Old guy Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 5 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said: Our society has become very polarized in its thinking(s). Human beings have good points and bad points; none of us is perfect (and few of us are completely and incorrigibly evil). That was one thing that occurred to me as I read today's Post-Dispatch column by Ben Frederickson about Terence Phillips's Title 9 turmoil is that the fact that he has had those women accuse him of some terrible things doesn't mean that he hasn't also done some things that exhibited leadership. Bill Cosby did some awful things, but that doesn't completely negate the good television and comedy that characterized his earlier work -- at least, not in my mind. I can still watch The Cosby Show and appreciate it, even though I know Bill later went rogue. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. had his slip-ups. I do think men should treat women in a manner that respects their feelings, regardless of social position, but I also think women should take responsibility for their decisions, if they're going to demand "equality." (Women's pay should be the same as men's pay for the same responsibilities, but...) If women are going to demand to be "equal," while still happily profiting from whatever sex appeal they can levy, then they should accept the consequences of their decisions to engage in sexual activity. Of course, it's unacceptable for a man to coerce a woman into sexual activity because of what she wears or because of her appearance, but if a woman initiates a sexual encounter or agrees to one, then she can't holler "rape" and still be taken seriously regarding equality. I liked this quote but if anyone paid much attention to it, I did not notice. So I wanted to give your ideas a second go, perhaps from a different angle. If you think of a standard distribution curve, the normal distribution of just about everything comes more or less in a bell shaped curve. Mostly it is int he middle, but there are legs on both sides as well. If we think of other human beings, both male and female, most of us are generally decent social human beings. There are exceptions on both sides of the curve. And even when we look at a single human being, either male or female, everyone is also mostly OK with exceptions on both sides. It is the exceptions that makes someone really a good person or a bad person. I think every excess is a chance to bring things back to the middle of the curve, but oftentimes this is not the way it happens. I think this process and the exhausting 282 pages of imagination and broken hopes that make this thread what it is, reflects a lot of the extremes (more of a single extreme than both extremes in this case) and the reactions to the extremes that have been brought out. I think there was, at least early on, an opportunity to act in a much more moderate way, but this opportunity went up in smoke long ago. I think this process provided a chance to demonstrate moderation and justice applied equally to both sides, and instead it has turned into a revenge play. Too bad. I do not think the follow up consequences will go away soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 52 minutes ago, brianstl said: This town could really use a Bryan Burwell or Joe Strauss right about now. Two guys that had the interest in the program, experience in the media and the credentials needed to survive the backlash in today's environment that writing honestly about this issue would require. This isn't meant as a shot at BenFred and Hochman. If I was in their shoes I would have to really consider treading lightly, also. Brian, where has Bernie Milkasz been on this topic? Have you heard anything on his morning show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenBoy10 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Adman said: Brian, where has Bernie Milkasz been on this topic? Have you heard anything on his morning show? Last week he said after this commercial break I will talk a little bit about college basketball. He then went on to say he would spend only a few minutes on it, because he hates college basketball. He said it would mostly be on MIZ, but he'll touch on other teams in the area. He focused 90% on MIZ and 10% on Illinois. Not even a mention of SLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 19 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: earlier this week Bernie said that SLU "was not interesting" and he wasn't going to cover SLU much. FWIW. 1 minute ago, BillikenBoy10 said: Last week he said after this commercial break I will talk a little bit about college basketball. He then went on to say he would spend only a few minutes on it, because he hates college basketball. He said it would mostly be on MIZ, but he'll touch on other teams in the area. He focused 90% on MIZ and 10% on Illinois. Not even a mention of SLU. -and the U pays for games to be on this station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 None of the hosts on 101.1 seem to even care that the station is SLU's station. The only one who even mentions anything is Randy K and that is because his show gets shortened at times. I have never been able to understand this lack of honking for SLU by the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 just reading this reminds me how much I hate and have since he got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band Legend Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Bernie is a terrible talk show host, and has taken his writing to a forum where no one pays any attention. To me he is now a complete non factor on the St. Louis sports scene. QUAILMAN likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 25 minutes ago, BillikenBoy10 said: Last week he said after this commercial break I will talk a little bit about college basketball. He then went on to say he would spend only a few minutes on it, because he hates college basketball. He said it would mostly be on MIZ, but he'll touch on other teams in the area. He focused 90% on MIZ and 10% on Illinois. Not even a mention of SLU. He has become laser-focused on his core audience, like a politician playing to his base. He must have data that shows his audience is avid NFL and college football fans, a sprinkling of Blues fans -- and then talks a bit of BB when he feels guilty about avoiding it. That's too bad - for a couple reasons. First, under Rickma who was his friend, he covered the Billikens well as columnist at the P-D. Coverage sometimes late, but better than not at all. He should be open to it. It seems like a focused effort from Travis with him could pay dividends long term. No idea whether this has already been done. Second reason: Bernie is a guy with strong opinions, takes on stories when injustice is potentially involved. The best writer in town, period. This is a Bernie-type of story. Third: sad because despite the building of Chaifetz and hiring top flight coach, SLU has still not yet become a perennial sports success - a story that must be covered. This could of course change if we'd get out of our own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I don't know how wide your net is for best writer in town, it it's only the above mentioned may be true as all the above suck but in general I would think almost any writer in business is better. HenryB likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Adman said: Brian, where has Bernie Milkasz been on this topic? Have you heard anything on his morning show? Bernie held SLU's feet to the fire about building the on-campus arena. It eventually happened. Bernie was very close to Coach Majerus, once chose to be with the Billikens in the NCAA Tournament over Mizzou, was out here with the Billikens in their '13 NCAA Tournament appearance in San Jose, was seated courtside right next to the then SLU beatwriter at the Post-Dispatch, Tom Timmermann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluBallz Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 hours ago, RiseAndGrind said: earlier this week Bernie said that SLU "was not interesting" and he wasn't going to cover SLU much. FWIW. Bernie only liked SLU when he could eat like a pig with coach Majerus. VeniceMenace and QUAILMAN like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Bernie isn’t covering SLU because he has this distorted view that he should be wined, dined, and sixty nined by whoever the coach is. He’s largely irrelevant at this point anyways. GoSluBills and kappy96 like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlebill Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 46 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said: Bernie held SLU's feet to the fire about building the on-campus arena. It eventually happened. Bernie was very close to Coach Majerus, once chose to be with the Billikens in the NCAA Tournament over Mizzou, was out here with the Billikens in their '13 NCAA Tournament appearance in San Jose, was seated courtside right next to the then SLU beatwriter at the Post-Dispatch, Tom Timmermann. It’s 2018 not 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 51 minutes ago, Littlebill said: It’s 2018 not 2013 Yes, it is. And there has been a lot of water going over the dam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 58 minutes ago, JMM28 said: Bernie isn’t covering SLU because he has this distorted view that he should be wined, dined, and sixty nined by whoever the coach is. He’s largely irrelevant at this point anyways. Just Win Baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierBilliken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Have we figured this thing out yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierBilliken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 The orgy survivor's attorney had mentioned that this was sexual assault. That is slander. The players are accused of Invasion of Privacy per Missouri State Statute. Furthermore, there has to be "an expectation of privacy" in order for a violation of this to occur. I pose a question. If a girl chooses to participate in group sex, then how many people have to be part of the group before there is no expectation of privacy? 5? 7? 10? 20? 100? I pose another question. If a street hooker gets paid for sex and does this act in front of 5 people, does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy? In other words, does a college girl with money have more privacy than a street hooker desperate for money during a group sex outing? I don't know. The orgy survivor's attorney said, "If they don't agree and they don't have any way to stop what is happening, there is no consent." Were they mutes and incapable of saying "stop videotaping me." Apparently, they said nothing. Tilkowsky, no one is saying the players, or the girls, were acting like upstanding citizens. What should bother everyone is SLU's incompetence in ensuring public confidence that the adjudication was carried out impartially. The player that videotaped the scene may have been rude, but did not violate the law. SLU still will probably expel him based upon how rude that was to do. The other players that did no more than laugh or not stop the one player from videotaping the girl having group sex definitely did not violate anything, yet they are suspended too? Why? Completely an overreach. If there is more to the situation that could convince me that these gentlemen deserved such lengthy suspensions, I will listen but so far all I see is little more than hurt feelings and embarrassment and regret and lots and lots of money being lost by SLU in federal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 3 hours ago, JMM28 said: Bernie isn’t covering SLU because he has this distorted view that he should be wined, dined, and sixty nined by whoever the coach is. He’s largely irrelevant at this point anyways. If that’s the case, I suspect Kratky suspended Bernie from covering SLU for 18-24 months. SLU_Lax likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach314 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, HoosierBilliken said: The orgy survivor's attorney had mentioned that this was sexual assault. That is slander. The players are accused of Invasion of Privacy per Missouri State Statute. Furthermore, there has to be "an expectation of privacy" in order for a violation of this to occur. I pose a question. If a girl chooses to participate in group sex, then how many people have to be part of the group before there is no expectation of privacy? 5? 7? 10? 20? 100? I pose another question. If a street hooker gets paid for sex and does this act in front of 5 people, does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy? In other words, does a college girl with money have more privacy than a street hooker desperate for money during a group sex outing? I don't know. The orgy survivor's attorney said, "If they don't agree and they don't have any way to stop what is happening, there is no consent." Were they mutes and incapable of saying "stop videotaping me." Apparently, they said nothing. Tilkowsky, no one is saying the players, or the girls, were acting like upstanding citizens. What should bother everyone is SLU's incompetence in ensuring public confidence that the adjudication was carried out impartially. The player that videotaped the scene may have been rude, but did not violate the law. SLU still will probably expel him based upon how rude that was to do. The other players that did no more than laugh or not stop the one player from videotaping the girl having group sex definitely did not violate anything, yet they are suspended too? Why? Completely an overreach. If there is more to the situation that could convince me that these gentlemen deserved such lengthy suspensions, I will listen but so far all I see is little more than hurt feelings and embarrassment and regret and lots and lots of money being lost by SLU in federal court. Just a thought. Perhaps the 3 were suspended while they investigated the original claim of sexual assault. Once the charges were dropped they continued to let them sit as the Title 9 investigation took over to show cooperation with the investigation. I agree the suspensions are lengthy. The ruling on the appeal will be very interesting. I hear the ruling will come next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 8 hours ago, HoosierBilliken said: The orgy survivor's attorney had mentioned that this was sexual assault. That is slander. The players are accused of Invasion of Privacy per Missouri State Statute. Furthermore, there has to be "an expectation of privacy" in order for a violation of this to occur. I pose a question. If a girl chooses to participate in group sex, then how many people have to be part of the group before there is no expectation of privacy? 5? 7? 10? 20? 100? I pose another question. If a street hooker gets paid for sex and does this act in front of 5 people, does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy? In other words, does a college girl with money have more privacy than a street hooker desperate for money during a group sex outing? I don't know. The orgy survivor's attorney said, "If they don't agree and they don't have any way to stop what is happening, there is no consent." Were they mutes and incapable of saying "stop videotaping me." Apparently, they said nothing. Tilkowsky, no one is saying the players, or the girls, were acting like upstanding citizens. What should bother everyone is SLU's incompetence in ensuring public confidence that the adjudication was carried out impartially. The player that videotaped the scene may have been rude, but did not violate the law. SLU still will probably expel him based upon how rude that was to do. The other players that did no more than laugh or not stop the one player from videotaping the girl having group sex definitely did not violate anything, yet they are suspended too? Why? Completely an overreach. If there is more to the situation that could convince me that these gentlemen deserved such lengthy suspensions, I will listen but so far all I see is little more than hurt feelings and embarrassment and regret and lots and lots of money being lost by SLU in federal court. Actually the expectation of privacy is usually voided if there is a third party present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 22 hours ago, Tilkowsky said: The men are suspended because the women charged them with sexual assault. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile. Finally, you wrote something true. Charge = Guilty in both your mind, and apparently in the mind of Hearing Officer Weathers. Assume Ms. Wethers confirmed the outside counsel's investigation/memo/report. SLU: # release the memo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 19 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said: Our society has become very polarized in its thinking(s). Human beings have good points and bad points; none of us is perfect (and few of us are completely and incorrigibly evil). That was one thing that occurred to me as I read today's Post-Dispatch column by Ben Frederickson about Terence Phillips's Title 9 turmoil is that the fact that he has had those women accuse him of some terrible things doesn't mean that he hasn't also done some things that exhibited leadership. Bill Cosby did some awful things, but that doesn't completely negate the good television and comedy that characterized his earlier work -- at least, not in my mind. I can still watch The Cosby Show and appreciate it, even though I know Bill later went rogue. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. had his slip-ups. I do think men should treat women in a manner that respects their feelings, regardless of social position, but I also think women should take responsibility for their decisions, if they're going to demand "equality." (Women's pay should be the same as men's pay for the same responsibilities, but...) If women are going to demand to be "equal," while still happily profiting from whatever sex appeal they can levy, then they should accept the consequences of their decisions to engage in sexual activity. Of course, it's unacceptable for a man to coerce a woman into sexual activity because of what she wears or because of her appearance, but if a woman initiates a sexual encounter or agrees to one, then she can't holler "rape" and still be taken seriously regarding equality. Quality. Generally a good post but your example of Bill Cosby does not hold water. Enjoy the reruns but but Bill Coby did not "later went rogue." Instead, his alleged/convicted conduct (at least in the court of public opinion) has been on-going and consistent for decades. Believe some of the accusers date back to the 1970's and the Playboy mansion where he also is accused of use date-rape/knock-out drugs with women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFord and TRavs Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I still don’t understand how a single middle aged woman is in charge of young men’s lives. She has zero empathy towards youth and as her twitter suggests, she probably has a hate towards men, which is not uncommon among single older women. Wrong spot for her to be in TheOne likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliKat Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 😞 every morning this is just more disappointing. I’m very upset about all of this. But underneath it all, it TERRIFIES me for my children’s future. I don’t have a son (yet) but I’m pretty sure he’s locked up after 8 years old. And please GOD don’t let my daughter be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ken Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Can you imagine if the Supreme Court was one judge? Why it wouldn't be at least 7-9 people with various backgrounds determining what happens to these young people? Whomever is advising Pestello should be let go. I agree with him to stay out of the way during investigation. I disagree with university not acknowledging situation from beginning. Needed to show strength and common sense. All Pestello had to do is act if it was one of his kids, what would he want said or done. It isn't hard to do the right thing. SLU really can't do the right thing, incapable from multiple levels and departments. Bobby Metzinger and rgbilliken like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts