Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
RiseAndGrind

Carteare

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, moytoy12 said:

This.  Gordon has NBA talent and a grade school head. 

there's a movie there or a remake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Old guy said:

You are entirely  correct, that is, talking from the point of view of a guy that has had a stable life and a stable family and an education that channeled him that way, when he was at the crucial early teen years. You successfully made the transition from a kid to a "decent and nice" guy. Those that associate with good guys and gals remain good guys and gals, and those that associate with scum remain scum. This is a very common view of life from the point of view of someone that enjoyed such a nice, stable life, and that is (rightfully so) pointing his kids in the same direction. That is an admirable thing to do and wish you the best outcome for your family.

However, not all families are the same, and very bad things happen to very good people. In 1961 my family lost all it had, I was 14 at the time, my brother was 12. My brother and I had to be sent to the city to live with my uncle, his wife and their two kids. My uncle had suffered the same fate my father did, but he had found a job in the city. We wound up living in a slum and had to eat in shifts primarily because they only had two sets of plates and dinnerware. We ate scraps, left overs, and went hungry from time to  time. This place contained one table, two  chairs, a nicer chair for my uncle, a tiny black and white TV and enough mattresses box springs and frames for all of us. We were not allowed to watch TV before all homework was done. We were also not allowed to change the channels uncle had set, this is something he did every night, just to fall asleep rapidly. He was generally exhausted by the time he got home every day. We sat on the floor and did homework, my  aunt used one of the two aluminum chairs from the dining table (formica and aluminum of course) and watched whatever my uncle had chosen before falling asleep. I wound up not watching TV at all, the school's library provided books to read, which I preferred. Many nights I would wake up at the sound of one of the kids crying, other nights it was my uncle (and later on my father) waking up screaming with financial nightmares. It was a desperate situation which got a bit better when my aunt found a job for my father, in a different city, and he took it. How can I describe the difference in how I had lived before and was living now? How do I describe torn, tattered pants and shirts mended and re-mended. Who were my friends at school at that time? Well obviously those that you call a-holes, those that had no parents, those that were odds and ends and no one liked. They were not a-holes at all, they were born and raised in the situation I was living in. I assure you that if anyone messed with me, my brother or my cousins they would have a fight in their hands with whoever was around from the family. 

I  also assure you that given my diet at the  time I went from being a chubby, shy kid who loved to read and be alone, to a wiry kid who looked like a sack of  bones and got repeatedly beaten by other a-hole kids. Who can describe this environment, certainly none of the "decent and nice" kids (as you refer to them). How could they understand this environment? They had never experienced anything like it, and avoided us (the destitute a-holes) as the plague. My saving grace was that I liked reading and liked libraries and did well academically. This got me first to college, then to Med School, and then to Harvard, my brother, who  was similar to me academically, wound up an engineer. My two cousins did not do that well, they simply never had enough years of experience (they were significantly  younger at this time) to learn how "decent and nice" people behaved.

Can you conceive the fact that the kids born and raised in that type of environment never have the chance to develop good habits, learn a speech pattern that consist mostly of insults and smack, and were a lot more capable in a fight than in taking tests? Does this make them a-holes? Honestly, it was during that time that I learned who the real a-holes were and continue being.

To some degree I identify with Gordon and what he is going through. I do not think he can get rid, on his own steam, of all the things he learned in his childhood and teenage years. I feel sorry  for him and wish he would be able to shake up the stain of his early life, and a stain it is. I do not know if he can do it or not, and I think his talent may be wasted. I consider this a tragedy of sorts. Why? because he was a guy with enough talent to make it out of the slums and be successful. Most of the kids I knew at that stage in my  life did not have this kind of talent and will continue living their desperate existences.

Now, are you satisfied that you labelled a large number of people as a-holes? It is OK to enjoy privilege, achievement, and status. It is not OK to label kids as a-holes, when you personally (and probably everyone else around you) have no idea of how these kids live and how they adapt to their environment. All the best to you, see you in hell someday.

 

Nailed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Old guy said:

You are entirely  correct, that is, talking from the point of view of a guy that has had a stable life and a stable family and an education that channeled him that way, when he was at the crucial early teen years. You successfully made the transition from a kid to a "decent and nice" guy. Those that associate with good guys and gals remain good guys and gals, and those that associate with scum remain scum. This is a very common view of life from the point of view of someone that enjoyed such a nice, stable life, and that is (rightfully so) pointing his kids in the same direction. That is an admirable thing to do and wish you the best outcome for your family.

However, not all families are the same, and very bad things happen to very good people. In 1961 my family lost all it had, I was 14 at the time, my brother was 12. My brother and I had to be sent to the city to live with my uncle, his wife and their two kids. My uncle had suffered the same fate my father did, but he had found a job in the city. We wound up living in a slum and had to eat in shifts primarily because they only had two sets of plates and dinnerware. We ate scraps, left overs, and went hungry from time to  time. This place contained one table, two  chairs, a nicer chair for my uncle, a tiny black and white TV and enough mattresses box springs and frames for all of us. We were not allowed to watch TV before all homework was done. We were also not allowed to change the channels uncle had set, this is something he did every night, just to fall asleep rapidly. He was generally exhausted by the time he got home every day. We sat on the floor and did homework, my  aunt used one of the two aluminum chairs from the dining table (formica and aluminum of course) and watched whatever my uncle had chosen before falling asleep. I wound up not watching TV at all, the school's library provided books to read, which I preferred. Many nights I would wake up at the sound of one of the kids crying, other nights it was my uncle (and later on my father) waking up screaming with financial nightmares. It was a desperate situation which got a bit better when my aunt found a job for my father, in a different city, and he took it. How can I describe the difference in how I had lived before and was living now? How do I describe torn, tattered pants and shirts mended and re-mended. Who were my friends at school at that time? Well obviously those that you call a-holes, those that had no parents, those that were odds and ends and no one liked. They were not a-holes at all, they were born and raised in the situation I was living in. I assure you that if anyone messed with me, my brother or my cousins they would have a fight in their hands with whoever was around from the family. 

I  also assure you that given my diet at the  time I went from being a chubby, shy kid who loved to read and be alone, to a wiry kid who looked like a sack of  bones and got repeatedly beaten by other a-hole kids. Who can describe this environment, certainly none of the "decent and nice" kids (as you refer to them). How could they understand this environment? They had never experienced anything like it, and avoided us (the destitute a-holes) as the plague. My saving grace was that I liked reading and liked libraries and did well academically. This got me first to college, then to Med School, and then to Harvard, my brother, who  was similar to me academically, wound up an engineer. My two cousins did not do that well, they simply never had enough years of experience (they were significantly  younger at this time) to learn how "decent and nice" people behaved.

Can you conceive the fact that the kids born and raised in that type of environment never have the chance to develop good habits, learn a speech pattern that consist mostly of insults and smack, and were a lot more capable in a fight than in taking tests? Does this make them a-holes? Honestly, it was during that time that I learned who the real a-holes were and continue being.

To some degree I identify with Gordon and what he is going through. I do not think he can get rid, on his own steam, of all the things he learned in his childhood and teenage years. I feel sorry  for him and wish he would be able to shake up the stain of his early life, and a stain it is. I do not know if he can do it or not, and I think his talent may be wasted. I consider this a tragedy of sorts. Why? because he was a guy with enough talent to make it out of the slums and be successful. Most of the kids I knew at that stage in my  life did not have this kind of talent and will continue living their desperate existences.

Now, are you satisfied that you labelled a large number of people as a-holes? It is OK to enjoy privilege, achievement, and status. It is not OK to label kids as a-holes, when you personally (and probably everyone else around you) have no idea of how these kids live and how they adapt to their environment. All the best to you, see you in hell someday.

 

This is the appropriate lens through which we should view all people living in poverty, and especially those who end up in the criminal justice system. Great post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Clocktoweraccords2004 said:

Lol the hypocrisy 

Huh 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Old guy said:

You are entirely  correct, that is, talking from the point of view of a guy that has had a stable life and a stable family and an education that channeled him that way, when he was at the crucial early teen years. You successfully made the transition from a kid to a "decent and nice" guy. Those that associate with good guys and gals remain good guys and gals, and those that associate with scum remain scum. This is a very common view of life from the point of view of someone that enjoyed such a nice, stable life, and that is (rightfully so) pointing his kids in the same direction. That is an admirable thing to do and wish you the best outcome for your family.

However, not all families are the same, and very bad things happen to very good people. In 1961 my family lost all it had, I was 14 at the time, my brother was 12. My brother and I had to be sent to the city to live with my uncle, his wife and their two kids. My uncle had suffered the same fate my father did, but he had found a job in the city. We wound up living in a slum and had to eat in shifts primarily because they only had two sets of plates and dinnerware. We ate scraps, left overs, and went hungry from time to  time. This place contained one table, two  chairs, a nicer chair for my uncle, a tiny black and white TV and enough mattresses box springs and frames for all of us. We were not allowed to watch TV before all homework was done. We were also not allowed to change the channels uncle had set, this is something he did every night, just to fall asleep rapidly. He was generally exhausted by the time he got home every day. We sat on the floor and did homework, my  aunt used one of the two aluminum chairs from the dining table (formica and aluminum of course) and watched whatever my uncle had chosen before falling asleep. I wound up not watching TV at all, the school's library provided books to read, which I preferred. Many nights I would wake up at the sound of one of the kids crying, other nights it was my uncle (and later on my father) waking up screaming with financial nightmares. It was a desperate situation which got a bit better when my aunt found a job for my father, in a different city, and he took it. How can I describe the difference in how I had lived before and was living now? How do I describe torn, tattered pants and shirts mended and re-mended. Who were my friends at school at that time? Well obviously those that you call a-holes, those that had no parents, those that were odds and ends and no one liked. They were not a-holes at all, they were born and raised in the situation I was living in. I assure you that if anyone messed with me, my brother or my cousins they would have a fight in their hands with whoever was around from the family. 

I  also assure you that given my diet at the  time I went from being a chubby, shy kid who loved to read and be alone, to a wiry kid who looked like a sack of  bones and got repeatedly beaten by other a-hole kids. Who can describe this environment, certainly none of the "decent and nice" kids (as you refer to them). How could they understand this environment? They had never experienced anything like it, and avoided us (the destitute a-holes) as the plague. My saving grace was that I liked reading and liked libraries and did well academically. This got me first to college, then to Med School, and then to Harvard, my brother, who  was similar to me academically, wound up an engineer. My two cousins did not do that well, they simply never had enough years of experience (they were significantly  younger at this time) to learn how "decent and nice" people behaved.

Can you conceive the fact that the kids born and raised in that type of environment never have the chance to develop good habits, learn a speech pattern that consist mostly of insults and smack, and were a lot more capable in a fight than in taking tests? Does this make them a-holes? Honestly, it was during that time that I learned who the real a-holes were and continue being.

To some degree I identify with Gordon and what he is going through. I do not think he can get rid, on his own steam, of all the things he learned in his childhood and teenage years. I feel sorry  for him and wish he would be able to shake up the stain of his early life, and a stain it is. I do not know if he can do it or not, and I think his talent may be wasted. I consider this a tragedy of sorts. Why? because he was a guy with enough talent to make it out of the slums and be successful. Most of the kids I knew at that stage in my  life did not have this kind of talent and will continue living their desperate existences.

Now, are you satisfied that you labelled a large number of people as a-holes? It is OK to enjoy privilege, achievement, and status. It is not OK to label kids as a-holes, when you personally (and probably everyone else around you) have no idea of how these kids live and how they adapt to their environment. All the best to you, see you in hell someday.

 

Old Guy,  I like your post and agree with some of it.  However, I think it is unfair to the very abbreviated statement I made.  You post seems to posit that I was saying that people who grew up in difficult circumstances are a-holes and people that grew up in stable environments are not.  That was not what I said and also could not be further from the truth.

There are many who are given every opportunity in life and grow up in the most stable environment who are a-holes.  Likewise, there are a great deal of people who grow up under very difficult circumstances who are not.  Do you think that Gordon is the first guy to come from a difficult background to play for the Billikens?   I would guess there have been many Billiken basketball players who've had rough backgrounds.  And yet, those guys figured out, somehow, how to be decent guys and good teammates.  They didn't get in fights with their teammates in practice or generally cause the other players to dislike them.  I'm assume that despite the challenges you described in your youth, you were not an a-hole in college.  I'm guessing that you weren't such a jerk in college that the guys you were around wanted you gone.

Taking the position that any person who grew up in a situation that wasn't the best is allowed passes for very poor behavior and choices is insulting to others that grew up in similar circumstances and don't act that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Old Guy is pointing out that some folks are being a little too hasty in judging others who have been raised in circumstances of little hope and ambition.

If you grow up in lost circumstances, your parents have neither the means or inclination to give you direction, and your handlers and posse have your ear more than your coaches and teammates, then you are in trouble consistently.

Being able to identify people who can help you, actively listening to teammates trying to support you, and learning the discipline you need to succeed are skills not handed out in buckets, and don’t magically appear in teens. 

Some folks at 15 can be adults, while others don’t get there until they are 20, 30, or 40. Gordon has a reverend’s son in Goodwin, a workout warrior in French, a hammerbody leader in Bess, and a couple of very nice senior transfers who pushed him to succeed...and he refused to listen.

He refused to listen at DePaul. He refused to listen at Webster. He refused to listen at Vianney. At this point he has walked away from four places where chemistry improved after he left. Hopefully someone can show him that he has problems that need addressing, before he becomes another Ronnie Fields case study where his athletic skills are wasted because of nonexistent work and listening skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 2:14 PM, Clocktoweraccords2004 said:
On 8/30/2019 at 2:54 PM, Sheltiedave said:

I think Old Guy is pointing out that some folks are being a little too hasty in judging others who have been raised in circumstances of little hope and ambition.

If you grow up in lost circumstances, your parents have neither the means or inclination to give you direction, and your handlers and posse have your ear more than your coaches and teammates, then you are in trouble consistently.

Being able to identify people who can help you, actively listening to teammates trying to support you, and learning the discipline you need to succeed are skills not handed out in buckets, and don’t magically appear in teens. 

Some folks at 15 can be adults, while others don’t get there until they are 20, 30, or 40. Gordon has a reverend’s son in Goodwin, a workout warrior in French, a hammerbody leader in Bess, and a couple of very nice senior transfers who pushed him to succeed...and he refused to listen.

He refused to listen at DePaul. He refused to listen at Webster. He refused to listen at Vianney. At this point he has walked away from four places where chemistry improved after he left. Hopefully someone can show him that he has problems that need addressing, before he becomes another Ronnie Fields case study where his athletic skills are wasted because of nonexistent work and listening skills.

 

I think Sheltie's nailed it. Gordon's prism is it's on them not me. That attitude will not serve him well no matter where he goes next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly good thoughts and comments from all.   Agree with many of them.   Whether an NBA talent or not based upon his physical size/skills, it is obvious that he lacks the mental ability which is necessary for success not only in the NBA but also in college and in life.   It's also obvious that Gordon does not belong on any college campus and would not be, but for basketball.  And I know very little about Gordon, and frankly, I really don't wish to know much more about him.   I do know that he started at a very good private, local high school (Vianney) and soon found problems causing him to leave despite success on the basketball court.  I then know that he found new life, a fresh start at the local, public high school (Webster Groves)  and again had success on the basketball court, but who again found himself suspended, fighting with teammates...   State championships yes. Well loved teammate and citizen?  No.   I also had the feeling that he would not have lasted another year at Webster Groves HS and that SLU gave him new life and another fresh start.   I did wonder why he chose a mdi-size/smaller, private, Catholic school in SLU --- and then I did wonder why he choose another mid-size/smaller, private Catholic school in DePaul.  

What is this now?  4 schools in 5 years?  And either a 5th next year or European team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 1:13 PM, cgeldmacher said:

Old Guy,  I like your post and agree with some of it.  However, I think it is unfair to the very abbreviated statement I made.  You post seems to posit that I was saying that people who grew up in difficult circumstances are a-holes and people that grew up in stable environments are not.  That was not what I said and also could not be further from the truth.

There are many who are given every opportunity in life and grow up in the most stable environment who are a-holes.  Likewise, there are a great deal of people who grow up under very difficult circumstances who are not.  Do you think that Gordon is the first guy to come from a difficult background to play for the Billikens?   I would guess there have been many Billiken basketball players who've had rough backgrounds.  And yet, those guys figured out, somehow, how to be decent guys and good teammates.  They didn't get in fights with their teammates in practice or generally cause the other players to dislike them.  I'm assume that despite the challenges you described in your youth, you were not an a-hole in college.  I'm guessing that you weren't such a jerk in college that the guys you were around wanted you gone.

Taking the position that any person who grew up in a situation that wasn't the best is allowed passes for very poor behavior and choices is insulting to others that grew up in similar circumstances and don't act that way.

OK cgeldmacher, if you make this kind of distinction to your prior post I will agree. Many people who live their lives in privileged status are complete a-holes as you say. I am sure that sentence comes from having met perhaps many people that considered themselves superior and more entitled than yourself. Did they look down at you when you did not humbly kiss their rear ends? I am sure you have met them, this is a most common occurrence in the corporate world. However let's get back to Gordon. Some people who come from a difficult background manage to get over it and move ahead. I think the key to judging their behavior is whether they are trying or not. I think Gordon was the real deal and was trying, he just could not do it. I just wish he had been able to overcome his issues, but he sadly could not. Your initial post rubbed me the wrong way.

The rest of the present post AGAIN rubs me the wrong way. Stop trying to hide you feelings of intrinsic social superiority over lower human beings who do not behave in accordance with YOUR standards. You sir have absolutely neither the knowledge nor the background to judge either me or Gordon in any way. You sir are a bigot.

I wrote a long post to follow this statement but decided not to post it. I will proceed by fully agreeing with Sheltiedave's post. Good day to you sir, I shall place you into the ignore category.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Mostly good thoughts and comments from all.   Agree with many of them.   Whether an NBA talent or not based upon his physical size/skills, it is obvious that he lacks the mental ability which is necessary for success not only in the NBA but also in college and in life.   It's also obvious that Gordon does not belong on any college campus and would not be, but for basketball.  And I know very little about Gordon, and frankly, I really don't wish to know much more about him.   I do know that he started at a very good private, local high school (Vianney) and soon found problems causing him to leave despite success on the basketball court.  I then know that he found new life, a fresh start at the local, public high school (Webster Groves)  and again had success on the basketball court, but who again found himself suspended, fighting with teammates...   State championships yes. Well loved teammate and citizen?  No.   I also had the feeling that he would not have lasted another year at Webster Groves HS and that SLU gave him new life and another fresh start.   I did wonder why he chose a mdi-size/smaller, private, Catholic school in SLU --- and then I did wonder why he choose another mid-size/smaller, private Catholic school in DePaul.  

What is this now?  4 schools in 5 years?  And either a 5th next year or European team?

Clock there are things in this world that go above and are more necessary than to be a "well loved teammate and citizen." Mind you, Gordon has not had problems with criminal activity and he has not been involved in hit and run accidents or beaten people senseless in bars and like locations. A lot of people can be good law abiding citizens who are neither well loved by many other people nor be considered good teammates. What does it take to have a successful life with good achievements? Do you think the answer is "being loved by lots of people"? I would say not. Just think, there are lots of people (like Madoff) that were highly liked and widely respected and in reality were robbing people blind. Con men and women are everywhere, Gordon is not one of them. Popular love and acclaim means very little, what really matters is whether you are true to yourself or not, and how far you can go and retain your self respect.

Gordon is not a criminal, he is not a con man, but he is not widely loved or accepted either. So where is the rub? The rub is that his life may hit a wall he has built himself. Is there any doubt in your mind that he is in the process of hitting such a wall? Nope, there should not be any doubt in your mind, or anyone else's, about it. The next big question then becomes: Can he play basketball in a foreign league? I think that is a step he has to attempt pretty soon, he is running out of options. Will he succeed? Perhaps, places like Irkutsk and Vladivostok are pretty far removed and very different from anything he ever experienced before. Can this do the trick? I hope so.

Other than that, and at this time, he appears ready to fall back through the cracks and disappear from public view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Clocktoweraccords2004 said:

Attacking teammates over and over and over again, teammates who came from similar backgrounds, and you’re saying it’s excusable? 

We all excused it, in a sense. 

Some loved that we got Gordon.

Some loved we got Gordon, with concern about his baggage.

Some loved we got him, with trepidation.

We all loved that we were projecting a conference championship, and going to the Big Dance, with Gordon being a mobile big who could be a five tool player.

We also all knew that Gordon had issues, and it would take most every player on the team, all the coaches, and a vigorous effort from the school to help him develop into a well adjusted and whole individual. 

If you look at the number of success stories Saint Louis has achieved with minority basketball players over the decades, from disadvantaged backgrounds, then the lesser number of failures vs successes at the school is acceptable.

CTA, at some point, you need to realize that differing viewpoints can arise from differing levels of experience and understanding, and not just be a carte Blanche excusal. Quit trying to box one issue into another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sheltiedave said:

We all excused it, in a sense. 

Some loved that we got Gordon.

Some loved we got Gordon, with concern about his baggage.

Some loved we got him, with trepidation.

We all loved that we were projecting a conference championship, and going to the Big Dance, with Gordon being a mobile big who could be a five tool player.

We also all knew that Gordon had issues, and it would take most every player on the team, all the coaches, and a vigorous effort from the school to help him develop into a well adjusted and whole individual. 

If you look at the number of success stories Saint Louis has achieved with minority basketball players over the decades, from disadvantaged backgrounds, then the lesser number of failures vs successes at the school is acceptable.

CTA, at some point, you need to realize that differing viewpoints can arrive from differing levels of experience and understanding, and not just be a carte Blanche excusal. Quit trying to box one issue into another issue.

We wanted Gordon and hoped he grew up or that college would be different. Gordon has proved over and over that he is unworkable. There are players with far harsher backgrounds than him who have done far better. 

Laws and rules do not differ based on how people grew up. Gordon is a lost cause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Old guy said:

Clock there are things in this world that go above and are more necessary than to be a "well loved teammate and citizen." Mind you, Gordon has not had problems with criminal activity and he has not been involved in hit and run accidents or beaten people senseless in bars and like locations. A lot of people can be good law abiding citizens who are neither well loved by many other people nor be considered good teammates. What does it take to have a successful life with good achievements? Do you think the answer is "being loved by lots of people"? I would say not. Just think, there are lots of people (like Madoff) that were highly liked and widely respected and in reality were robbing people blind. Con men and women are everywhere, Gordon is not one of them. Popular love and acclaim means very little, what really matters is whether you are true to yourself or not, and how far you can go and retain your self respect.

Gordon is not a criminal, he is not a con man, but he is not widely loved or accepted either. So where is the rub? The rub is that his life may hit a wall he has built himself. Is there any doubt in your mind that he is in the process of hitting such a wall? Nope, there should not be any doubt in your mind, or anyone else's, about it. The next big question then becomes: Can he play basketball in a foreign league? I think that is a step he has to attempt pretty soon, he is running out of options. Will he succeed? Perhaps, places like Irkutsk and Vladivostok are pretty far removed and very different from anything he ever experienced before. Can this do the trick? I hope so.

Other than that, and at this time, he appears ready to fall back through the cracks and disappear from public view.

 

Old guy.  Of course Gordon could have done even worse things.  And I only mentioned he was not a good teammate or citizen b/c he apparently and repeatedly got in physical fights with his Webster Groves teammates.  Yes, no prosecution, probation or jail time.  Yes, not a con man.  Yes, no violent felon or murderer?   Are you excusing his bad behavior. Are you enabling him by saying he should be get chance after chance?    4 schools in 5 years and most of his teammates and some coaches are glad he left = a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run out of digits on my hands and feet of friends in college who would kill a case of beer every weekend, or a bag of dope a week, or get in a stupid fight, who are now doctors, lawyers, professors, own or run companies, and are fine, upstanding citizens.

Give people some education, the right circumstances and motivation, and they can succeed. They can start tearing down that wall of failure and get to where they can run through it. Don’t give up on 20 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clocktoweraccords2004 said:

We wanted Gordon and hoped he grew up or that college would be different. Gordon has proved over and over that he is unworkable. There are players with far harsher backgrounds than him who have done far better. 

Laws and rules do not differ based on how people grew up. Gordon is a lost cause

The young man is not a lost cause, but the light bulb does need to switch on for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

The young man is not a lost cause, but the light bulb does need to switch on for him.

I agree, but he's quickly earning the rep of a headcase and a locker room killer. You wonder how many D1 coaches are willing to take a chance with him. I'm sure the word is out after his hasty departures from SLU and RuePaul that the risk may not be worth the reward. Obviously, there are probably some lower level coaches that may roll the dice with the hope that he could be a program changer for them, but I don't see a high level program rolling the dice on young Mr. Gordon at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Kalen Grimes?  He was dismissed by Mike Anderson for an off-the-court incident involving a fight and shotgun and never played another game in a Tiger uniform.  He's an enterprise account manager at Verizon now.  Changing your worldview is bigger than basketball.  That's what I wish for Gordon.  If that includes professional basketball, great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sheltiedave said:

I run out of digits on my hands and feet of friends in college who would kill a case of beer every weekend, or a bag of dope a week, or get in a stupid fight, who are now doctors, lawyers, professors, own or run companies, and are fine, upstanding citizens.

Give people some education, the right circumstances and motivation, and they can succeed. They can start tearing down that wall of failure and get to where they can run through it. Don’t give up on 20 year olds.

Absolutely no comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Old guy.  Of course Gordon could have done even worse things.  And I only mentioned he was not a good teammate or citizen b/c he apparently and repeatedly got in physical fights with his Webster Groves teammates.  Yes, no prosecution, probation or jail time.  Yes, not a con man.  Yes, no violent felon or murderer?   Are you excusing his bad behavior. Are you enabling him by saying he should be get chance after chance?    4 schools in 5 years and most of his teammates and some coaches are glad he left = a problem.

Well first of all Gordon's behavior, as you have agreed, has not been like that of others and the locker room fights with teammates were apparently at Webster Groves, not at SLU. So what exactly was this bad behavior was it being late for class, skipping practices, having poor grades, exactly what? Was he a "ball hog" like Yarborough was? You  agree he is not a criminal, a felon, or a con man among other things. What was it exactly that he did, was he not popular, did he talk rough, do you know? The fact remains that you do not know, and no one else knows, what it was that did he did. Of course this is as far as SLU goes, not DePaul.

What we know is that the team did not like him, perhaps they really did not like him, but you do not know for sure, do you?

Now for the second part, of the issues you present. Behavior has to be accounted for, this is true. I am not saying we should have retained him, or give him a blanket forgiveness. Just think about it, we again do not know exactly what happened between Gordon and Ford during their final meeting. The release said both parties had agreed he should go. Again do  you know what actually happened during that meeting? Of course not. So, let me give you a plausible scenario: Ford came up to him, read him the riot act and told him he had to straighten up and follow the rules. I think this is a valid possibility which I am using as an example, it could have been anything else. I also do not know what happened. To continue how about it if Gordon, hearing these words from Ford, had a huge flash of immaturity and just replied to Ford something like "go fu_k yourself." Again I think this is entirely possible, and I agree, if he said something like this, what he said  was not a pardonable event, not at this time, so Ford may have replied, again as a possible outcome, with a "you are out of here." To which Gordon might have replied "fine."

An  equally possibility was that Gordon's reply to what Ford initially said may have been the complete package: "go fu_k yourself, I am out of here." To which Ford might have answered "fine." Either way as of this fictional scenario, or the way it actually played out, Gordon was out and both parties agreed.

Have I ONCE blamed Ford for sending Gordon away, no, not ever. Have I said anything about Gordon, yes I have I felt sorry for his inability to  make the best out of the opportunity Ford had given him. Check my posts if you wish.

So where have I ever said or indicated that Gordon's  transgressions should be forgiven regardless, just because of his background . Cgedlmacher erroneously accused me of that. Out is out, and I can feel sorry and identify with the guy as much as I want. I am not asking or espousing complete and eternal forgiveness for his transgressions. But I do feel sorry he acts the way he does. Is there anything wrong with this? I am aware he is throwing his talent down the toilet and I am sorry he is doing it. Do you object to this? I thought that he could do better than what he did and felt sorry for what he did. Is there anything wrong with that? Have I proclaimed that Ford was wrong in any way by dismissing him? 

Before you listen to Mr bigot of the "nice decent" guys and "a-holes" theories, please consider what I actually have said:

1. I identify with Gordon and feel sorry he is probably not going to make it.

2. I do not, have not, and will not said that it was wrong he was dismissed, or that all his transgressions, whatever they were should be forgiven just because of his background. I am not a hanging judge, but I am not a bleeding heart either.

3. The fact of the matter is that Gordon went to a bunch  of high schools and had similar problems, and Ford knew about this and gave him a chance. It is factual that he again blew it at SLU, and now it appears he has also blown it at DePaul. Is this something to be celebrated? Can someone, me in this case, not proclaim that it is a crying shame he has and continues doing things that destroy his future?

4. Should I not be thoroughly pissed when a true self entitled a-hole calls me to task for being a bleeding heart for feeling sorry of what Gordon is doing to himself. And even further accuses me to claim that whatever he may do is OK because of where he came from. NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. THAT IS HOW THE BIGOT INTERPRETED WHAT I WAS SAYING.

The question to you, after you read this post, is to tell me if you think I am demanding forgiveness for all he, or anyone else with a slum or poor ( Sheltiedave called it a hellhole) origin, does? Did you read my posts the same way he did?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sheltiedave said:

I run out of digits on my hands and feet of friends in college who would kill a case of beer every weekend, or a bag of dope a week, or get in a stupid fight, who are now doctors, lawyers, professors, own or run companies, and are fine, upstanding citizens.

Give people some education, the right circumstances and motivation, and they can succeed. They can start tearing down that wall of failure and get to where they can run through it. Don’t give up on 20 year olds.

Ah yes the outliers. Always bring up outliers in an argument. What’s the over and under of Gordon being a doctor or lawyer? The kid certainly isn’t taking college serious, you think in 3 years he can get the grades and test scores for Law school or Med school? 

All I’m saying is we have a right to say Gordon is a bad kid I wouldn’t want my kids to hangout with, and I don’t excuse any of his behavior. He was given everything and threw it away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old guy said:

Well first of all Gordon's behavior, as you have agreed, has not been like that of others and the locker room fights with teammates were apparently at Webster Groves, not at SLU. So what exactly was this bad behavior was it being late for class, skipping practices, having poor grades, exactly what? Was he a "ball hog" like Yarborough was? You  agree he is not a criminal, a felon, or a con man among other things. What was it exactly that he did, was he not popular, did he talk rough, do you know? The fact remains that you do not know, and no one else knows, what it was that did he did. Of course this is as far as SLU goes, not DePaul.

What we know is that the team did not like him, perhaps they really did not like him, but you do not know for sure, do you?

Now for the second part, of the issues you present. Behavior has to be accounted for, this is true. I am not saying we should have retained him, or give him a blanket forgiveness. Just think about it, we again do not know exactly what happened between Gordon and Ford during their final meeting. The release said both parties had agreed he should go. Again do  you know what actually happened during that meeting? Of course not. So, let me give you a plausible scenario: Ford came up to him, read him the riot act and told him he had to straighten up and follow the rules. I think this is a valid possibility which I am using as an example, it could have been anything else. I also do not know what happened. To continue how about it if Gordon, hearing these words from Ford, had a huge flash of immaturity and just replied to Ford something like "go fu_k yourself." Again I think this is entirely possible, and I agree, if he said something like this, what he said  was not a pardonable event, not at this time, so Ford may have replied, again as a possible outcome, with a "you are out of here." To which Gordon might have replied "fine."

An  equally possibility was that Gordon's reply to what Ford initially said may have been the complete package: "go fu_k yourself, I am out of here." To which Ford might have answered "fine." Either way as of this fictional scenario, or the way it actually played out, Gordon was out and both parties agreed.

Have I ONCE blamed Ford for sending Gordon away, no, not ever. Have I said anything about Gordon, yes I have I felt sorry for his inability to  make the best out of the opportunity Ford had given him. Check my posts if you wish.

So where have I ever said or indicated that Gordon's  transgressions should be forgiven regardless, just because of his background . Cgedlmacher erroneously accused me of that. Out is out, and I can feel sorry and identify with the guy as much as I want. I am not asking or espousing complete and eternal forgiveness for his transgressions. But I do feel sorry he acts the way he does. Is there anything wrong with this? I am aware he is throwing his talent down the toilet and I am sorry he is doing it. Do you object to this? I thought that he could do better than what he did and felt sorry for what he did. Is there anything wrong with that? Have I proclaimed that Ford was wrong in any way by dismissing him? 

Before you listen to Mr bigot of the "nice decent" guys and "a-holes" theories, please consider what I actually have said:

1. I identify with Gordon and feel sorry he is probably not going to make it.

2. I do not, have not, and will not said that it was wrong he was dismissed, or that all his transgressions, whatever they were should be forgiven just because of his background. I am not a hanging judge, but I am not a bleeding heart either.

3. The fact of the matter is that Gordon went to a bunch  of high schools and had similar problems, and Ford knew about this and gave him a chance. It is factual that he again blew it at SLU, and now it appears he has also blown it at DePaul. Is this something to be celebrated? Can someone, me in this case, not proclaim that it is a crying shame he has and continues doing things that destroy his future?

4. Should I not be thoroughly pissed when a true self entitled a-hole calls me to task for being a bleeding heart for feeling sorry of what Gordon is doing to himself. And even further accuses me to claim that whatever he may do is OK because of where he came from. NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. THAT IS HOW THE BIGOT INTERPRETED WHAT I WAS SAYING.

The question to you, after you read this post, is to tell me if you think I am demanding forgiveness for all he, or anyone else with a slum or poor ( Sheltiedave called it a hellhole) origin, does? Did you read my posts the same way he did?

 

Old Guy

I went back and read the prior posts and sure I am seeing the same things you are.   I certainly do not believe that poor and disadvantage people are a-holes.   If that is what is being said about Gordon (and indirectly to you and others), then I strongly take your side.   Frankly, I don't know what Gordon's background really is/was like.   No idea if he was truly poor or not.  I know the most guys who go to Vianney and are educated by the Marianists are not poor and disadvantaged but I also know that scholarships are given by the private schools (Vianney being one of them) and possibly that occurred here.  I also know that some of the wealthiest people in town live in the Webster Groves school district which is where Gordon finished high school.   Then, again, there are some areas within Webster Groves which do have poor and disadvantaged people.   And if Gordon had a poor and disadvantage background, then I do see how this topic could have touched a nerve.

To me, though, we do have more work to do in this country with regard to socio-economic problems/issues, race relations, personal responsibility...  With that said, I do believe that our academic settings are probably further along, more "progressive" and more favorable and accommodating (as compared to the workforce and society in general) to those who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds and that the academic settings also afford special accommodations and benefits to those with athletic skills and abilities.  In that regard, and assuming Gordon came from a disadvantaged background, I suspect the opportunity, scholarship money and extra tutoring offered by Vianney, SLU and DePaul to Gordon was quite generous.

But at some point, guys who don't belong on college campuses should not be given chance after chance -- only because his God given skills happen to be basketball as opposed to band/drama/debate team. Too many athletes "throw away" their talent, opportunity(res), careers... away because of the enablers.   Sometimes the best thing you can do for a guy is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...