- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSUAD is videotaping students chanting obscenities.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 12:55 pm to ballscaster
Posted on 12/16/13 at 12:55 pm to ballscaster
quote:
I disagree with this as well. The students won't be silenced, nor should they be.
Ballscaster, you are a hypocrite. You have stated in the past that this event belongs to the students/university and not the fans. If you want to engage that argument fine. However, now you whine because the university is taking action. So what is it. Is it the university's event or is it not. If it is, then the university has the right to police its own event. If you want to claim that the event is there for the students, you are as stupid as I have claimed previously. So what is it? Are you stupid or a hypocrite? There is really not much room in between the two choices.
Additionally, someone in the past has made the point that the reason that the students were persisting with the lame chants was because the administration took the songs away. Well, we now know that argument was crap. The administration brought back the songs and the students returned to the same chants. So whoever made that claim, you are an idiot.
Finally, Clark W Griswold made the following statement in the past:
"All it would take is a page from the 2001 Sugar Bowl where the ref brought a mic over to Saban and he asked the students to stop throwing cups onto the field. If Miles did that it would be over. Nobody has publicly asked them to stop yet so they haven't."
Really, Clark? How well did this statement work out for your argument?
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 12:57 pm
2
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:01 pm to MOT
You were thoroughly clowned on this issue No use trying to drag your feet. Throwing bottles won't get you removed because of a failure to adhere to the suggestions. It is always a crime.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:04 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Not what I said.
Here is exactly what you said:
quote:
Those who have no current active affiliation with the University can learn to mind their own business and let the University police itself.
The university is now policing itself and yet you still whine about it. How about sticking to your previous statements and shut up about it now?
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:05 pm to sardog12
quote:
So what is it. Is it the university's event or is it not. If it is, then the university has the right to police its own event.
smh..... I guess that seemed intelligent when you posted it? He said it is for the benefit of the university(the students), not the university administration.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:06 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
You were thoroughly clowned on this issue No use trying to drag your feet.
For quoting a policy that others doubted even existed? Sure.
The op never answered the tailgating question either. I wonder why.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:08 pm to sardog12
quote:Definitely the students'/university's event, and yes the university is to police its event. What is wrong here, however, is that the University has no history of policing language to the point of using funds to implement camera surveillance for the purposes of removing from the stadium those who use vulgar chants; it is obvious that the University has always had more important things about which to worry. So why now? What changed? Simple--the University is making the mistake of "negotiating with terrorists." The chants hurt no one, and we all know that. This isn't really a problem, and we all know that. Policing the students' language won't make the language police happy (hence the "negotiating with terrorists" analogy), and we all know that.
You have stated in the past that this event belongs to the students/university and not the fans. If you want to engage that argument fine. However, now you whine because the university is taking action. So what is it. Is it the university's event or is it not. If it is, then the university has the right to police its own event.
We have a situation where the University and/or AD is actually considering spending money addressing a made-up problem that people have with a made-up issue in a way that not only will do nothing to solve the made-up problem since it deals with something that it inevitable (vulgar student chants predated the dinosaurs and will postdate all arthropods), but also won't satisfy the people who made up the problem to begin with, and the entire situation stands to come at the expense of the students' free speech (de facto free speech, not de jure free speech--I know this is not a legal/Constitutional issue, but purely a moral one).
In short, the University stands to waste time and money accomplishing nothing and making no one happy. That is not good, and frick the self-appointed language police who are pushing for it.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:08 pm to MOT
quote:
The op never answered the tailgating question either.
Balls wasn't the OP.
quote:
I wonder why.
Because just like the bottle throwing hypothetical, it is stupid and not apples to apples.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:09 pm to MOT
quote:
The op never answered the tailgating question either. I wonder why.
Without having to go back and look at the exchange, I predict that it is because it is a completely irrelevant question.
Doesn't seem like a stretch considering you introduced throwing bottles at somebody as a comparable occurrence to a foul-mouthed chant.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:09 pm to MOT
I did answer your question.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:23 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Without having to go back and look at the exchange, I predict that it is because it is a completely irrelevant question.
He is the one that brought up the cooking/tailgating comparison, not me. I simply asked what would happen if he wasn't following tailgating policies.
quote:
Doesn't seem like a stretch considering you introduced throwing bottles at somebody as a comparable occurrence to a foul-mouthed chant
I said throwing bottles into the crowd because the bullet point is listed in the same section as everything else. Do you think they would have to be intentionally throwing an object at someone, and hit them, to be removed? What if they just throw a cup in the air and it lands on the steps without hitting anyone?
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:25 pm to MOT
My comparison wasn't based on the rules. You know that. Someone made a statement saying how ridiculous it would be if you shouted STTDB on a corner. I said yeah you would, as well as tailgating on a corner.
I never made a policy or rule comparison, that was all you hoss.
I never made a policy or rule comparison, that was all you hoss.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:25 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
smh..... I guess that seemed intelligent when you posted it? He said it is for the benefit of the university(the students), not the university administration.
I never stated that. He did. And actually his statement was "let the University police itself." However the flaw in the "student's event" argument was that it was for the benefit of the students, which couldn't be any more inaccurate. It is for the benefit of the student athletes and it is an even put on by the university. They (the university) still has the right to police it as they see fit.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:29 pm to sardog12
Well at this point....hell....lets just blame Les.....ok I'll say it...if Les Miles was a better coach, the student section would stop yelling STTDB! 
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:30 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Definitely the students'/university's event, and yes the university is to police its event. What is wrong here, however, is that the University has no history of policing language to the point of using funds to implement camera surveillance for the purposes of removing from the stadium those who use vulgar chants; it is obvious that the University has always had more important things about which to worry. So why now? What changed? Simple--the University is making the mistake of "negotiating with terrorists." The chants hurt no one, and we all know that. This isn't really a problem, and we all know that. Policing the students' language won't make the language police happy (hence the "negotiating with terrorists" analogy), and we all know that.
So because they haven't done something in the past means that they can't do it moving forward, if they deem it necessary? That argument will forever fail. If they feel it necessary to video it now, then that is their means of policing it, which falls under your own statement. At this point, you have uttered your own opinion, which happens to fall directly in line with what the university is doing. Yet for some reason, you still think you have an argument?
quote:
We have a situation where the University and/or AD is actually considering spending money addressing a made-up problem that people have with a made-up issue in a way that not only will do nothing to solve the made-up problem since it deals with something that it inevitable (vulgar student chants predated the dinosaurs and will postdate all arthropods), but also won't satisfy the people who made up the problem to begin with, and the entire situation stands to come at the expense of the students' free speech (de facto free speech, not de jure free speech--I know this is not a legal/Constitutional issue, but purely a moral one).
It is a university issue and a university resolution so you should be happy since they are doing what you think is the correct action. No more needs to be said. Unless you now want to claim that you didn't state what you previously stated.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:32 pm to sardog12
quote:When Charles Coates started the LSU football team, for whose benefit did he do this?
However the flaw in the "student's event" argument was that it was for the benefit of the students, which couldn't be any more inaccurate.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:34 pm to Sherman Klump
quote:
My comparison wasn't based on the rules. You know that. Someone made a statement saying how ridiculous it would be if you shouted STTDB on a corner. I said yeah you would, as well as tailgating on a corner.
I never made a policy or rule comparison, that was all you hoss.
Sure I brought up the policies and rules. You said cooking on a street corner wouldn't generally be accepted but things are different on gameday. That makes perfect sense. But my point was clearly that even though different behavior may be acceptable on gameday there are still rules and policies in place that must be followed.
It isn't really a difficult concept to grasp.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:35 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Definitely the students'/university's event,
Oh, and here is part of why you fail. It is not a student's event. It is the university's event. They do not owe you an explanation of their actions. As you even admitted with this point, though, you have no dog in this argument nor does your opinion matter here. So why do you keep making an argument? And why does your making your argument make us less entitled to our argument?
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:35 pm to ballscaster
quote:
When Charles Coates started the LSU football team, for whose benefit did he do this?
The athletes playing in the game.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:37 pm to sardog12
quote:I absolutely have an argument, and I'm right.
So because they haven't done something in the past means that they can't do it moving forward, if they deem it necessary? That argument will forever fail. If they feel it necessary to video it now, then that is their means of policing it, which falls under your own statement. At this point, you have uttered your own opinion, which happens to fall directly in line with what the university is doing. Yet for some reason, you still think you have an argument?
Why does the University deem it necessary? - Because they've made the mistake of "negotiating with terrorists." What the University deems necessary isn't necessary, nor will it prove productive or beneficial. I am being critical of my alma mater and/or its athletic department for wasting resources on something entirely futile at the expense of the de facto free speech of the students--the most vital population affiliated with the University. frick those who support this movement and appoint themselves the moral superiors of the students. They are absolute pigs and are the most morally reprehensible and obscene people in this debate.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 1:39 pm to sardog12
quote:Well they were athletes when they stepped on the field, yes, but up until the day they actually played the game, they weren't yet athletes. They were something else. They all had something in common with each other that didn't change when they started playing football. In fact, the team was fielded from a certain group of people. Any idea?
quote:
When Charles Coates started the LSU football team, for whose benefit did he do this?
The athletes playing in the game.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 1:40 pm
Page 19 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News