FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Caitshidhe on March 09, 2013, 03:55:29 am
-
A Seattle high school girl's softball coach sent his team out on a 'scavenger hunt', telling them to 'take pictures of cute girls' and bring him their phone numbers. (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020510800_softballcoachxml.html)
Last week, the Roosevelt High School softball coach sent members of his team out on an unusual scavenger hunt. The mission: take photos of “cute girls” and bring them back, with telephone numbers, for his perusal.
Instead of fielding flies, the players were farmed out to snag him a date, according to a string of text messages he sent to one of the young women targeted in the hunt.
Troy Hennum, 25, was placed on unpaid leave just six days into his new job coaching the Roughriders, Seattle Public Schools said Thursday. He was hired despite the school knowing he had been investigated by his former school district, Lake Washington, for sending inappropriate texts to an athlete in 2012, a district spokeswoman said.
Emphasis mine--WHY DID THEY HIRE THIS GUY IF THEY KNEW HE WAS IN TROUBLE ONCE BEFORE FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WITH HIS TEAM?? And he was apparently so shit-eatingly smug about the whole thing, congratulating himself on 'using his girls' to meet women.
What I wonder is why the girls complied. Is it a case of them being young and not knowing better, and simply assuming that because some respected adult is instructing them to do it then it must be okay? It doesn't say how old the girls were but since they're in high school they've gotta be at least fourteen. If someone told me to do that at fourteen, I'd be standing there going, HANG ON WAIT A SECOND THAT'S NOT COOL BRO. I'm not blaming them, not at all--he's the creeper here, he's entirely at fault, but that doesn't stop me wondering what these girls were THINKING. Maybe they just thought he was being harmless? I know sport teams sometimes do weird shit for 'team building' exercises.
Still appalled that the school hired him despite knowing he'd been accused of inappropriately texting a student before. Though I'm relieved they axed him following this little situation.
And of course one of the most annoying parts is that he sent a text message to one of the women saying, 'I had to see if your legit.' I know he's just a sports coach, but COME THE FUCK ON HERE.
I'm just gonna be in this corner here weeping.
-
You know you're pathetic when you need school kids to find you a date.
-
Oh come on. Is this really worth the panty knotting? So he's asking for help finding a date. At least he's trying to find a woman his age. I swear.
Also, I have to ask if you're honestly bitching that he used "your" instead of "you're." Considering the issue at hand here, that seems like a pretty silly thing to complain about, don't ya think? Maybe that's not what you're getting at in the second to last paragraph, but it's what I assume by the context and the italicized font for "your."
I'm not saying what the guy did was good, perse. I'm just saying you need to chill the fuck out.
Also, he's fucking 25 YEARS OLD. It's not like he's a middle-aged man doing this stuff.
[Reading the article now.]
Oh come on! That's what you're bitching about? Are you fucking serious? There's not enough facepalms in the world to appropriately express my feelings towards what I think is your [over]reaction. As far as the "inappropriate behavior with a former team member, I do want to point out a line from the article.
Aagard later found a Times story about Hennum being investigated at Lake Washington for allegedly sending inappropriate texts. At that time, an athlete reported that while the team was at a hotel in Wenatchee, Hennum and another athlete were exchanging a flurry of texts late at night. He later admitted suggesting the athlete meet him alone, but said he was just trying to reach out to the girl, who was having some personal problems, according to the investigative file.
Now he said the girl was having personal problems,but I wonder how things were going in HIS life. I don't know the circumstances of the texts or the context, but for fuck's sake! If he was going through a tough time himself, he may not have been thinking clearly. He wouldn't be the first person to cross the line like a dumbass because he's having issues that he can't seem to cope with well.
Hey, guess what?
He resigned from his position Thursday.
The messages violated school policy, but he was not disciplined. The district did not renew his contract.
You wanna guess why he probably resigned? I'd wager it was to escape the flak/shame from random people like you, Cait. You say he was "smug," but have you even fucking met the guy? No? Well then maybe you should shut up before you judge him and his character.
Still not convinced he feels like shit for all this? How's this for another piece of evidence?
He did not return three phone messages and two emails from a reporter. By Thursday afternoon, his photo and biography had been removed from the school’s softball team website.
Yeah, I'm sure he's not in the mood to defend himself or talk to reporters right now. I don't blame him. He's already been treated like shit in this thread, and I'm sure that our "assessment" of him isn't an isolated event! Shame on the haters. They just latch on the idea of "Oh, a guy who's too awkward/shy to directly talk to women? He's a coach and therefore obviously not nerdy? HOW DARE HE!" Give the guy a fucking break. Hell, I'm sure he'd get chewed out if he was an obvious nerd. Hell, the flak might be worse.
Hm...I wasn't expecting my defense to be so long and passionate. I just have been coming up with this stuff out of the blue, pretty much.
-
...what the flagnard? o.0
-
What.
-
It just really fucking pisses me off to see us defending gays and other such groups, only to turn around and rag on a straight guy for some shit he did without any consideration for his side. Is being straight but too awkward to talk to women an unspeakable crime? Are we taking the rage of the "anti-friend zone" mentality to it's inevitable conclusion?
Seriously, you guys should be ashamed of your reactions. Also, I'd appreciate longer responses than:
...what the flagnard? o.0
and
What.
I took the time to write a defense of this guy because I felt he was being unjustly ragged on. The least you could do is actually dignify my response with more than just a few words. Note that "unjustly ragged on" doesn't make him some kind of perfect angel. I'm just saying that I think you guys need to not take such a knee-jerk "OMG WHAT A CREEPY LOSER!" attitude about shit like this.
-
It just really fucking pisses me off to see us defending gays and other such groups, only to turn around and rag on a straight guy for some shit he did without any consideration for his side. Is being straight but too awkward to talk to women an unspeakable crime? Are we taking the rage of the "anti-friend zone" mentality to it's inevitable conclusion?
Seriously, you guys should be ashamed of your reactions. Also, I'd appreciate longer responses than:
...what the flagnard? o.0
and
What.
I took the time to write a defense of this guy because I felt he was being unjustly ragged on. The least you could do is actually dignify my response with more than just a few words. Note that "unjustly ragged on" doesn't make him some kind of perfect angel. I'm just saying that I think you guys need to not take such a knee-jerk "OMG WHAT A CREEPY LOSER!" attitude about shit like this.
Wait. Wait. Are you seriously comparing him to a guy whos too shy to ask a girl out?
He wasn't just telling his team he wanted a girlfriend, he was sending them out to take pictures of women and give him their phone numbers. He also got in trouble for sending inappropriate texts.
That isn't OK. I have no idea why you brought up gay rights in this either. If a male teacher was sending inappropriate texts to a male student and asking his students to do the same but with men, I would have a problem. Same with a straight woman.
There are much less creepy ways of dealing with shyness. Being shy is never an excuse to ask others to take pictures of strangers and give away cell phone numbers for you.
-
It just really fucking pisses me off to see us defending gays and other such groups, only to turn around and rag on a straight guy for some shit he did without any consideration for his side. Is being straight but too awkward to talk to women an unspeakable crime? Are we taking the rage of the "anti-friend zone" mentality to it's inevitable conclusion?
Seriously, you guys should be ashamed of your reactions. Also, I'd appreciate longer responses than:
...what the flagnard? o.0
and
What.
I took the time to write a defense of this guy because I felt he was being unjustly ragged on. The least you could do is actually dignify my response with more than just a few words. Note that "unjustly ragged on" doesn't make him some kind of perfect angel. I'm just saying that I think you guys need to not take such a knee-jerk "OMG WHAT A CREEPY LOSER!" attitude about shit like this.
Wait. Wait. Are you seriously comparing him to a guy whos too shy to ask a girl out?
He wasn't just telling his team he wanted a girlfriend, he was sending them out to take pictures of women and give him their phone numbers. He also got in trouble for sending inappropriate texts.
That isn't OK. I have no idea why you brought up gay rights in this either. If a male teacher was sending inappropriate texts to a male student and asking his students to do the same but with men, I would have a problem. Same with a straight woman.
There are much less creepy ways of dealing with shyness. Being shy is never an excuse to ask others to take pictures of strangers and give away cell phone numbers for you.
Did you read my post? I'm not saying what he did was "okay." I'm just saying that comments like this:
You know you're pathetic when you need school kids to find you a date.
are kicking the guy when he's down. I provided evidence for why I think the OP and first response are too harsh. Look, the guy fucked up. He felt guilty. He resigned. He's not fucking taking calls or e-mails because he's PROBABLY ashamed of his actions, and not "smug" about it as the OP so (ironically) smugly put it.
Is it that hard to understand why the OP rubbed me the wrong way? I ask you, did you READ my post? You sure the fuck didn't seem to address ANY of the points I made in the first reply.
-
“Are you single? Or am I wasting my time,” he wrote in another message.
At first, Aagard said, “I was a little bit flattered” by the attention.
But as she thought more about it, she began to see the dozens of messages differently. When she asked him to send her a photo, he joked and stalled.
“Hahaha. Pics coming child,” he wrote.
Child? Aagard was taken aback.
“Figure of speech loser,” he wrote.
B-man, would you consider this behavior on par with one who is simply "too shy" to ask girls out, or someone who needs a swift kick to the balls?
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure he knew he was going to wind up being fired anyway, which is why he just resigned to get it over with.
And would YOU bother trying to justify your actions to reporters if you had done the same thing as this guy? Maybe 'smug' isn't the way to describe how he might be feeling... I'd choose something more along the lines of 'indifferent'. I think he's just trying to stay out of the limelight and hoping this whole thing blows over and that people forget about it.
-
“Are you single? Or am I wasting my time,” he wrote in another message.
At first, Aagard said, “I was a little bit flattered” by the attention.
But as she thought more about it, she began to see the dozens of messages differently. When she asked him to send her a photo, he joked and stalled.
“Hahaha. Pics coming child,” he wrote.
Child? Aagard was taken aback.
“Figure of speech loser,” he wrote.
B-man, would you consider this behavior on par with one who is simply "too shy" to ask girls out, someone who needs a swift kick to the balls?
Just a bit. Was he a bit abrasive? Yes. Was that maybe a sign of insecurity? Yep. By the way. He said "child" but the girl he was texting was 21. That's only four years his junior, ya know. However, little miss "Aagard" had to be taken aback by his comment and instead of directly taking it up with the guy, go above his head and bitch to the principal of the school. I think that's a pretty fucking underhanded way to cope. Granted, there may be more to it and I'm just pulling thoughts out my ass. However, I'd rather give the guy a fair shot and not assume the worst about him when I don't fucking know him. You could argue that I shouldn't judge the woman either, but all I'm doing is asking why she had to get butthurt over a fucking single word.
Seriously. Using the word "child" playfully set her off? Is that it? Is that what made her report him? Are you for serious? I wouldn't doubt he did it in a tongue-in-cheek way as a way to lighten the mood/break the ice more. Yet he's a HORRIBLE human being for it, isn't he?
-
“Are you single? Or am I wasting my time,” he wrote in another message.
At first, Aagard said, “I was a little bit flattered” by the attention.
But as she thought more about it, she began to see the dozens of messages differently. When she asked him to send her a photo, he joked and stalled.
“Hahaha. Pics coming child,” he wrote.
Child? Aagard was taken aback.
“Figure of speech loser,” he wrote.
B-man, would you consider this behavior on par with one who is simply "too shy" to ask girls out, someone who needs a swift kick to the balls?
Just a bit. Was he a bit abrasive? Yes. Was that maybe a sign of insecurity? Yep. By the way. He said "child" but the girl he was texting was 21. That's only four years his junior, ya know. However, little miss "Aagard" had to be taken aback by his comment and instead of directly taking it up with the guy, go above his head and bitch to the principal of the school. I think that's a pretty fucking underhanded way to cope. Granted, there may be more to it and I'm just pulling thoughts out my ass. However, I'd rather give the guy a fair shot and not assume the worst about him when I don't fucking know him. You could argue that I shouldn't judge the woman either, but all I'm doing is asking why she had to get butthurt over a fucking single word.
Seriously. Using the word "child" playfully set her off? Is that it? Is that what made her report him? Are you for serious? I wouldn't doubt he did it in a tongue-in-cheek way as a way to lighten the mood/break the ice more. Yet he's a HORRIBLE human being for it, isn't he?
If he's so shy he can't bring himself to ask out a woman, then has he never heard of speed dating? Blind dates? These things exist and do not involve using teenage girls to fan out in the neighborhood to take pictures of women and get their phone numbers for him. Also, I have to question his views on women when he says things like “Genius, great way to meet a girl, use my girls lol,” and “Figure of speech loser.
Nice way to make a good first impression.
-
It just really fucking pisses me off to see us defending gays and other such groups, only to turn around and rag on a straight guy for some shit he did without any consideration for his side. Is being straight but too awkward to talk to women an unspeakable crime? Are we taking the rage of the "anti-friend zone" mentality to it's inevitable conclusion?
Seriously, you guys should be ashamed of your reactions. Also, I'd appreciate longer responses than:
...what the flagnard? o.0
and
What.
I took the time to write a defense of this guy because I felt he was being unjustly ragged on. The least you could do is actually dignify my response with more than just a few words. Note that "unjustly ragged on" doesn't make him some kind of perfect angel. I'm just saying that I think you guys need to not take such a knee-jerk "OMG WHAT A CREEPY LOSER!" attitude about shit like this.
Wait. Wait. Are you seriously comparing him to a guy whos too shy to ask a girl out?
He wasn't just telling his team he wanted a girlfriend, he was sending them out to take pictures of women and give him their phone numbers. He also got in trouble for sending inappropriate texts.
That isn't OK. I have no idea why you brought up gay rights in this either. If a male teacher was sending inappropriate texts to a male student and asking his students to do the same but with men, I would have a problem. Same with a straight woman.
There are much less creepy ways of dealing with shyness. Being shy is never an excuse to ask others to take pictures of strangers and give away cell phone numbers for you.
Did you read my post? I'm not saying what he did was "okay." I'm just saying that comments like this:
You know you're pathetic when you need school kids to find you a date.
are kicking the guy when he's down. I provided evidence for why I think the OP and first response are too harsh. Look, the guy fucked up. He felt guilty. He resigned. He's not fucking taking calls or e-mails because he's PROBABLY ashamed of his actions, and not "smug" about it as the OP so (ironically) smugly put it.
Is it that hard to understand why the OP rubbed me the wrong way? I ask you, did you READ my post? You sure the fuck didn't seem to address ANY of the points I made in the first reply.
I'm pretty sure Art was joking, as he always does. Also how do you know he felt guilty? Just because someone resigns doesn't mean he felt guilty.
Your first post was pretty dickish. I mean why did you mention him being 25? Is it suddenly better to do creepy things if you're younger? What the fuck does his age have to do with anything? Plus what exactly makes you think his shame is bad? Of course he should be fucking ashamed. I'm not sure if he is even ashamed, but that's not society's responsibility to coddle repeated inappropriate behavior.
Also you didn't fucking read the post. It was the girl who was having problems, not him.
He sent inappropriate texts to an athlete not too long before too. That doesn't sound very "guilty" to me.
I just read your last post. WHY THE FUCK DOES HER AGE MATTER? It's not OK to do that.
Do you not realize how sexual harassment works? Of course she's going to tell the principle of the school.
Why are you defending all of his actions as "shy" too? That doesn't make it OK at all. This guy obviously isn't shy. I mean he was too "shy" to ask a girl out, but he wasn't too "shy" to send his fucking team to take photos of women and give him their phone numbers.
I'm sorry, but that is not the shyness that anyone should feel sorry for.
-
Oh you. You need to learn to read!
First, the age matters because he wasn't hitting on some underage girl. As a coach I think that says SOMETHING. He was going after people close to his age.
Secondly, I SAID he said the girl he texted that was a player had problems. Is it so hard to imagine that he may have had problems of his own/been projecting? I don't think so.
As far as using his girls as recon, I'd wager that he's obviously comfortable enough with his own fucking team to ask them a favor. He sees them almost every day I bet. When you do shit like that, you forge relationships. Even "shy" people can grow comfortable with people they constantly fucking interact with.
(Who wants a bet this gets moved to Flame and Burn?)
Also, his age matters because he's not old and set in his ways. Furthermore, as much as you don't like to admit it, being a "creepy old man" is more frowned upon than being a "creepy young man." Now if he doesn't get better and learn from his mistakes, that's another matter entirely. I personally think he could turn his life around. I'm not saying we should "coddle" repeat offenders (even if it's for two distinct and different things). I'm saying we should lay off the haterade. What the fuck happened to concepts like "understanding" and "forgiveness?" Are you just gonna hound the guy to the ends of the earth for his mistakes, or are you going to realize that he's a human that fucked up?
-
Do you not realize how fucking inappropriate it is in the first place to ask your students to take pictures of women and give you their phone numbers? Such a subject isn't appropriate between students and teachers/coaches in the first place, and yet you're saying, "Oh, he's just asking help to find a date." Um, no. He's using his students to collect women's numbers so he can browse them like a fucking catalog. How is that okay? Jesus fucking christ. And just because the guy didn't respond to messages doesn't mean he feels guilty. He could be wanting to lie low so he doesn't look like any more of a creep. He could simply not care. You accuse us of making assumptions, but then you go ahead and do it there. Stop it.
-
Oh you. You need to learn to read!
First, the age matters because he wasn't hitting on some underage girl. As a coach I think that says SOMETHING. He was going after people close to his age.
Secondly, I SAID he said the girl he texted that was a player had problems. Is it so hard to imagine that he may have had problems of his own/been projecting? I don't think so.
As far as using his girls as recon, I'd wager that he's obviously comfortable enough with his own fucking team to ask them a favor. He sees them almost every day I bet. When you do shit like that, you forge relationships. Even "shy" people can grow comfortable with people they constantly fucking interact with.
(Who wants a bet this gets moved to Flame and Burn?)
Also, his age matters because he's not old and set in his ways. Furthermore, as much as you don't like to admit it, being a "creepy old man" is more frowned upon than being a "creepy young man." Now if he doesn't get better and learn from his mistakes, that's another matter entirely. I personally think he could turn his life around. I'm not saying we should "coddle" repeat offenders (even if it's for two distinct and different things). I'm saying we should lay off the haterade. What the fuck happened to concepts like "understanding" and "forgiveness?" Are you just gonna hound the guy to the ends of the earth for his mistakes, or are you going to realize that he's a human that fucked up?
He did this only six days into his job. And how can it not be considered inappropriate for him to text a his student in the middle of the night on an overnight trip, asking her to come into his room?
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/washington-softball-coach-leave-sending-players-scavenger-hunt-224911822.html
And I'll frown upon ANY creep, young or old. I give understanding and forgiveness to those who learn from their mistakes, which he obviously didn't.
-
So sexual harassment is perfectly ok as long as shes over 18 and you arent a middle aged male? wow...
-
Do you not realize how fucking inappropriate it is in the first place to ask your students to take pictures of women and give you their phone numbers? Such a subject isn't appropriate between students and teachers/coaches in the first place, and yet you're saying, "Oh, he's just asking help to find a date." Um, no. He's using his students to collect women's numbers so he can browse them like a fucking catalog. How is that okay? Jesus fucking christ. And just because the guy didn't respond to messages doesn't mean he feels guilty. He could be wanting to lie low so he doesn't look like any more of a creep. He could simply not care. You accuse us of making assumptions, but then you go ahead and do it there. Stop it.
First off, I'm defending the guy and asking you guys to have the audacity to consider the other side of the coin. Second, I'm not saying he's right. I just think this haterade with comments like.
And he was apparently so shit-eatingly smug about the whole thing, congratulating himself on 'using his girls' to meet women.
What I wonder is why the girls complied. Is it a case of them being young and not knowing better, and simply assuming that because some respected adult is instructing them to do it then it must be okay? It doesn't say how old the girls were but since they're in high school they've gotta be at least fourteen.
And of course one of the most annoying parts is that he sent a text message to one of the women saying, 'I had to see if your legit.' I know he's just a sports coach, but COME THE FUCK ON HERE.
I'm just gonna be in this corner here weeping.
I'd argue that those are meant to provoke images of this guy being some horrible demon with no fucking moral compass. Are those snippets from the OP not inflammatory enough for you? Don't be so shocked when someone comes in this thread and has issues with the bias this thread started off with. I'm not saying he was right, but you guys are acting like rabid feminists.
I particularly don't like the paragraph about the girls "possibly not knowing better." I see that as a pretty blatant insult to their intellect.
-
Do you not realize how fucking inappropriate it is in the first place to ask your students to take pictures of women and give you their phone numbers? Such a subject isn't appropriate between students and teachers/coaches in the first place, and yet you're saying, "Oh, he's just asking help to find a date." Um, no. He's using his students to collect women's numbers so he can browse them like a fucking catalog. How is that okay? Jesus fucking christ. And just because the guy didn't respond to messages doesn't mean he feels guilty. He could be wanting to lie low so he doesn't look like any more of a creep. He could simply not care. You accuse us of making assumptions, but then you go ahead and do it there. Stop it.
First off, I'm defending the guy and asking you guys to have the audacity to consider the other side of the coin. Second, I'm not saying he's right. I just think this haterade with comments like.
And he was apparently so shit-eatingly smug about the whole thing, congratulating himself on 'using his girls' to meet women.
What I wonder is why the girls complied. Is it a case of them being young and not knowing better, and simply assuming that because some respected adult is instructing them to do it then it must be okay? It doesn't say how old the girls were but since they're in high school they've gotta be at least fourteen.
And of course one of the most annoying parts is that he sent a text message to one of the women saying, 'I had to see if your legit.' I know he's just a sports coach, but COME THE FUCK ON HERE.
I'm just gonna be in this corner here weeping.
I'd argue that those are meant to provoke images of this guy being some horrible demon with no fucking moral compass. Are those snippets from the OP not inflammatory enough for you? Don't be so shocked when someone comes in this thread and has issues with the bias this thread started off with. I'm not saying he was right, but you guys are acting like rabid feminists.
I particularly don't like the paragraph about the girls "possibly not knowing better." I see that as a pretty blatant insult to their intellect.
Look, I'm a girl and I'm still in high school. I didn't even realize how sexual harassment worked until I was 17. That's quite "impressive" compared to most, since today even most adults do not understand it fully. It isn't insulting their intellect at all. Even if these girls did know how wrong he was, they might not know what to do about it. I'm not sure if I'd even know what to do.
Also, we aren't being "rabid". This is something that shouldn't be tolerated.
And no, he's not a horrible demon that deserves to burn in hell. No one has said that. Cut it out.
-
First off, I'm defending the guy and asking you guys to have the audacity to consider the other side of the coin. Second, I'm not saying he's right. I just think this haterade with comments like.
What's the other side of the coin, then? It was somehow okay to do such a thing? Please explain.
What I wonder is why the girls complied. Is it a case of them being young and not knowing better, and simply assuming that because some respected adult is instructing them to do it then it must be okay? It doesn't say how old the girls were but since they're in high school they've gotta be at least fourteen.
Um, what the hell is wrong with this statement? I, too, was left wondering why the girls did such a thing. How is it an insult to their intellect? They could be anywhere from 14-18 years old, and teenagers aren't known for making the most logical choice at times. It's not about their intellect, it's that they're fucking teenagers and could've made a mistake.
And of course one of the most annoying parts is that he sent a text message to one of the women saying, 'I had to see if your legit.' I know he's just a sports coach, but COME THE FUCK ON HERE.
I'm just gonna be in this corner here weeping.
Yes, the fact that she made a joke about his using "your" instead of "you're" paints him as a truly horrible demon.
I'd argue that those are meant to provoke images of this guy being some horrible demon with no fucking moral compass. Are those snippets from the OP not inflammatory enough for you? Don't be so shocked when someone comes in this thread and has issues with the bias this thread started off with. I'm not saying he was right, but you guys are acting like rabid feminists.
Riiight, because we're complete assholes to criticize a guy for asking teenagers to find cute girls and take pictures of them. Nothing wrong about that, no sirree.
-
Do you not realize how fucking inappropriate it is in the first place to ask your students to take pictures of women and give you their phone numbers? Such a subject isn't appropriate between students and teachers/coaches in the first place, and yet you're saying, "Oh, he's just asking help to find a date." Um, no. He's using his students to collect women's numbers so he can browse them like a fucking catalog. How is that okay? Jesus fucking christ. And just because the guy didn't respond to messages doesn't mean he feels guilty. He could be wanting to lie low so he doesn't look like any more of a creep. He could simply not care. You accuse us of making assumptions, but then you go ahead and do it there. Stop it.
First off, I'm defending the guy and asking you guys to have the audacity to consider the other side of the coin. Second, I'm not saying he's right. I just think this haterade with comments like.
And he was apparently so shit-eatingly smug about the whole thing, congratulating himself on 'using his girls' to meet women.
What I wonder is why the girls complied. Is it a case of them being young and not knowing better, and simply assuming that because some respected adult is instructing them to do it then it must be okay? It doesn't say how old the girls were but since they're in high school they've gotta be at least fourteen.
And of course one of the most annoying parts is that he sent a text message to one of the women saying, 'I had to see if your legit.' I know he's just a sports coach, but COME THE FUCK ON HERE.
I'm just gonna be in this corner here weeping.
I'd argue that those are meant to provoke images of this guy being some horrible demon with no fucking moral compass. Are those snippets from the OP not inflammatory enough for you? Don't be so shocked when someone comes in this thread and has issues with the bias this thread started off with. I'm not saying he was right, but you guys are acting like rabid feminists.
I particularly don't like the paragraph about the girls "possibly not knowing better." I see that as a pretty blatant insult to their intellect.
Look, I'm a girl and I'm still in high school. I didn't even realize how sexual harassment worked until I was 17. That's quite "impressive" compared to most, since today even most adults do not understand it fully. It isn't insulting their intellect at all. Even if these girls did know how wrong he was, they might not know what to do about it. I'm not sure if I'd even know what to do.
Also, we aren't being "rabid". This is something that shouldn't be tolerated.
And no, he's not a horrible demon that deserves to burn in hell. No one has said that. Cut it out.
I realize nobody called him a demon and said he deserves to burn in hell. However, the subtext sure seems to be there, I would think. As I cited, there's some pretty strong hatred and loathing in the OP. That undertone sure hasn't disappeared from most of the posts here, either.
-
I would like to introduce this coach to a site called OKCupid... Because, while not the best, is better than getting your underage students to play wingpeople for you!
Lazy fucker can't even get his own dates... >.<
-
I would like to introduce this coach to a site called OKCupid... Because, while not the best, is better than getting your underage students to play wingpeople for you!
Lazy fucker can't even get his own dates... >.<
Is it sad that you've been one of the most civil people in this thread? Things sure have gotten quite...uh...what's the word. Things have become quite "heated" here. Yes, that's the word.
-
I realize nobody called him a demon and said he deserves to burn in hell. However, the subtext sure seems to be there, I would think. As I cited, there's some pretty strong hatred and loathing in the OP. That undertone sure hasn't disappeared from most of the posts here, either.
Sounds like you're reading between the lines way too much. We're saying that this man was wrong, and that you sound like an asshole for calling us out when we agree that it was wrong.
I would like to introduce this coach to a site called OKCupid... Because, while not the best, is better than getting your underage students to play wingpeople for you!
Lazy fucker can't even get his own dates... >.<
Is it sad that you've been one of the most civil people in this thread? Things sure have gotten quite...uh...what's the word. Things have become quite "heated" here. Yes, that's the word.
You're quite the hypocrite then, screaming at us for calling this guy out. Don't try to blame us when all we're doing is saying that he's wrong, while you're freaking out over us doing such a thing.
-
I realize nobody called him a demon and said he deserves to burn in hell. However, the subtext sure seems to be there, I would think. As I cited, there's some pretty strong hatred and loathing in the OP. That undertone sure hasn't disappeared from most of the posts here, either.
Sounds like you're reading between the lines way too much. We're saying that this man was wrong, and that you sound like an asshole for calling us out when we agree that it was wrong.
Hey, we all agree he was wrong. The issue is that I take the language used to bash the guy as a bit much. I guess that's "reading between the lines too much," though.
I would like to introduce this coach to a site called OKCupid... Because, while not the best, is better than getting your underage students to play wingpeople for you!
Lazy fucker can't even get his own dates... >.<
Is it sad that you've been one of the most civil people in this thread? Things sure have gotten quite...uh...what's the word. Things have become quite "heated" here. Yes, that's the word.
You're quite the hypocrite then, screaming at us for calling this guy out. Don't try to blame us when all we're doing is saying that he's wrong, while you're freaking out over us doing such a thing.
How about you can it? Did I say I was better or more civil in my defense of the guy? No? While I'll admit I had to hold my tongue to keep from typing something really nasty and mean-spirited, I'm no angel in my angry defense. If you've been paying attention, I admit SEVERAL TIMES that this guy wasn't necessarily justified in his actions. I'm just saying that I think you guys are taking a very hardline stance on his behavior.
Now who's "reading between the lines way too much?"
-
How about you can it? Did I say I was better or more civil in my defense of the guy? No? While I'll admit I had to hold my tongue to keep from typing something really nasty and mean-spirited, I'm no angel in my angry defense.
Now who's "reading between the lines way too much?"
I must disagree, since you called us rabid feminists for our responses. And applauding Gomer for being civil states that most others were uncivil in our responses, as well, meaning that our criticism of the guy was uncivil.
-
How about you can it? Did I say I was better or more civil in my defense of the guy? No? While I'll admit I had to hold my tongue to keep from typing something really nasty and mean-spirited, I'm no angel in my angry defense.
Now who's "reading between the lines way too much?"
I must disagree, since you called us rabid feminists for our responses. And applauding Gomer for being civil states that most others were uncivil in our responses, as well, meaning that our criticism of the guy was uncivil.
Oh yeah. "Shit-eatingly smug" is totally civil. Silly me for thinking that's uncivil.
-
People get ticked off when they read articles like this, and tend to vent. If someone was screaming for him to die, be tortured, or sent to prison for ten years, I could understand your point about the use of language.
Seriously, B-man, I can't remember you ever acting like this. I understand you sympathize with shy men, but the man's behavior was not appropriate or acceptable, not to the students, not to the woman, and he pretty much made himself look like a creeper. Plus, again, he did this only six days into his new job. He knew his students for six days. How shy can you be when you're asking a group of teenage girls to run around the neighborhood and collect pretty women's photo's and phone numbers? That seems pretty damn bold to me.
-
How about you can it? Did I say I was better or more civil in my defense of the guy? No? While I'll admit I had to hold my tongue to keep from typing something really nasty and mean-spirited, I'm no angel in my angry defense.
Now who's "reading between the lines way too much?"
I must disagree, since you called us rabid feminists for our responses. And applauding Gomer for being civil states that most others were uncivil in our responses, as well, meaning that our criticism of the guy was uncivil.
Oh yeah. "Shit-eatingly smug" is totally civil. Silly me for thinking that's uncivil.
Let me go count the number of people who said that.
...
Seems to be a whopping 1.
-
Creepy.
-
I realize nobody called him a demon and said he deserves to burn in hell. However, the subtext sure seems to be there, I would think. As I cited, there's some pretty strong hatred and loathing in the OP. That undertone sure hasn't disappeared from most of the posts here, either.
Sounds like you're reading between the lines way too much. We're saying that this man was wrong, and that you sound like an asshole for calling us out when we agree that it was wrong.
Hey, we all agree he was wrong. The issue is that I take the language used to bash the guy a bit much. I guess that's "reading between the lines too much," though.
I would like to introduce this coach to a site called OKCupid... Because, while not the best, is better than getting your underage students to play wingpeople for you!
Lazy fucker can't even get his own dates... >.<
Is it sad that you've been one of the most civil people in this thread? Things sure have gotten quite...uh...what's the word. Things have become quite "heated" here. Yes, that's the word.
You're quite the hypocrite then, screaming at us for calling this guy out. Don't try to blame us when all we're doing is saying that he's wrong, while you're freaking out over us doing such a thing.
How about you can it? Did I say I was better or more civil in my defense of the guy? No? While I'll admit I had to hold my tongue to keep from typing something really nasty and mean-spirited, I'm no angel in my angry defense. If you've been paying attention, I admit SEVERAL TIMES that this guy wasn't necessarily justified in his actions. I'm just saying that I think you guys are taking a very hardline stance on his behavior.
Now who's "reading between the lines way too much?"
Ok, you're saying you know he did wrong but then go on and say "He was just shy and embarrassed! Stop being so mean to him! You guys are such assholes!" and also a bunch of unrelated crap.
For fuck's sake, what the hell are you blabbering about?
I mean your posts pretty much boil down to "I'm not saying this guy was ok, but he was just being shy. He's only 25 and she was 21, so sexual harassment couldn't have happened! You guys are demonizing him, even though I acknowledge that you haven't said anything like that". You've attacked Cait and Art for pointing out how terrible this guy is, but Gomer was ok? (I'm not attacking Gomer, it was pretty funny).
Quit this crap, ok? You are not only attacking us unreasonably, but you are also being borderline apologetic to his harassment. Saying "I know he was wrong, but anyone who is attacking him is a jackass and he didn't do anything wrong" is just like how some people say "I'm not racist, but I just think white people are better". It's complete bullshit and it's uncalled for.
-
Seriously, what Auggziliary and Nightangel said. I can't tell if you're merely pissed off about the single "smug" comment, or if you feel bad for the guy for being shy, or what. Even if smug wasn't the best choice of words, the OP and everyone else has the right to criticize the guy for doing something unbelievably inappropriate. Shyness doesn't make his actions any more acceptable.
-
Shy or not, he did something inappropriate and downright creepy. I see no point to defending what this idiot did. Though on the plus side, at least he didn't ask for upskirt shots.
-
There's no borderline about it. I AM being apologetic. I'm not saying he didn't FUCK UP. I'm just saying that I fucking read the article, and I think you guys need to stop hating so hard. I went against the sentiment that this forum decided to go with, nothing more.
Also, the racism comment is a load of shit and you know it. Stop trying to distract from the real issues here.
By the way, I could cite more issues I have with the posts people have made concerning the language used against this guy. It would take a decent amount of time to compile a post, but I could. I chose the OP because that's what started it. It was both convenient and relevant to the conversation.
-
Then please show us every single thing you have a problem with, and explain how or why you think we are "hating so hard."
-
By the way, I could cite more issues I have with the posts people have made concerning the language used against this guy.
This may be one of the shortest trips to F&B since the Reddit controversy.
-
Then please show us every single thing you have a problem with, and explain how or why you think we are "hating so hard."
You're asking a hell of a lot. I've been addressing most of the posts, with or without quoting them throughout this thread, and now you want me to make a fresh post recapping my issues? No. If you can't reread the thread, that's too bad. I'm not your servant.
I said I "could" address each issue in a new post. I never said I would, especially considering that doing so would be redundant.
-
I just reread the entire thread and seriously can't figure out what this language is that you're freaking out about. You even admitted that no one was calling him a demon or telling him to burn in hell. All we've been saying this entire time is that his actions were wrong. Can you not accept that?
-
Besides, if he's a demon he'll be burning in Hell anyway, right?
-
The problem is that you ARE saying that he didn't fuck up. You keep pulling excuses out of your ass like "He was shy", "he was only 25", or "She was 21". You keep making these wild theories to defend him, like trying to excuse him from asking a girl to go to his bedroom because "She had problems". (That's actually how a lot of sexual harassment works, they try to lure victims in by pretending to be a nice guy who wants to help their problems.) If he was actually trying to help her he could have just gone somewhere not as dangerous as his fucking hotel room.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that you "know he fucked up" if you are going to go this far to defend him and attack anyone rightfully calling him out.
-
I just reread the entire thread and seriously can't figure out what this language is that you're freaking out about. You even admitted that no one was calling him a demon or telling him to burn in hell. All we've been saying this entire time is that his actions were wrong. Can you not accept that?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subtext
That's where I got the "demon" thing. It was another way of saying you're demonizing him in my opinion. Maybe you're merely saying his actions were wrong, but that's your interpretation, and yours alone.
The problem is that you ARE saying that he didn't fuck up. You keep pulling excuses out of your ass like "He was shy", "he was only 25", or "She was 21". You keep making these wild theories to defend him, like trying to excuse him from asking a girl to go to his bedroom because "She had problems". (That's actually how a lot of sexual harassment works, they try to lure victims in by pretending to be a nice guy who wants to help their problems.) If he was actually trying to help her he could have just gone somewhere not as dangerous as his fucking hotel room.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that you "know he fucked up" if you are going to go this far to defend him and attack anyone rightfully calling him out.
You do realize that there's a distinction between calling someone wrong and flat out attacking them, right?? Defending someone does NOT mean you think their actions are okay. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Shocking, I know.
Most of my defense was an interpretation/understanding of the story in another light/perspective. Maybe in another life I could be a defense attorney.
-
So, then we shouldn't be criticizing the guy for what he did? And I don't really see another interpretation of the story. The guy sent teenagers to get pictures and phone numbers of other women. The end.
-
So, then we shouldn't be criticizing the guy for what he did? And I don't really see another interpretation of the story. The guy sent teenagers to get pictures and phone numbers of other women. The end.
Don't mince my words. There's a huge difference between criticizing a person and using nasty language and tone to do such a thing.
-
And we've come full circle. Again, I've read the whole thing multiple times and the only language you seem to have a problem with is the OP's "smug" thing.
-
I just reread the entire thread and seriously can't figure out what this language is that you're freaking out about. You even admitted that no one was calling him a demon or telling him to burn in hell. All we've been saying this entire time is that his actions were wrong. Can you not accept that?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subtext
That's where I got the "demon" thing. It was another way of saying you're demonizing him in my opinion. Maybe you're merely saying his actions were wrong, but that's your interpretation, and yours alone.
In other words, you read it into peoples' responses.
-
And we've come full circle. Again, I've read the whole thing multiple times and the only language you seem to have a problem with is the OP's "smug" thing.
Admittedly I'm probably more annoyed by the language directed at me. It's nothing too bad, but some of it is treating me like I'm some dipshit. I'm of course not exempt from using some choice language right back.
-
And we've come full circle. Again, I've read the whole thing multiple times and the only language you seem to have a problem with is the OP's "smug" thing.
Admittedly I'm probably more annoyed by the language directed at me. It's nothing too bad, but some of it is treating me like I'm some dipshit. I'm of course not exempt from using some choice language right back.
Well on that note maybe we can take this opportunity for everyone to calm down before things get further out of hand.
-
And we've come full circle. Again, I've read the whole thing multiple times and the only language you seem to have a problem with is the OP's "smug" thing.
Admittedly I'm probably more annoyed by the language directed at me. It's nothing too bad, but some of it is treating me like I'm some dipshit. I'm of course not exempt from using some choice language right back.
Well on that note maybe we can take this opportunity for everyone to calm down before things get further out of hand.
That wouldn't be a bad idea. On that note, all the vigor in talking about this was a bit invigorating. :P
Wait, is that second sentence redunant?
-
I just reread the entire thread and seriously can't figure out what this language is that you're freaking out about. You even admitted that no one was calling him a demon or telling him to burn in hell. All we've been saying this entire time is that his actions were wrong. Can you not accept that?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subtext
That's where I got the "demon" thing. It was another way of saying you're demonizing him in my opinion. Maybe you're merely saying his actions were wrong, but that's your interpretation, and yours alone.
The problem is that you ARE saying that he didn't fuck up. You keep pulling excuses out of your ass like "He was shy", "he was only 25", or "She was 21". You keep making these wild theories to defend him, like trying to excuse him from asking a girl to go to his bedroom because "She had problems". (That's actually how a lot of sexual harassment works, they try to lure victims in by pretending to be a nice guy who wants to help their problems.) If he was actually trying to help her he could have just gone somewhere not as dangerous as his fucking hotel room.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that you "know he fucked up" if you are going to go this far to defend him and attack anyone rightfully calling him out.
You do realize that there's a distinction between calling someone wrong and flat out attacking them, right?? Defending someone does NOT mean you think their actions are okay. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Shocking, I know.
Most of my defense was an interpretation/understanding of the story in another light/perspective. Maybe in another life I could be a defense attorney.
Yes, I see that distinction. I think it is you who doesn't understand that. You aren't saying that he did wrong. You're saying he was just being shy, and that this was a perfectly OK way to find a date. You also kept going on about his age, the girl's age, and a fuck ton of other excuses, that were pretty much echoes of the excuses that society makes to excuse rape. ("At least she wasn't 12", "He was just being a man", "He wasn't creepy though, he had a job and had never been to jail").
Think about it. What did you defend him from? The girl who was harassed, the women who were creeped on, and everyone here who called him out for his actions. You did this by using those excuses. I don't care how many times you've said you know what he did was wrong, it you're going to attack people for saying that his actions were wrong, then yes, you are defending his actions.
Well fuck I was about to post then everyone wanted to calm down.
Honestly I'm still a bit pissed though. B-Man, this shit was seriously uncalled for.
-
Well, I don't know all the details, but from what I understand, the 21-year-old was offended by the use of the word "child" in a text. When he called her a loser - not very "suave" of him - she figured that dealing with the issue by talking to him wasn't the way to handle it and went behind his back.
You know, there's nothing about him pursuing other women in the article. At least, as far as I can tell - may have to reread it. I just think that maybe he made a poor choice of words, and that the person he chose to send those words too took said words extremely harshly and decided to go to his supervisor about it. Unless there's more to it then him using the words "child" and "loser," then I refuse to believe that this woman wasn't making this a bigger problem then it needed to be. What, you've never made stupid off-hand remarks before?
The only really "creepy" thing was that his advances were unsolicited. That's probably at the core of the "harrassment" issue. That's where he fucked up, I guess. He came on too strongly and too suddenly, and tried to talk to her via a digital medium instead of in person. They had "agreed to meet" but then the woman and her friend talked and they came to the conclusion that he was nothing but a creep and not worth the meeting. Of course, you could argue that the decision to meet at a bar was a poor one, but what was he supposed to suggest? Coffee shop?
Shame he had to resign. I'm not sure what would've happened after the school reviewed his actions, but losing a job for any reason - especially in this economy - has to be a real shitter. Furthermore, he has the baggage of being someone involved with "sexual harassment." I kind of pity the guy, to be honest. This is gonna fuck over his life more than it should, I wager.
-
Well, I don't know all the details, but from what I understand, the 21-year-old was offended by the use of the word "child" in a text. When he called her a loser - not very "suave" of him - she figured that dealing with the issue by talking to him wasn't the way to handle it and went behind his back.
It's not about going behind his back. It's about her realizing that what this man was doing seemed extremely wrong and creepy, and because he worked at a high school, she wanted to ensure that he wasn't doing similar things with students.
You know, there's nothing about him pursuing other women in the article. At least, as far as I can tell - may have to reread it. I just think that maybe he made a poor choice of words, and that the person he chose to send those words too took said words extremely harshly and decided to go to his supervisor about it. Unless there's more to it then him using the words "child" and "loser," then I refuse to believe that this woman wasn't making this a bigger problem then it needed to be. What, you've never made stupid off-hand remarks before?
Even if he didn't pursue any other women, what he asked his team to do was extremely inappropriate and he rightfully had to resign because of it.
-
Well, I don't know all the details, but from what I understand, the 21-year-old was offended by the use of the word "child" in a text. When he called her a loser - not very "suave" of him - she figured that dealing with the issue by talking to him wasn't the way to handle it and went behind his back.
It's not about going behind his back. It's about her realizing that what this man was doing seemed extremely wrong and creepy, and because he worked at a high school, she wanted to ensure that he wasn't doing similar things with students.
Slippery slope fallacy much? I think you'd have to be reaching to say he's fucking/hitting on his students without evidence, regardless of his history.
You know, there's nothing about him pursuing other women in the article. At least, as far as I can tell - may have to reread it. I just think that maybe he made a poor choice of words, and that the person he chose to send those words too took said words extremely harshly and decided to go to his supervisor about it. Unless there's more to it then him using the words "child" and "loser," then I refuse to believe that this woman wasn't making this a bigger problem then it needed to be. What, you've never made stupid off-hand remarks before?
Even if he didn't pursue any other women, what he asked his team to do was extremely inappropriate and he rightfully had to resign because of it.
I know you didn't catch it because I was editing, but I addressed what I think is the core of the problem in the very next paragraph.
-
You know, there's nothing about him pursuing other women in the article.
From the original article:
Instead of fielding flies, the players were farmed out to snag him a date, according to a string of text messages he sent to one of the young women targeted in the hunt.
The bold is the part that concerns me. Not to mention that he told the students to find him photos and numbers of cute GIRLS with an "S". I doubt the teens brought him back just one phone number. The woman in the article was probably just the only one to complain. If he called other women, they could have just blocked him and forgot about him, couldn't they? Or the others might have been in a relationship, so he simply moved on. I realize it's conjecture, but the plural seems to indicate that more than one woman was involved in this, at least to me.
-
You know, there's nothing about him pursuing other women in the article.
From the original article:
Instead of fielding flies, the players were farmed out to snag him a date, according to a string of text messages he sent to one of the young women targeted in the hunt.
The bold is the part that concerns me. Not to mention that he told the students to find him photos and numbers of cute GIRLS with an "S". I doubt the teens brought him back just one phone number. The woman in the article was probably just the only one to complain. If he called other women, they could have just blocked him and forgot about him, couldn't they? Or the others might have been in a relationship, so he simply moved on. I realize it's conjecture, but the plural seems to indicate that more than one woman was involved in this, at least to me.
Fair enough. As far as we know, this was the only one he pursued seriously (or got anywhere with).
-
Well, I don't know all the details, but from what I understand, the 21-year-old was offended by the use of the word "child" in a text. When he called her a loser - not very "suave" of him - she figured that dealing with the issue by talking to him wasn't the way to handle it and went behind his back.
It's not about going behind his back. It's about her realizing that what this man was doing seemed extremely wrong and creepy, and because he worked at a high school, she wanted to ensure that he wasn't doing similar things with students.
Slippery slope fallacy much? I think you'd have to be reaching to say he's fucking/hitting on his students without evidence, regardless of his history.
So the students go up to her and explain their mission. She gives her number and is later texted by the guy. After several texts and a talk with her friend, she starts to realize the creepiness of the situation. She tells the principal of the school about it. And that's somehow wrong? If a group of students came up to me and said that they were collecting pics and phone numbers for their coach, I think I'd fucking report it, too. How is that okay, in any way? How is it okay for the guy to send students to do that? Why should it NOT be reported?
I know you didn't catch it because I was editing, but I addressed what I think is the core of the problem in the very next paragraph.
You're saying that the ONLY creepy thing is that his texts were unsolicited? REALLY? So it's perfectly fine that the guy sent a bunch of students to collect women's numbers and pictures for him? Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that.
-
Well, I don't know all the details, but from what I understand, the 21-year-old was offended by the use of the word "child" in a text. When he called her a loser - not very "suave" of him - she figured that dealing with the issue by talking to him wasn't the way to handle it and went behind his back.
It's not about going behind his back. It's about her realizing that what this man was doing seemed extremely wrong and creepy, and because he worked at a high school, she wanted to ensure that he wasn't doing similar things with students.
Slippery slope fallacy much? I think you'd have to be reaching to say he's fucking/hitting on his students without evidence, regardless of his history.
So the students go up to her and explain their mission. She gives her number and is later texted by the guy. After several texts and a talk with her friend, she starts to realize the creepiness of the situation. She tells the principal of the school about it. And that's somehow wrong? If a group of students came up to me and said that they were collected pics and phone numbers for their coach, I think I'd fucking report it, too. How is that okay, in any way? How is it okay for the guy to send students to do that? Why should it NOT be reported?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be reported. I'm saying there's a difference between asking your students to get numbers and photos for you and hitting on said students. Wasn't that your original beef, or are you shifting the goalposts now?
I know you didn't catch it because I was editing, but I addressed what I think is the core of the problem in the very next paragraph.
You're saying that the ONLY creepy thing is that his texts were unsolicited? REALLY? So it's perfectly fine that the guy sent a bunch of students to collect women's numbers and pictures for him? Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that.
Well, his methods of using his students was a bit questionable, sure. I was just addressing the core of what was considered harassment. I apologize for not addressing his methods.
-
I'm not saying it shouldn't be reported. I'm saying there's a difference between asking your students to get numbers and photos for you and hitting on said students. Wasn't that your original beef, or are you shifting the goalposts now?
Um, I'm not shifting goalposts in any way. You're the one who said it was wrong of her to "go behind his back" and do such a thing, and I'm trying to figure out why you said that. You said that was wrong, and now you say that it should've been reported. Which is it?
Well, his methods of using his students was a bit questionable, sure. I was just addressing the core of what was considered harassment. I apologize for not addressing his methods.
Beyond questionable. But yes, the unsolicited messages are another part of that.
-
I'm not saying it shouldn't be reported. I'm saying there's a difference between asking your students to get numbers and photos for you and hitting on said students. Wasn't that your original beef, or are you shifting the goalposts now?
Um, I'm not shifting goalposts in any way. You're the one who said it was wrong of her to "go behind his back" and do such a thing, and I'm trying to figure out why you said that. You said that was wrong, and now you say that it should've been reported. Which is it?
What about talking to him directly? Is that not how to handle it? I realize that such a prospect may not have been comfortable for her, which is why she did what she did. Having said that, she coped with the situation by going to an external source rather than trying to discuss it with the coach. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that approach, although it may have been the best given the circumstances.
Well, his methods of using his students was a bit questionable, sure. I was just addressing the core of what was considered harassment. I apologize for not addressing his methods.
Beyond questionable. But yes, the unsolicited messages are another part of that.
Yeah, his actions probably made her uncomfortable with confronting him directly, is what I'm thinking.
-
*fires into the air*
And the peacemaker has arrived.
B-Man: The fuck are you doing man? Seriously? Never in my life have I seen you act this way yet I've seen you act like a little bitch about shit that in the long run, matters not. And both times it was against Cait. Hmmmm...me thinks there's a pattern here.
In this thread, I saw you immediately go on the offensive, pointing out everything wrong this moron did and then saying it was ok. It's not ok to use kids you've only known for 6 whole days to go out and pick up chicks for you. Shy or not, and I think this guy was not fucking shy at all, it's the creepiest thing I've seen in awhile. Or something that I haven't participated in. Seriously dude, the fuck is going on in your life you have to see a fight where there is none?
Ironbite-everything ok on your end man?
-
Everything's peachy, bitey. It's called debate. Get used to it. What? I can't be passionate about an issue in an attempt to reach a rational conversation about this issue?
If you notice, I've been defending my position this entire time, but I've cooled down and better explained what I think on this matter. I'm not some loveshy goon.
-
What about talking to him directly? Is that not how to handle it? I realize that such a prospect may not have been comfortable for her, which is why she did what she did. Having said that, she coped with the situation by going to an external source rather than trying to discuss it with the coach. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that approach, although it may have been the best given the circumstances.
I'd agree if this were a mere argument between two people, but it's not. It's a case where a man working at a high school was using said high school's students to find women for him. It's not her responsibility to educate him on why such a thing is wrong and why it should cease immediately. That's his own responsibility. He chose to act in such a way, and now he has to pay for it. She didn't go to the principal to say, "Ew, this creepy guy has been texting me." She did it because the coach was inappropriately using the students.
-
*fires into the air*
And the peacemaker has arrived.
B-Man: The fuck are you doing man? Seriously? Never in my life have I seen you act this way yet I've seen you act like a little bitch about shit that in the long run, matters not. And both times it was against Cait. Hmmmm...me thinks there's a pattern here.
In this thread, I saw you immediately go on the offensive, pointing out everything wrong this moron did and then saying it was ok. It's not ok to use kids you've only known for 6 whole days to go out and pick up chicks for you. Shy or not, and I think this guy was not fucking shy at all, it's the creepiest thing I've seen in awhile. Or something that I haven't participated in. Seriously dude, the fuck is going on in your life you have to see a fight where there is none?
Ironbite-everything ok on your end man?
Concerning my anger towards Cait: What the fuck do you expect? She was the one who originated this thread, and was the one that started it with such a nasty tone. I think she deserves being called out for that.
-
Because how dare we have a nasty tone towards the guy who did this. (Not that I think it was even arguably nasty, anyway.)
-
Because how dare we have a nasty tone towards the guy who did this. (Not that I think it was even arguably nasty, anyway.)
And how dare I strike back? It's a two way street, Sleeps.
-
Because how dare we have a nasty tone towards the guy who did this. (Not that I think it was even arguably nasty, anyway.)
And how dare I strike back? It's a two way street, Sleeps.
You make no sense. I really no longer understand what your goal is, here. You jump from one point to another, and you still don't seem to be able to pinpoint why you're striking back, or what the problem is with calling this guy out.
-
I guess I strike back because I'm the only one doing so. If I say nothing, it'll just become a fucking circlejerk bashing the guy for being a stupid loser. Excuse me for dissenting from your precious opinions.
Also, I STATED MY PROBLEM WITH WHAT I HAD ISSUE WITH. Several. Fucking. Times.
You know what? I'm getting nowhere with this bullshit. I debate if it's even worth reiterating my issues. Is it that hard to follow my [evolving] line of thought on this issue? Is it? Is it really? I know this is five pages now, but is my reasoning THAT HARD TO GRASP?
I think I'm just gonna go do something else, because this shit is making me facepalm pretty fucking hard. I've been as clear as I can with my evolving thinking. Should I just repeat the same shit ad naseum until I pound the same message into your brain? Is the fact that I'm discussing shit with you and growing in my stance that hard to follow? Should I shout from the top of the roof the same lines verbatim repeatedly?
If you can't follow this thread and what's happening, then I can't fucking help you.
-
I guess I strike back because I'm the only one doing so. If I say nothing, it'll just become a fucking circlejerk bashing the guy for being a stupid loser. Excuse me for dissenting from your precious opinions.
I don't give a shit if you have a dissenting opinion. But if I don't think it's valid, I'm going to argue against it. And how the hell do you know what the thread would've become? The only person explicitly calling him pathetic was Art.
Also, I STATED MY PROBLEM WITH WHAT I HAD ISSUE WITH. Several. Fucking. Times.
You know what? I'm getting nowhere with this bullshit. I debate if it's even worth reiterating my issues. Is it that hard to follow my [evolving] line of thought on this issue? Is it? Is it really? I know this is five pages now, but is my reasoning THAT HARD TO GRASP?
I think I'm just gonna go do something else, because this shit is making me facepalm pretty fucking hard. I've been as clear as I can with my evolving thinking. Should I just repeat the same shit ad naseum until I pound the same message into your brain? Is the fact that I'm discussing shit with you and growing in my stance that hard to follow? Should I shout from the top of the roof the same lines verbatim repeatedly?
If you can't follow this thread and what's happening, then I can't fucking help you.
Dude, I've followed the entire fucking thread and know what arguments you've made. And yet you still don't seem to want to accept our arguments. But go do whatever the hell you want, I couldn't care less.
-
What is this I don't even...
Look, minors being involved or not, it's still an incredibly skeevy move for a person in a position of authority to abuse said authority and use the people over whom he is in charge--for whatever, be it a sport or a retail manager or a boss or a teacher or anything at all--for personal gain. Especially when it involves unsolicited, well, soliciting of people. It's CREEPY. It's INAPPROPRIATE. It's NOT OKAY. Whether he's too shy to meet women elsewhere or not, he still abused his position as a coach in order to get the girls on his team to pick up women for him. The fact that they're underage in addition is just an extra bonus fail because it would STILL have been terrible even if everybody involved was in their thirties.
As for calling him 'shit-eatingly smug' about it, I'm gonna stand by that. This sounds pretty smug to me:
“Genius, great way to meet a girl, use my girls lol,” he wrote in another text, patting himself on the back for the scavenger hunt.
The guy did something incredibly inappropriate, just SIX DAYS after starting this new job, after having left the old one because he was caught suggesting one of his players meet him alone. It's certainly POSSIBLE that he meant it only in a purely platonic and appropriate mentoring way, but it doesn't seem likely considering what he did here. Even if he DID mean it innocently, it doesn't require great mental acuity to understand that it may be perceived as inappropriate for an adult to tell a high school girl that he wanted to 'meet her alone'. Admittedly we don't know what all happened there, but that doesn't make what he did with the 'scavenger hunt' any more okay.
To address the point of apparently insulting the softball team's intelligence by wondering why they went along with it: this is bullshit and it's a totally legitimate thing to question. Teenagers are, whether you like it or not, generally impressionable so it isn't a huge leap to wonder if the just assumed it was okay because their coach--an adult, a grownup, a person who possibly in their minds likely knows what is and isn't okay--wanted them to do it. People can simply 'not know better' about something at any age. All I was wondering was why the girls didn't think to question it since from my perspective it seems like a really inappropriate request. Equally likely is the girls were afraid to speak up for fear of possibly getting into trouble or not being allowed to play.
Just because nobody else came forward to complain about the coach doesn't mean that nobody was bothered by what happened. Fear of criticism--and fear, coincidentally, of being honed in on by apologists who use your exact arguments, B-Man--can lead victims of sexual harassment to stay quiet about their experiences. The fact that the young woman was initially somewhat flattered by the attention before it occurred to her that he was being pretty skeevy STILL doesn't make his actions okay.
And finally: YES, it actually kinda bothers me that the guy used the wrong 'your/you're' in a text message. He's my age. He's a grownup. He's a coach at a high school. He should know better. It's a huge pet peeve of mine that people make such silly mistakes when they should have learned better more than a decade ago. It's not anywhere near as bad as the whole sexual harassment thing, but I still find it annoying just because I think it looks incredibly stupid to make such silly mistakes.
-
*looks into her crystal ball*
I... I think I see a shape forming in the mist... is that Flame and Burn in this thread's future?
-
@Sleepy: Oh, you little...I swear, you're testing my patience.
Yeah. I've not conceded any points at all during this debate. I've just said the same shit over and over instead of actually working to understand your arguments. Haven't tried having a rational conversation at all! I disagree with you, which means I've just been a fucking iron wall of stubbornness. Yep. That's me. Haven't even tried to say "Okay, I can see your point on that matter!" Nope. Not at all.
@Caitshidhe: Holy shit! A wild rational, well-thought-out rebuttal appeared. I commend you for addressing my points without it devolving into something stupid and pointless. :)
-
@Sleepy: Oh, you little...I swear, you're testing my patience.
Yeah. I've not conceded any points at all during this debate. I've just said the same shit over and over instead of actually working to understand your arguments. Not at all. I disagree with you, which means I've just been a fucking iron wall of stubbornness. Yep. That's me. Haven't even tried to say "Okay, I can see your point on that matter!" Nope. Not at all.
You're testing mine, quite frankly. Yes, you've conceded some points. But others you've outright ignored.
@Caitshidhe: Holy shit! A wild rational, well-thought-out rebuttal appeared. I commend you for addressing my points without it devolving into something stupid and pointless. :)
Well-thought-out indeed, but again, you seem to be overlooking points made on previous pages.
-
@Sleepy: Oh, you little...I swear, you're testing my patience.
Yeah. I've not conceded any points at all during this debate. I've just said the same shit over and over instead of actually working to understand your arguments. Not at all. I disagree with you, which means I've just been a fucking iron wall of stubbornness. Yep. That's me. Haven't even tried to say "Okay, I can see your point on that matter!" Nope. Not at all.
You're testing mine, quite frankly. Yes, you've conceded some points. But others you've outright ignored.
@Caitshidhe: Holy shit! A wild rational, well-thought-out rebuttal appeared. I commend you for addressing my points without it devolving into something stupid and pointless. :)
Well-thought-out indeed, but again, you seem to be overlooking points made on previous pages.
Such as? I don't ask you to reiterate the entire thread since I won't reiterate all of my points (especially the ones I've abandoned), but can you tell me what I'm "ignoring?" No? Then don't say that.
-
Oh for fuck's sake.
You completely ignored my posts. Except for a few out of context stuff (The analogy of you and the "I'm not racist but..."). Seriously, you are like that. You're making every fucking excuse for this man, and attacking everyone here(even the victim in the story for taking action against his disgusting actions), and yet you think you're the hero in this because you add "I know the guy's actions were wrong but..." at the beginning and end of most of your posts.
-
Off the top of my head, I addressed the quote that you stated insulted the students' intellect, which you ignored. You didn't state what the other interpretation of the story was. You didn't address my post where I stated that the 21-year-old woman could not confront him directly about this, due to the other students being involved.
Overall, I'm mostly annoyed that you threw such a bitchfit over this, and that it took so long to reach this point.
-
Oh for fuck's sake.
You completely ignored my posts. Except for a few out of context stuff (The analogy of you and the "I'm not racist but..."). Seriously, you are like that. You're making every fucking excuse for this man, and attacking everyone here(even the victim in the story for taking action against his disgusting actions), and yet you think you're the hero in this because you add "I know the guy's actions were wrong but..." at the beginning and end of most of your posts.
Totally like racism! Not.
As far as "attacking everyone here," I'm fighting against pretty much everyone in the fucking thread. That also may explain some points I missed. I'd like to see YOU hold a conversation with half a dozen people and address all the points.
She took action. I said I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE DID IT. Shit. Jesus fuck you're dense, not to mention hypocritical. Because I didn't explicitly say something about what you said, I didn't address what you said at all. I'm not the only one who's completely ignored a few posts, it seems.
Also, I stand by thinking that it sucks that this guy is out of work? I guess that makes me a horrible human. It was his own doing in the end, but I do question how intentionally malicious his actions were. In other words, he was a dipshit, okay? What, I can't assume his motives or actions for his behavior without becoming akin to an apologist for racism? Are you for real right now?
Shouldn't be surprised, knowing this place, I guess. Remember, you're a piece of shit if you do something racist, whether or not it was you being a dipshit or actively malicious. There's no fucking difference. Awareness of how much of a fucknut you're being has NO possible bearing on how we should interpret actions.
Just another wonderful day at FSTDT.
The other interpretation was the guys motives. Was he being a douchecock, or a clueless dope that could need some counseling? Just because he has a history of being stupid doesn't mean he doesn't have issues that should be looked at by a shrink, perhaps.
The students...well, using students IS a conflict of interest, I will admit. I repeat. I'd like to see you take shit from half a dozen people on your day off and not miss a few points.
-
Oh for fuck's sake.
You completely ignored my posts. Except for a few out of context stuff (The analogy of you and the "I'm not racist but..."). Seriously, you are like that. You're making every fucking excuse for this man, and attacking everyone here(even the victim in the story for taking action against his disgusting actions), and yet you think you're the hero in this because you add "I know the guy's actions were wrong but..." at the beginning and end of most of your posts.
Totally like racism! Not.
As far as "attacking everyone here," I'm fighting against pretty much everyone in the fucking thread. That also may explain some points I missed. I'd like to see YOU hold a conversation with half a dozen people and address all the points.
She took action. I said I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE DID IT. Shit. Jesus fuck you're dense, not to mention hypocritical. Because I didn't explicitly say something about what you said, I didn't address what you said at all. I'm not the only one who's completely ignored a few posts, it seems.
Also, I stand by thinking that it sucks that this guy is out of work? I guess that makes me a horrible human. It was his own doing in the end, but I do question how intentionally malicious his actions were. In other words, he was a dipshit, okay? What, I can't assume his motives or actions for his behavior without becoming akin to an apologist for racism? Are you for real right now?
Shouldn't be surprised, knowing this place, I guess. Remember, you're a piece of shit if you do something racist, whether or not it was you being a dipshit or actively malicious. There's no fucking difference. Awareness of how much of a fucknut you're being has NO possible bearing on how we should interpret actions.
Just another wonderful day at FSTDT.
Did I ever say you were being racist? I was comparing you to the "I'm not racist/sexist/etc but..." meme, or the "No offense but..." types. Is that not justified with the way you've been acting here? Jesus fucking christ. Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context just to ignore a point. WOW. just WOW.
-
Oh for fuck's sake.
You completely ignored my posts. Except for a few out of context stuff (The analogy of you and the "I'm not racist but..."). Seriously, you are like that. You're making every fucking excuse for this man, and attacking everyone here(even the victim in the story for taking action against his disgusting actions), and yet you think you're the hero in this because you add "I know the guy's actions were wrong but..." at the beginning and end of most of your posts.
Totally like racism! Not.
As far as "attacking everyone here," I'm fighting against pretty much everyone in the fucking thread. That also may explain some points I missed. I'd like to see YOU hold a conversation with half a dozen people and address all the points.
She took action. I said I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE DID IT. Shit. Jesus fuck you're dense, not to mention hypocritical. Because I didn't explicitly say something about what you said, I didn't address what you said at all. I'm not the only one who's completely ignored a few posts, it seems.
Also, I stand by thinking that it sucks that this guy is out of work? I guess that makes me a horrible human. It was his own doing in the end, but I do question how intentionally malicious his actions were. In other words, he was a dipshit, okay? What, I can't assume his motives or actions for his behavior without becoming akin to an apologist for racism? Are you for real right now?
Shouldn't be surprised, knowing this place, I guess. Remember, you're a piece of shit if you do something racist, whether or not it was you being a dipshit or actively malicious. There's no fucking difference. Awareness of how much of a fucknut you're being has NO possible bearing on how we should interpret actions.
Just another wonderful day at FSTDT.
Did I ever say you were being racist? I was comparing you to the "I'm not racist/sexist/etc but..." meme, or the "No offense but..." types. Is that not justified with the way you've been acting here? Jesus fucking christ. Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context just to ignore a point. WOW. just WOW.
I didn't fucking say that you were calling me "racist," now did I?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/akin
I know you don't seem to give two shits about my words, but every single one is important, mmkay?
-
Also, I stand by thinking that it sucks that this guy is out of work? I guess that makes me a horrible human.
Because we all totally said this.
It was his own doing in the end, but I do question how intentionally malicious his actions were. In other words, he was a dipshit, okay?
We never really addressed this in the thread. I don't recall anyone saying he was being intentionally malicious, just that he was wrong.
Shouldn't be surprised, knowing this place, I guess. Remember, you're a piece of shit if you do something racist, whether or not it was you being a dipshit or actively malicious. There's no fucking difference. Awareness of how much of a fucknut you're being has NO possible bearing on how we should interpret actions.
Just another wonderful day at FSTDT.
Again, you're assuming stuff. We never even addressed this in the thread.
The other interpretation was the guys motives. Was he being a douchecock, or a clueless dope that could need some counseling?
Right-o. I think it can be both.
The students...well, using students IS a conflict of interest, I will admit. I repeat. I'd like to see you take shit from half a dozen people on your day off and not miss a few points.
I know, I just listed them in response to your "such as?"
-
Oh for fuck's sake.
You completely ignored my posts. Except for a few out of context stuff (The analogy of you and the "I'm not racist but..."). Seriously, you are like that. You're making every fucking excuse for this man, and attacking everyone here(even the victim in the story for taking action against his disgusting actions), and yet you think you're the hero in this because you add "I know the guy's actions were wrong but..." at the beginning and end of most of your posts.
Totally like racism! Not.
As far as "attacking everyone here," I'm fighting against pretty much everyone in the fucking thread. That also may explain some points I missed. I'd like to see YOU hold a conversation with half a dozen people and address all the points.
She took action. I said I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE DID IT. Shit. Jesus fuck you're dense, not to mention hypocritical. Because I didn't explicitly say something about what you said, I didn't address what you said at all. I'm not the only one who's completely ignored a few posts, it seems.
Also, I stand by thinking that it sucks that this guy is out of work? I guess that makes me a horrible human. It was his own doing in the end, but I do question how intentionally malicious his actions were. In other words, he was a dipshit, okay? What, I can't assume his motives or actions for his behavior without becoming akin to an apologist for racism? Are you for real right now?
Shouldn't be surprised, knowing this place, I guess. Remember, you're a piece of shit if you do something racist, whether or not it was you being a dipshit or actively malicious. There's no fucking difference. Awareness of how much of a fucknut you're being has NO possible bearing on how we should interpret actions.
Just another wonderful day at FSTDT.
Did I ever say you were being racist? I was comparing you to the "I'm not racist/sexist/etc but..." meme, or the "No offense but..." types. Is that not justified with the way you've been acting here? Jesus fucking christ. Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context just to ignore a point. WOW. just WOW.
I didn't fucking say that you were calling me "racist," now did I?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/akin
Read what I bolded.
Now if I'm not being racist, how exactly isn't my comparison not justified?
-
@Sleepy: Well, addressed or not, my defense falls back on the point of the guys motives, I think. So I thought it was relevant. Hell, my whole line of thinking relies on taking this whole article (both his and her motives) at more than just face value.
Also, the work thing was just personal musings/feeling sorry for this guy. Sexual harassment is going to follow him wherever he goes. As a repeat offender, it's gonna make things even worse. I pity him. I'd never want to be in his shoes.
@Augzilliary? What? "If I'm not being racist?" Your pronoun usage is unclear as all hell. Actually, your double negative is even more confusing. Care to rephrase that?
-
@Sleepy: Well, addressed or not, my defense falls back on the point of the guys motives, I think. So I thought it was relevant. Hell, my whole line of thinking relies on taking this whole article (both his and her motives) at more than just face value.
Also, the work thing was just personal musings/feeling sorry for this guy. Sexual harassment is going to follow him wherever he goes. As a repeat offender, it's gonna make things even worse. I pity him. I'd never want to be in his shoes.
@Augzilliary? What? "If I'm not being racist?" Your pronoun usage is unclear as all hell.
Seriously why the fuck are you pitying the man who sexually harassed people? You didn't just "not take the article at face value", you completely made up a ton of shit, like saying that he was shy or that everyone else was taking everything out of context.
I meant "If I'm not accusing you of being racist..."
-
B-Man, this is your official warning for violating "Don't Be A Dick" rule.
Address the points given by others in as civil a manner as you can (i.e. with a minimum of flaming).
Right from the start of your posts in this thread, there has been little to nothing civil about your posting behavior. If you can't debate without having to paint the other side as villainous or malicious, then it's not a debate.
Calm down. Reassess your posts. And stop being antagonistic towards other forum members.
Thank you.
-
@Sleepy: Well, addressed or not, my defense falls back on the point of the guys motives, I think. So I thought it was relevant. Hell, my whole line of thinking relies on taking this whole article (both his and her motives) at more than just face value.
Also, the work thing was just personal musings/feeling sorry for this guy. Sexual harassment is going to follow him wherever he goes. As a repeat offender, it's gonna make things even worse. I pity him. I'd never want to be in his shoes.
@Augzilliary? What? "If I'm not being racist?" Your pronoun usage is unclear as all hell.
Seriously why the fuck are you pitying the man who sexually harassed people? You didn't just "not take the article at face value", you completely made up a ton of shit, like saying that he was shy or that everyone else was taking everything out of context.
I meant "If I'm not accusing you of being racist..."
On the racism thing, (which is a web of WTF), I think by comparing it to a sensitive issue like racism, you're attempting to shut down debate...I think. You're pressing the "hot button" to try to make me seem as though I have no ground to stand on without actually addressing my thoughts. Luckily for you, others in this thread have actually given me reasoned responses.
Did I make up shit? Yeah. Did the people bashing him make up shit, too? Yeah? Guess what, we don't know either of these people. We interpolate the data from what the article told us. What else can we do from a single fucking story that merely reports the facts? We've each backed up our lines of reasoning by quoting that article, no? Isn't that what I was doing way back earlier in this thread? I wasn't just pulling out my reasoning out of my ass. I was looking at what the article said and trying to make sense of what happened as I saw it. Admittedly I was provoked to defend this guy by the OP having such a negative slant and wondering what all the fuss was about, but I was just interpreting the article, not "making a bunch of shit up." At least, I wasn't making shit up about this guys character any more than anybody here.
-
@Sleepy: Well, addressed or not, my defense falls back on the point of the guys motives, I think. So I thought it was relevant. Hell, my whole line of thinking relies on taking this whole article (both his and her motives) at more than just face value.
Also, the work thing was just personal musings/feeling sorry for this guy. Sexual harassment is going to follow him wherever he goes. As a repeat offender, it's gonna make things even worse. I pity him. I'd never want to be in his shoes.
@Augzilliary? What? "If I'm not being racist?" Your pronoun usage is unclear as all hell.
Seriously why the fuck are you pitying the man who sexually harassed people? You didn't just "not take the article at face value", you completely made up a ton of shit, like saying that he was shy or that everyone else was taking everything out of context.
I meant "If I'm not accusing you of being racist..."
On the racism thing, (which is a web of WTF), I think by comparing it to a sensitive issue like racism, you're attempting to shut down debate...I think. You're pressing the "hot button" to try to make me seem as though I have no ground to stand on without actually addressing my thoughts. Luckily for you, others in this thread have actually given me reasoned responses.
Did I make up shit? Yeah. Did the people bashing him make up shit, too? Yeah? Guess what, we don't know either of these people. We interpolate the data from what the article told us. What else can we do from a single fucking story that merely reports the facts? We've each backed up our lines of reasoning by quoting that article, no? Isn't that what I was doing way back earlier in this thread? I wasn't just pulling out my reasoning out of my ass. I was looking at what the article said and trying to make sense of what happened as I saw it. Admittedly I was provoked to defend this guy by the OP having such a negative slant and wondering what all the fuss was about, but I was just interpreting the article, not "making a bunch of shit up." At least, I wasn't making shit up about this guys character any more than anybody here.
-You still haven't addressed the rest of my argument.
-Is this issue not a "Hot button" issue? It deals with sexual harassment.
-When did the people "bashing" him make up shit? And why is bashing him wrong?
-Taking your info from the ACTUAL STORY is nothing like making an elaborate and very unreasonable biased theory up, hardly based on the article. That's not "interpreting" at all.
-
@Sleepy: Well, addressed or not, my defense falls back on the point of the guys motives, I think. So I thought it was relevant. Hell, my whole line of thinking relies on taking this whole article (both his and her motives) at more than just face value.
Also, the work thing was just personal musings/feeling sorry for this guy. Sexual harassment is going to follow him wherever he goes. As a repeat offender, it's gonna make things even worse. I pity him. I'd never want to be in his shoes.
I'd never want to be in his shoes either, but I don't know how sorry I can feel for him, especially if he's a repeat offender.
Also, I'm honestly not sure what we have made up.
-
Fuck this thread.
Gloat or call me out all you want, but I'm not posting here anymore. It's not worth my effort. This is the last thing I'll say here.
-
Finally.
-
Well then.
-
*frowns at her crystal ball and throws it in the trash*
So much for THAT prediction...
-
I'll still go ahead and ask this question even though I know it's not likely I'll get an answer:
ASIDE FROM my saying the guy was acting shit-eatingly smug for patting himself on the back over his terrible plot to meet women (an opinion I still stand by, because frankly that's how it seemed to me), what specifically in my original post did you find so terribly objectionable? What specifically did I say that was so uncalled for and cruel? Yes, I read your posts, at least twice, and I cannot figure out what specifically offended you about my original post (other people's responses to your reaction notwithstanding) except that I was bothered and offended by someone taking advantage of his subordinates.
-
I'll still go ahead and ask this question even though I know it's not likely I'll get an answer:
ASIDE FROM my saying the guy was acting shit-eatingly smug for patting himself on the back over his terrible plot to meet women (an opinion I still stand by, because frankly that's how it seemed to me), what specifically in my original post did you find so terribly objectionable? What specifically did I say that was so uncalled for and cruel? Yes, I read your posts, at least twice, and I cannot figure out what specifically offended you about my original post (other people's responses to your reaction notwithstanding) except that I was bothered and offended by someone taking advantage of his subordinates.
Without breaking his promise not to post here, B-Man wanted to apologize for the shit that's been going on lately.
Here's the apology thread: http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3730.0