's nice to know you think I have good qualities . . . .though I have to confess . .. . now that we can tag. . . . calling someone out without tagging them (clearly you know how) is a bit humorous. . . . . .
The irony that several of our negative engagements were the direct result of you acting just as you deride BOBA. Before you sling rocks in a glass house. . . ..remember we ALL have the capacity to act like the south end of a north bound mule.
Me???? Perish the thought....
It's an internet board, some of you take this caca WAY too seriously. . .and take yourselves way to seriously.
I'd have been bummed if @jshorn had been banned. . . I"m biased about BOBA so I cannot truly be objective, I know him and like him but also didn't read him much (people really need an ignore feature just to read over posters?)
Though did not see the thread in question. . .he could get over the top for sure.
I hope if he was banned it was for something (or a pattern) of what he was doing and not to appease the pitchfork crowd.
He's gone to join NTG, Fear, Don Drysdale and other color ful characters in OB cyber purgatory. . .
@texasguy2310 good on you for standing up for your beliefs. . ..
It is a fact that Ketch is not normal and needs therapy?
It's a handful of people. And it might only be two or three- since a couple of them have been banned. I've been on this board for more than ten years and I had zero people on ignore for most of that time.
The we hired Charlie Strong. So we're talking about a couple of guys who post tens of thousands of times and bitch and/or seek to stir the proverbial shit-storm about 99 percent of the time. It gets old when someone dominates a thread arguing with everyone, this constant back-and-forth, and I have to sift through 7 or 8 pages of a thread for a few nuggets from @utx, or @El Mahico, or @ericg320, and any other of the funny or constructive posters who have something to add to this board.
Also, just before the software change, there were a few more, because I could put someone on ignore (as a reminder to myself that this is one of the "characters" on this board when someone says inflammatory shit), and if I was curious what they said that got everyone so riled up, I could still see their quotation in the reply.
As Stephen King wrote, "Hell is repetition." Reading the same bile over and over just sucks, IMO.
I guess I'm "weird" that way.
Ketch - I applaud your efforts to get this story out into the mainstream media. As a father of two girls, I completely understand the emotion you felt regarding your child's safety. It enters my mind almost daily as I look into the future of my 5 and 8 year old. The stories you hear about the sexual victimization of young women around the country is frightening. I remind myself that I'm must provide them with the tools to become confident, independent, self-sufficient women. As a dad, that's the best I can do short of following them around with a semi-automatic.
Great piece - it's a story that needs to be shared if nothing else to prevent something similar in the future. I hope Briles loses his job over this fiasco. He had the information necessary to avoid brining him into the program, and he sure as hell had enough information to suspend and subsequently kick him off the team. As I've said before, I know a certain coach in Austin - although he wouldn't have targeted the player in the first place - would have had no problem showing him the door.
Great piece - it's a story that needs to be shared if nothing else to prevent something similar in the future. I hope Briles loses his job over this fiasco. He had the information necessary to avoid brining him into the program, and he sure as hell had enough information to suspend and subsequently kick him off the team. As I've said before, I know a certain coach in Austin - although he wouldn't have targeted the player in the first place - would have had no problem showing him the door.
A
anon_f5t64h0z1z07t
Guest
BOBA getting banned will not effect me one bit. The IGNORE function can be a useful tool.
They have def
They have definitely created a Baylor Brand but it's not about championships or Heisman QB's..
I'm having a really hard time understanding where you stand on this issue. I think one more post should do it.
741
I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but lots of programs have give questionable characters second chances. While his subsequent criminal acts make Baylor look bad, there's nothing exceptional about this in college sports. Plenty of other kids/programs have generated the same dynamic.
The question is the conduct after the incident. Did football have say in this Title IX investigation? What was Briles' involvement in that? Why did the dean find the player not responsible while the jury found him guilty? This is where Baylor could go down.
The back end stuff (player arrested and convicted) went completely acceptably. The front end stuff may be a big egg cracked on Baylor's face, but it's not uncommon and isn't likely to see a popular, extremely successful coach get fired. The only X factor here is who was involved in the investigation and why was there an erroneous conclusion. If the end answer is that the dean was taking a pro-football stance, she's going to get bounced and football isn't going to be touched. If something else is in play, that's how this becomes Briles' Waterloo.
I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but lots of programs have give questionable characters second chances. While his subsequent criminal acts make Baylor look bad, there's nothing exceptional about this in college sports. Plenty of other kids/programs have generated the same dynamic.
The question is the conduct after the incident. Did football have say in this Title IX investigation? What was Briles' involvement in that? Why did the dean find the player not responsible while the jury found him guilty? This is where Baylor could go down.
The back end stuff (player arrested and convicted) went completely acceptably. The front end stuff may be a big egg cracked on Baylor's face, but it's not uncommon and isn't likely to see a popular, extremely successful coach get fired. The only X factor here is who was involved in the investigation and why was there an erroneous conclusion. If the end answer is that the dean was taking a pro-football stance, she's going to get bounced and football isn't going to be touched. If something else is in play, that's how this becomes Briles' Waterloo.
Most likely because we are human. People value those close to them, and put less value on those that aren't. It's called "tribalism" or "family" or whatever you want to call it.
As for the other stuff, I really don't like to get into the victimization stuff. We've become a society of victims in a society in which there are actually far less victims than there were 20, 50, 100, and 500 years ago (one of the great things to do is to look at the murder rate over centuries, humans respect each other incredibly more now than they have the huge majority of human history). People should be decent to one another (I'm not a big fan of the crude comment outside of finding a well-timed "PIIHB" borderline hilarious), but you are arguing against humanity when you try and compare those to whom you have a personal connection with those who don't.
I don't agree as he was the one suggesting that people who had an emotional response to the story "needed therapy". I call that a personal attack.
Seems like no one should be casting aspersions about posters fighting about who needs therapy. I saw multiple references to it from both sides. I think it was also meant to poke fun at the other side's position.
Well, to be fair, he recently called me a dumbass for no good reason, but then I called him a dickhole in return (because I ain't no bitch) and we Internet bro'd it out. We each gave a like and moved on. My friends can call me whatever they want, but typically, if I don't know you, you better be willing to go down for it. I don't know him, but interpreting his OB persona, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was messing around and knew I would take it as good natured ribbing. I would never write in or make a complaint about something like that because I can handle my business, but I could see how others might not handle being called a dumbass with as much grace.
Okay, personal preference for reading UT sports stories aside, I agree that this story may be well-intentioned, but it is not supported by known, hard, facts. At this point of he-said versus he-said with a sprinkling of truths and partial truths and loads of innuendo, to take sides with such conviction and self-assured righteousness is folly in the least and libelous in the worst. I too have daughters, one just today beginning her freshman year at OU (o u have no idea how I've suffered). I am very much a supporter of avid protection of all students from predators of any type. However, the vindictive tone (no, not undertone) of this writing suggests either a personal issue with Briles or one with "Christian schools" or perhaps, both. Really? The only two relevant offenders are Notre Dame and Baylor? This type of "football first" mentality only exists at private/christian schools and doesn't exist at the other 95% of universities...the public ones? Campus assault and rape in particular is a serious matter that is not new and needs further illumination. Serious, sincere, efforts at exposure are welcome. Half-hearted, half-researched, half-sappy musings are distractions from the real journalism needed to advance the matter professionally.
By the way, where was your righteous indignation and 3,200 word treatise when Bob Stoops let Joe Mixon back on campus?
Stick to sports, where opinion is customary. Or at least stick to proven facts when criticizing people's actions.
By the way, where was your righteous indignation and 3,200 word treatise when Bob Stoops let Joe Mixon back on campus?
Stick to sports, where opinion is customary. Or at least stick to proven facts when criticizing people's actions.
Love the multi-quote feature.
Don't you mean, 'see them run before we ask them to pass?"
No fan of Ken Starr, but this is a half-truth at best. Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones and the plaintiff's attorneys were trying to establish a pattern of behavior and were trying to get evidence of the alleged Lewinsky affair into evidence to do just that. Clinton got Lewinsky to sign a sworn affidavit maintaining there was no sexual relationship between the two.
Then, of his own testimony, "Mr. Clinton (later) acknowledged that some answers he gave about Ms. Lewinsky during a 1998 deposition were false and that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers." However, he maintained that he did not intend to lie. The allegations were some of the same made against Mr. Clinton in articles of impeachment that were passed by the House but rejected by the Senate." (http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-eligible-once-again-to-practice-law/25965/) The Arkansas bar took his law license for five years. He was eligible to re-apply for it in 2006, but to-date I still don't think he has. Running your own foundation and giving speeches is way too lucrative for him to care.
Bill was trying to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to a fair trial by covering up relevant evidence. Clinton got into hot water for the cover-up, same as Baylor.
By the way, Bill still has a mistress to this day. She is a blonde with big tits. The Secret Service has given her the code name, Energizer. Apparently, they like her a LOT more than Hillary.
Ketch is drawing attention to the cover-up, not the crime itself.
This is a fairly easy distinction to make. The criminal justice system's job is done- for now. Like Watergate or Benghazi (bi-partisan examples, see?)or other scandals, the 'how did this happen?, who else is to blame?, who knew?, who provided cover? portion of this begins in earnest. That is, IF enough people call for an NCAA investigation and do things to draw attention to how sleazy this seems to be. That's what Ketch is doing. Pretty sure the criminal justice system is mum on that facet.
No. The question begins with what Briles knew at the time he agreed to let the kid transfer to Baylor. Said this before- Peterson had no logical incentive to lie/cover for a kid he was kicking off the team for misconduct. I mentioned this phase is about the cover-up. That means throughout the process- beginning to end. That even means that if Briles is telling the truth and Peterson is lying (though I doubt it), then Peterson is negligent. Wherever and whenever anyone failed to do their due diligence, or worse, covered up- that is the question.
Don't you mean, 'see them run before we ask them to pass?"
No fan of Ken Starr, but this is a half-truth at best. Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones and the plaintiff's attorneys were trying to establish a pattern of behavior and were trying to get evidence of the alleged Lewinsky affair into evidence to do just that. Clinton got Lewinsky to sign a sworn affidavit maintaining there was no sexual relationship between the two.
Then, of his own testimony, "Mr. Clinton (later) acknowledged that some answers he gave about Ms. Lewinsky during a 1998 deposition were false and that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers." However, he maintained that he did not intend to lie. The allegations were some of the same made against Mr. Clinton in articles of impeachment that were passed by the House but rejected by the Senate." (http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-eligible-once-again-to-practice-law/25965/) The Arkansas bar took his law license for five years. He was eligible to re-apply for it in 2006, but to-date I still don't think he has. Running your own foundation and giving speeches is way too lucrative for him to care.
Bill was trying to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to a fair trial by covering up relevant evidence. Clinton got into hot water for the cover-up, same as Baylor.
By the way, Bill still has a mistress to this day. She is a blonde with big tits. The Secret Service has given her the code name, Energizer. Apparently, they like her a LOT more than Hillary.
Ketch is drawing attention to the cover-up, not the crime itself.
This is a fairly easy distinction to make. The criminal justice system's job is done- for now. Like Watergate or Benghazi (bi-partisan examples, see?)or other scandals, the 'how did this happen?, who else is to blame?, who knew?, who provided cover? portion of this begins in earnest. That is, IF enough people call for an NCAA investigation and do things to draw attention to how sleazy this seems to be. That's what Ketch is doing. Pretty sure the criminal justice system is mum on that facet.
No. The question begins with what Briles knew at the time he agreed to let the kid transfer to Baylor. Said this before- Peterson had no logical incentive to lie/cover for a kid he was kicking off the team for misconduct. I mentioned this phase is about the cover-up. That means throughout the process- beginning to end. That even means that if Briles is telling the truth and Peterson is lying (though I doubt it), then Peterson is negligent. Wherever and whenever anyone failed to do their due diligence, or worse, covered up- that is the question.
Last edited:
So, "humanity" is predisposed to treating women like pieces of meat b/c of "tribalism", and as long as we're just "decent" to each other, then all's good?
No. He didn't. He questioned the sincerity of the weeping in the piece. Did you weep? Do you really believe there was weeping? If so, do you believe that to be a normal response to a story with which you have absolutely no connection and one in which justice was ultimately served? If your friend, with no direct connection to this story, standing next to you started weeping when discussing this story, would you find that mundane? Does it not seem a bit like unnecessary drama in a strange crusade? Does this whole thing not seem a little.... Off?
I am not a man afraid to cry. I cried when my children were born. I cried when I said my wedding vows. I have cried when I've been overwhelmed by the love I feel for my family. So on and so forth.
@jshorn started in this thread with that. There's nothing wrong with that. At that point, the hyenas came calling and it went where it went.
