12/21/24
December 16, 2005
Charges brought against 4 Vikings for events occurring during "Love Boat cruise" : I debated on putting the link up to this. It is really sickening to hear the light hearted manner by which the ESPN boys are discussing this. What Culpepper and the boys did was terrible it doesnt need to be glorified.
Why were the "ladies " not charged?
posted by Rabbit504 at 06:51 AM on December 16, 2005
From the PDFs of the actual charges that KARE11 put up: Daunte Culpepper: receives lap dance. Moe Williams: receives lap dance. Bryant McKinnie: gives oral. Fred Smoot: dildoes two girls. Lame.
posted by emoeby at 08:06 AM on December 16, 2005
Let he who is without touchy-feely lap dance cast the first stone.
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 08:27 AM on December 16, 2005
Is that charge against Smoot for real?!? I wanna move to Minnesota just to have that on my record!!
posted by woody1090 at 08:51 AM on December 16, 2005
Come on are we really wholier than thou? If all 2 of them got was a simple lap dance, then why are they charged with anything? How many guys (NFL or otherwise) go to strip clubs and recieve lap dances? Has our world really gotten that picky that because they are NFL players they can't recieve a lap dance? Please.
posted by grabofsky74 at 09:03 AM on December 16, 2005
All this trouble came about because it offended the crew of the boat, right? So what I gather from this is that if Smoot and Johnstone (the ones who organized this mess) had been up front with the boat owners and crew about what kind of a party this was going to be and gotten their OK, we would likely have never heard about it and it would just be a "consenting adults" situation -- by which I mean technically illegal but no one makes a fuss over it. Siince I'm not one to deny consenting adults their peccadiloes, I think the blame for this mess rests on the shoulders of Johnstone and Smoot. (Smoot seems to have really gotten his freak on there. Yikes.)
posted by dzot at 09:10 AM on December 16, 2005
had been up front with the boat owners and crew about what kind of a party this was going to be Would have been a hell of a conversation. "Dick in the mashed potatoes is going to be the least of your problems, ya heard?"
posted by yerfatma at 10:43 AM on December 16, 2005
daddisamm: What Culpepper and the boys did was terrible
(from the article) Reports that some women at the party were paid to come from outside Minnesota had raised the possibility of federal charges
dzot: So what I gather from this is that... the ones who organized this ... had been up front with the boat owners and crew about what kind of a party this was going to be and gotten their OK, we would likely have never heard about it and it would just be a "consenting adults" situation -- by which I mean technically illegal but no one makes a fuss over it.I gotta call bullshit on this. Terrible? Hardly. Illegal? Questionable to my mind... What I've never understood is, wasn't this a private place? I.e., the boat was privately owned, privately chartered, and what happened was in a private place. Why, exactly, are any of these guys being charged with crimes? If I was at a party at your house, and started getting a lapdance from a girl, and you didn't like it, you could ask me to leave. If I refused to leave, you could have me arrested for trespassing. But the idea that I could be charged for public indecency or lewdness? I didn't think that would hold water, that I could be charged with lewdness in a private place. Then again, some of these fucked up people think sodomy laws are a good thing, so there's just no telling how stupid some areas are when it comes to sex laws... I wouldn't be surprised if the morality police had laws in place that they could prosecute you any time, any place, any where, at their whim. Still... this so smacks of the same nonsense that we saw with Nipplegate. I see nothing wrong here- the adults were consenting, there was no force. The closest I've heard to anything "wrong" in any legal sense was there may have been underaged people on board working for the boat company. But then, that raises the question of why a) underage people were staffing a private chartered boat that served alcohol, and b) whether there was any legal contract or stipulation as to the rules and repercussions in hiring the boat I.e., contractual language that states anything about "The owners reserve the right to return the boat at any time for conduct deemed unsuitable or unsafe, and the customer forfeits any right to a refund." At most this would seem to be purely a civil matter, whereby the boat returned early and the Vikings' players were told they'd get no refund and not be allowed to charter them again. I am flabbergasted that there is any criminal action being taken- on what fucking grounds? I sure hope these players fight this matter if the law is anything but crystal clear.
(from the article): Wilf, who had been seeking state help for a new stadium, apologized to Gov. Tim Pawlenty and instituted a new code of conduct.Sadly, I believe the stupid NFL has existing laws that allow them to kick a player out for anything they want, from media hyped peccadilloes to their refusal to say the pledge of allegience, or their choice of wardrobe even in the off season. However, I would ask if the "new code of conduct" could legally be made retroactive against the Vikings if it had rules that weren't in place when the event happened. Again, I hope the players, and their agents and lawyers, fight this. It's insane how we have this sick, sick obsession with sexuality in this country.
posted by hincandenza at 12:16 PM on December 16, 2005
Am I missing something? "recieving a lap dance" is a crime? Everyone is just reporting this as if that makes sense. And I thought Minnesota was a liberal state? What exactly is a lap dance? if you go to a club and your groin contacts a woman's groin in the course of dancing, can they arrest you???
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:40 PM on December 16, 2005
well upon reading the charges, apparently the nudity is what prompted the charge. Still silly, though.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:42 PM on December 16, 2005
What Culpepper and the boys did was terrible it doesnt need to be glorified. And can "editorializing is not necessary, let people form their own opinions" be added to the posting guidelines?
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2005
If this were at someones house or a stip bar I wouldnt really have had a problem with it. The charter boats are pretty much "out in publci" The employees of the boat have a right not to be expose to such behavior. If I had a daughter or a wife working on the boat I would be really concerned. What goes on behind closed doors is one thing. This boat tour was certainly not behind closed doors.
posted by daddisamm at 12:56 PM on December 16, 2005
What exactly are they saying about it on ESPN? They have been laughing at the cahrges. Making fun of the Police officer taht read they charges.. Pretty much laid the ground work that this sexual behavior was no big deal-This was especially true on the "All night show" when I wrote the first link. What Culpepper and the boys did was terrible it doesnt need to be glorified. And can "editorializing is not necessary, let people form their own opinions" be added to the posting guidelines? What do you mean? who was ediorializing? your comments here, are confusing.
posted by daddisamm at 01:20 PM on December 16, 2005
I see nothing wrong with what they did. Had the women been assaulted, I would think differently. I think the only mistake made was poor judgement. If they wanted to have this kind of party they should have chosen a better location. If the police can charge you for this kind of crime, what will happen to batchelor parties?
posted by chefwest at 01:37 PM on December 16, 2005
What do you mean? who was ediorializing? your comments here, are confusing. There's been a bit of this lately, and I'm wondering what the thoughts are myself. That's metadiscussion, though, so I'll take it to the locker room.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:48 PM on December 16, 2005
Come on are we really wholier than thou? HA HA HA
posted by dusted at 01:59 PM on December 16, 2005
Come on are we really wholier than thou? /checks pants Yes. Yes we are.
posted by yerfatma at 02:57 PM on December 16, 2005
If having an orgy is wrong, I don't want to be right. Maybe employees who are easily offended should avoid boat parties starring millionaire football players. I certainly hope the company turned the boats right around at the first sign of "lewdness" and refunded all that dirty dirty money.
posted by loquax at 03:05 PM on December 16, 2005
Illegal? Questionable to my mind... Hal, I'd be surprised if paying women to perform sexual acts is not considered prostitution, which last time I checked is illegal in anywhere in the U.S. but parts of Nevada. (If there is anywhere else it's legal please let me know. Please.) Of course, I suppose that would all depend on what the State of Minnesota defines as a sexual act. I would guess Smoot and McKinnie crossed that line. Still, if they had made it clear that there was going to be some nasty stuff going on and they owners/crew would just have to turn a blind eye, this whole mess could have been avoided.
posted by dzot at 03:42 PM on December 16, 2005
Editorializing is, vasically, stating an opinion about an event. The FPP may be an example of editorializing because the statement "what they did was terrible" is a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Similarly, the ESPN dudes making light of the event are also engaging in a form of editorializing. Whether these events were terrible or not is a matter, to a large degree, of one's personal opinions regarding proper male behavior around female sex industry types. There is not an indication that any non-consensual activity occured. It appears, from these reports, that all activity was consensual. That being said, in so much as it is stupid to publically break anti-prostitution laws (and, in some states, a lap dance would be considered a kind of prostitution) or public lewdness laws were broke, the players really should have used their heads. And not for cunnilingus. Also, the charges are, sadly, probably not as provocative and interesting as "used dildos on two women." It is probably public lewdness, pure and simple.
posted by Joey Michaels at 04:17 PM on December 16, 2005
Hal, I'd be surprised if paying women to perform sexual acts is not considered prostitution, which last time I checked is illegal in anywhere in the U.S. but parts of Nevada. (If there is anywhere else it's legal please let me know. Please.) Let me know also, as I haven't made my vacation plans for next summer yet.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:23 PM on December 16, 2005
First off, I am going to go get a new Fred Smoot Jersey ASAP! j/k Seriously, why weren't the women involved charged with anything? Other than the obvious answer that they aren't pro football players. This just seems like a railroad job to me. I will have to agree with Hal on this, how can they be charged with any criminal offense that involves a public place when they were on a private chartered boat?
posted by jojomfd1 at 05:23 PM on December 16, 2005
Hate to do it but, were all the players mentioned black? Were the employees forced to watch? How does someone know that 2 girls are getting "dildoed" unless they were paying close attention? Were any of the women white? And least but certainly not last, does anyone see an out of court settlement coming the players way? My opinion, ESPN was treating this exactly how it deserves to get treated. If anything is offensive to some one, they leave the area the offending act is accuring in right? I mean, you dont "stick" around for the actual penitration do you? Maybe it's me but, if i see a man making his way towards a womans private area with a sex toy, i dont think he's going to brush her teeth with it. The person making the claim was probably doing the "spank your ass" Luke video dance while humming the medley superfreak by rick james the entire time. A couple of guys i went to school with are in the league. I've attended a few of these events. Its common place for the guys to throw money at the women. The better looking the girl, the more money they throw. I think the one that was offended was the ugly girl that only ended up with about 7 dollars. Shes going to get her money 1 way or the other. A great poet once said, "I aint saying she's a gold digga, but she aint messin wit no broke nigga"!!
posted by RZA at 06:21 AM on December 17, 2005
A lap dance is one thing. But if any of you ever have your 18-year old daughter come home one night, returning from her job on a small cruise boat (where she was hired to serve food), then tell you, "I just had to stand around while one Viking player was shoving a few dildos in and out of this woman, and another player was getting his dick sucked, until he decided to go down on the girl in return." I'm pretty sure your response would have been, "So what. What's your point? I don't see anything wrong with that. Go get me a fuckin' beer." As I posted before, this party should have been held at one of the players' homes, in private, not on a boat that basically consisted of one big room being staffed by some unknowing public. If they're in their own, private residences, I could care less if they have non-stop orgies, do heroin, OD, whatever. Just don't expose others to it. That's why the charges are being filed.
posted by dyams at 08:04 AM on December 17, 2005
But if any of you ever have your 18-year old daughter come home one night, returning from her job on a small cruise boat (where she was hired to serve food), then tell you, "I just had to stand around while one Viking player was shoving a few dildos in and out of this woman, and another player was getting his dick sucked, until he decided to go down on the girl in return." My daughter is HILARIOUS!
posted by Samsonov14 at 08:15 AM on December 17, 2005
My daughter is HILARIOUS! That's good. There's a serious shortage of good female comedians.
posted by dyams at 08:56 AM on December 17, 2005
posted by dyams at 11:20 AM on December 17, 2005
Dyams, on the serious side of things i see the point you are making. There are other view points. Why isnt the manager, wether male or female, asking the young female employees there to leave the room/area that they were in? How do we know that there was an 18 yr old female there? And 18 isnt so young now a days. These kids are doing/seeing alot more then my generation thats for sure. I have a 16 yr old nephew that still doesnt like to see a man kiss a woman on tv. He turns away from whatever we're watching during the "mushy" scenes. So I still wonder why this 18 yr old was in the area of the boat where this is going on. I think its safe to say that the dinner course was over at this point. If anyone over the leagal age of 18 is present then the parties involved in what is going on must assume that the people are there because they want to be. Was there someone holding the offened people hostage? I know there are difinitly more rooms on this boat that is hosting a party. Now, were there acutal children there? If so, then its the adults they are with responsibilty to remove them from the scene of the crime (of passion). Again, if you see a man moving towards a womans private area with a sex toy, why on earth are you watching?
posted by RZA at 06:32 PM on December 17, 2005
If anything is offensive to some one, they leave the area the offending act is accuring in right? Why isnt the manager, wether male or female, asking the young female employees there to leave the room/area that they were in? Both of these things can be hard to do on a boat. So I still wonder why this 18 yr old was in the area of the boat where this is going on. I think the 18-year-old is hypothetical (I haven't seen any info about the ages of the boat staff); however, whatever the ages of the boat staff is, I suspect the answer to your question is, "Doing their job."
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:07 PM on December 17, 2005
Come on LBB, OK, lets say you're working at walmart, your job is cashiering. Someone gets in your line and starts perfoming oral sex on someone else. Do you continue ringing people up? There are certain things that lead up to sexual acts. The minute i see someone begin to expose themselves, and dance around naked, im gone (if im offended by it). So i wouldnt know who was performing oral sex or any other details for that matter. They are not on a floating hotel room, there is definitly different areas of this boat. We're not talking about someone saying something offensive. These people are basically having sex. What manager is going to force you to go into an area to say, bus a table or serve a slice of pie where poeple are having sex? Why would it be hard for a manager to step up, take some reasposiblity and allow offended employees to exit to a different part of a charter boat? That could/should have been done the minute the strippers/dancers (the ones giving the lap dances) started to undress. By the time the dancers were up dancing, i dont think anyone expected a Church service to ensue. If this was a bachelor party that the manning brothers were at, i dont think we'd be reading this article. If someone assumes there is a young innocent 18 yr old there, then Im willing to assume that the offended parties were white, and the offensive parties were majority black.
posted by RZA at 09:41 PM on December 17, 2005
If this was a bachelor party that the manning brothers were at, i dont think we'd be reading this article. The Mannings wouldn't be stupid enough to be at this event, just like Brad Johnson wasn't stupid enough to be there, either. I don't know if this points towards a racial situation or what. The boat in question didn't have several rooms. It was basically one big room, where everything was in view for everyone around. If you go to "thesmokinggun.com" you can read the actual complaints and charges against the four Vikings. It says the boat was booked from 8:30 p.m. through 12 a.m., and that it returned to dock after 1 hour due to the perverted shit taking place on the boat. lets say you're working at walmart, your job is cashiering. Someone gets in your line and starts perfoming oral sex on someone else. Do you continue ringing people up? These things took place in the middle of a large lake. How far could offended individuals go to get away from it? If someone started performing oral sex on another person in a Wal-Mart line, those individuals would be arrested and charged immediately. Why? What's the difference? Why shouldn't the people in Wal-Mart (including the employees) just get over it and stop being such prudes? If you're having dinner with your wife at a fancy restaurant and Bryant McKinnie comes in and starts eating out the whore he's with on the table next to you, should you just get up and leave the restaurant and say to yourself, "That's no big deal. What's the harm in a little oral sex? Everyone in the restaurant is old enough to handle it!" A lot of these asshole athletes don't think they need to consider responsible and respectable behaviors.
posted by dyams at 10:11 PM on December 17, 2005
RZA, this talk about walmart cashiers and floating hotel rooms is completely irrelevant; you don't know the particulars of the case. You don't know the layout of the boat, you don't know what happened where, you don't know if the employees complained to anyone or how their complaints were handled, whether the manager said, "why I'll put a stop to that right away" or told them to suck it up and serve the drinks. Most important of all, you don't know why the DA is bringing these charges for activities that would have not drawn heat if performed in a manner that was more discreet. That being the case, I don't think anyone, at this point, should be concluding that the case is either a whole lotta nothin' or a great big deal. Time will tell.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:12 PM on December 17, 2005
I will admit that LBB, i dont know the particulars, i was merely arguing the other side of the incident. Just as dyams didnt know for sure who was offended, or if someone was just acting a little Holier than thou. I would agree that both sides of this article are truley uninformed. I personally was comparing the merit of the complaint to something I saw on TV lastnight. An example of the world we live in. Lastnight i watched a TV show (with stone phillips), im not sure what it was called. They set up an internet prowler sting operation. They had invesigators pose as 13/14 yr old boys and girls. They went to chat rooms and got solicited by older men. They agreed to meet with this men for the puposes of sex. As the men came one by one, they were confronted by the reporter. The men included, a emergency room doctor, a jewish rabbi, and several others. Approx. 85% were white. Out of all the men that came, 1 was under investigation by the police. The rabbi was forced to resign. The ER doctor was fired. However. only 1 was brought in by the police and questioned. Was an actual crime commited? No, not by law. Was an immoral crime commited? Absolutly. These football players were participating in something consensual. They catch criminal charges and its blown out of proportion by the media all over the internet. By blown out of proportion i mean the charges are misdemeanors, and the "victims" will certainly survive the ordeal without any lasting mental or physical anguish. These child predators are exposed on TV, none get arrested, 1 gets questioned, 2 lose their jobs(thanks to this TV show). I only post this so we as society can take a look at ourselves and try to get a grip on whats really important. Were some people offended by these players? Of course they were, im not disputing that. Should our police be channeling their effort and resources into some different areas to protect actual kids from online predators vs. arresting some adults that were having a little consenual fun and someone didn't like it? Make that decision on your own.
posted by RZA at 10:23 PM on December 17, 2005
alot of these asshole athletes don't think they need to consider responsible and respectable behaviors. Dyams? Do you refer to the "black" asshole athletes? And not the smarter white ones? i.e The Manning brothers and Brad Johnson? You sound like you're implying that the black athletes invovled are dumb. You say "alot of these asshole athletes". There are only a few in question here, like 4 right? Are you lumping some other athletes in, from past situations similar to this one? Please explain which athletes you are refering to?
posted by RZA at 10:37 PM on December 17, 2005
If this was a bachelor party that the manning brothers were at, i dont think we'd be reading this article. This is what YOU said, RZA. You seem to be the one initially saying this wouldn't be a issue anyone would even mention if the Manning brothers (white) were there. I don't know if this points towards a racial situation or what. That's what I said. I really DON'T know. I think ANY smart player, concerned about their public image and the possible problems this sort of behavior, in public, in front of dozens of other people, could cause them in their personal lives as well as their professional (and endorsement) lives, would (and probably DID) avoid this party. When I mentioned Brad Johnson, I was merely stating the team's quarterback NOW (very successful, to this point, I might add) in a comparison with their supposed "franchise" quarterback (Culpepper), who WAS involved, in whatever respect, and now has to perform damage control on his image and reputation. If it was a situation where Peyton (or Eli) Manning would have been on a rented boat, in front of employees of the boat company, performing oral sex on a prostitute in obvious sight of others (others meaning people not on the team or paid whores), then I'd consider him, basically, an asshole, too. You'd pretty much have to be to do something so stupid and risk so much. And again, this has nothing to do with me caring if these players (or anyone, for that matter) engages in whatever type of behavior with prostitutes or other consenting adults. However, when you don't have the sense to act in this manner away from others who may not feel like being around it, that just makes me think the person in question has absolutely no regard for anyone but themselves, and whose only objective is getting their nuts off. Therefore, the "asshole" athletes I'm refering to in this situation are McKinnie, Smoot, Williams and Culpepper, because they were the ones charged and, to this point, implicated. I wasn't involved, wasn't involved in the decision making process of the entire situation, and had no part in any charges being made. The fact these four are black is just that: A fact. PS: Obviously I'm more pissed and concerned about the TV expose regarding the adults preying on kids over the internet. "Asshole" doesn't even begin to describe a doctor or rabbi, etc. that would be involved in such a thing, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Consensual sexual acts should take place between ADULTS in private, not in public (where people who DON'T want to see it need to be exposed to it).
posted by dyams at 10:01 AM on December 18, 2005
I only post this so we as society can take a look at ourselves and try to get a grip on whats really important. Were some people offended by these players? Of course they were, im not disputing that. Should our police be channeling their effort and resources into some different areas to protect actual kids from online predators vs. arresting some adults that were having a little consenual fun and someone didn't like it? Make that decision on your own. This is what is known as the New Bedford defense: other people get penalized less for greater crimes; therefore, I should walk. It's a load of crap. A system of justice needs to be called to account when there are systemic inconsistencies in application, but you can show no trend here. Nor, I think, can you make the case that the jurisdiction in which these players were indicted has a burgeoning problem in sexual predators (and, really, who gives a shit if they're online or any other damn thing?), that they need to be attending to in an urgent manner.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:03 PM on December 18, 2005
Ok then, back to 80% of everyones orginal point on this thread. Grow the hell up and get over it. If this ends up being settled with money, the original intent of the offended will be exsposed. I guess will have to continue disagreeing until then. And pointing out that these men in this thread are rich black men, and the show i made reference to were 80% white men is hardly a load of crap. But of course, since the majority of the members here are infact white, why the hell would we want to address this part of the topic. Lets just continue pointing the microscope in a different direction so noone focuses on us. If you dont think that internet child predators (in any jurisdiction) is a "growing" problem, let me make you aware that the TV show in which i was referring, set up the sting in Iowa, Illinois or Oregon. Which i think most would agree is just as an unlikely place as the players were having their boat party. Actually i think were are jumping to conclussions about the offended people on this boat. I tend to think that managment was fully aware that strippers (or whores as dyams reffers) were coming to the party. And i made reference to money being giving. There is no eveidence either way that these woman were paid or just drunk. But since they were probably black i guess some will continue to reffer to them as whores.
posted by RZA at 10:00 PM on December 18, 2005
If this ends up being settled with money, the original intent of the offended will be exsposed. Where do you get this? This isn't a civil suit. The charges were brought by the DA; any jail time and fines go to the state, not the "offended". Even if there were a civil suit, you'd be at least partly wrong. You regard the "offended" as gold-diggers, clearly, but as someone who works several low-paying jobs that involve putting up with a certain amount of collateral asshole behavior from rich customers, I don't go into work in the morning thinking, "Hmm, maybe I can take someone to court for being a jerk." From hard experience in dealing with these people, I can tell you that what's going through my mind is the hope that they'll just stop being jerks and go away. But while we're on the subject, why do you think a customer should be able to behave in a spectacularly abusive way toward some minimum-wage-earning employee, and not have it cost something? Sounds like a case of, "You made the mess, you clean it up -- or pay handsomely for those who do." Where's the lack of justice in that? The exploitation is going the other way than what you think, RZA. If you dont think that internet child predators (in any jurisdiction) is a "growing" problem I think it's a "growing" smokescreen that you're firing up to try to get away from the subject under discussion. New Bedford defense. Not relevant. Show me a systemic inconsistency in application of the law, or you've got no case. Actually i think were are jumping to conclussions about the offended people on this boat. No, you're jumping to conclusions, as I pointed out before -- and you followed up this appeal to clearheadedness with a few more. Physician, heal thyself.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:36 AM on December 19, 2005
"set up the sting in Iowa, Illinois or Oregon." Actually, the sting took place in Fairfax, VA. The reason no charges were filed is because it's entrapment.
"Which i think most would agree is just as an unlikely place as the players were having their boat party."I don't even know what that means and, honestly, I don't really care because somehow this thread about lewd acts by supposed role-models devolved into talks of kiddie-porn and racism.
Thank you RZA for turning assumptions into facts, a misdemeanor sex-crime into the raging epidemic that is pedophlia, and what could/should have been an interesting discussion about NFL players on a potential play-off team into some kind of racial inequality thread. I would call what you did "threadjacking" but then, obviously, I'd be making racist remarks. posted by redsnare at 11:58 AM on December 19, 2005
I'm fully aware of the DA bringing the charges on the players by way of the people offended filing complaints. Thats how people get arrested. Someone calls the cops. Im sure the DA wasnt on the boating witnessing this glorified lapdance. Thats why i said "if it ends up". I am drawing a conclusion. If there is a civil suit, we will know what their intention was. Thats an easy conclusion to jump to. It happens all the time. Redsnare, funny how you accuse me of turning assumption into facts. The first assumption was the poor little girl who just turned 18. but i can see how you would blame me for making the first assumption. Now here we go with the fucking role-model bullshit. When is the last time you sat your kid, nephew or the like down in front of a TV and said, "i want you to have a personality just like Donte Culpepper"? Let me get this straight now, are they asshole athletes, people with collateral asshole behavior? Or are they role models? They cant be considered all 3 for convenience of argument. I personally wouldnt call an asshole a role model. Now LBB, your killing me with this crap you learned in your 1st criminal justice class. Please keep my comments in context. Myself or this article is not on trial, i am not offering a New bedford defense for anything. This is called making an observation viewed from the opposite side of the parties in question. And the comparison was made in the same fashion as the comment about the "18 yr old girl". Someone makes a statement you agree with, you argue its hypothetical. someone makes a statement you dont agree with, they're jumping to conclusions. My 1st comment comparing the 2 matters reads: I will admit that LBB, i dont know the particulars, i was merely arguing the other side of the incident. Just as dyams didnt know for sure who was offended, or if someone was just acting a little Holier than thou. I would agree that both sides of this article are truly uninformed. I personally was comparing the merit of the complaint to something I saw on TV lastnight How the hell can that be misconstrued as an attempt to pose argument? See, I said "Me" and "personally", and i admitted that i am uninformed about the facts of the matter. I hardly think they are going to use this post at the trial. Im offering a different view point. Im not trying to convince you i am right, nor am i trying to offer a cynical new bedford defense.
posted by RZA at 01:55 PM on December 19, 2005
I'm fully aware of the DA bringing the charges on the players by way of the people offended filing complaints. Thats how people get arrested. Someone calls the cops. Im sure the DA wasnt on the boating witnessing this glorified lapdance. Thats why i said "if it ends up". I am drawing a conclusion. If there is a civil suit, we will know what their intention was. Thats an easy conclusion to jump to. It happens all the time. An easy conclusion to jump to? In the sense that you're not having any trouble doing so, I can well believe it. That doesn't mean that it's a logical conclusion to jump to. The only motive that you know of for someone to bring a civil suit is an attempt to legally extort money, but that doesn't mean that no other motive exists. Let me ask you one thing: if events are as represented -- and I certainly grant you the "if" -- do you feel that there would be any justice to the boat employees pressing a complaint, criminal or civil? Or should those minimum-wage bozos just suck it up? Now LBB, your killing me with this crap you learned in your 1st criminal justice class. Please keep my comments in context. Myself or this article is not on trial, i am not offering a New bedford defense for anything. How not? You were the one who headed off into the weeds with your talk about them innernet sexual predators. Much bigger problem, you said, why should any of these football players get punished -- even though their punishment hasn't been discussed yet -- when some individuals who were entrapped in a so-called "sexual predator" sting didn't go to jail? That was your argument, and if you think about it for even a second, you can see the flaw in it: a failure (questionable in this case) of the justice system to punish a crime (also questionable in this case) does not mean that other occurrences of other crimes should be winked-and-nodded at.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:17 PM on December 19, 2005
Im sure the DA wasnt on the boating witnessing this glorified lapdance. Glorified lapdance? The official reports given to the police have McKinnie giving and then receiving oral sex on top of the bar. They also have Smoot shoving dildos in and out of two women. I don't know where you work, RZA, but if I sent a couple of guys in to your place of employment with three skanks and had them do this in front of the people you work with, I'm just going to assume someone might expect charges to get filed (even though you'd be in the middle of it shouting, "This is racisim. It's only a glorified lapdance.") And while I understand some people wanting to throw the "role model" title around regarding athletes, I'm not one of them. The day I suggest to any young person they model themselves after many of today's (drug dealing, drug abusing, adulterer, woman-beating, etc.) athletes is the day Hell freezes over.
posted by dyams at 03:26 PM on December 19, 2005
There is no eveidence either way that these woman were paid or just drunk. But since they were probably black i guess some will continue to reffer to them as whores. Why are you assuming their black? White women can be whores too and no one has said who they are or what color they were. As I said before an ass is an ass no matter what color.
posted by skydivemom at 04:10 PM on December 19, 2005
The vast majority of professional athletes are positive role-models. The problem (and I'm guilty of it just by commenting in this thread) is the inordinate amount of attention given to the bad eggs. The NFL has spent plenty of money in recent years advertising the community outreach programs each team has to counteract the bad perception put forth on it by mass-media. I grew up admiring athletes and was encouraged to do so by my parents; I'll do the same thing for my kids (although the Jason Williams' and John Daly's of the athletic world are unacceptable).
posted by redsnare at 04:22 PM on December 19, 2005
The day I suggest to any young person they model themselves after many of today's athletes is the day Hell freezes over. For the record, I said "many" athletes, not ALL.
posted by dyams at 04:30 PM on December 19, 2005
LBB in reference to the 1 question you pose, this is my answer/opinion. "IF" anybody was on the top of a bar performing/recieving oral sex, this would further my belief that the people who chartered this boat definitly made the owner of the craft aware that he was going to have strippers/whores (whatever you want to call them) aboard. We are talking about Black NFL players at a party thrown by a black athlete, thats why i assumed (as im sure everyone else did) that the women were majority black. Although im sure some of us are use to black athletes putting themselves in foolish positions, you are referring to this boat as if its the local gas station down on the corner. I dont think donte culpepper would go down to the local corner store and have sex on the counter. And i would ask you the same, do you think that Culpepper would do that? knowing his career would be in jeopardy. Now with that said, i think there are facts here that none of us are privy to. I think thats the norm here. Black athlete guilty until proven innocent. You must admit that yourself, and dyams are addressing this matter as if there was already a conviction in this case. Im simply offering another side to the story. But its apparent that you both refuse to believe that the situation could be blown out of proportion. Why is that? Why are they guilty until proven innocent? Is it because they are black? Im seriously asking this question. I want to know how some people can get so worked up over something that hasnt even been proven yet. Tell me honestly how you would feel if 1 of these players x-girlfriend came forward and admitted she made this shit up. I answered your question, i would appreciate if you both answered that. How would you , yourself feel if your brother or father was assumed guilty of something before he was proven guilty in an american court of law. This is suppose to be a right afforded each american, but can you see how some americans are found guilty in the public eye before there is even a trial. This sort of thing happens all the time to african americans and i'll admit even sometimes to lower middle class white men. I will gladly say that if these men are found guilty, they deserve whatever they get. On the other hand. Would you admit that you shouldnt have prejudged the matter if its discovered that the acusations are bogus? Or will you simply say that you're so use to many black athletes being fuck ups, drug dealers,drug abusing, adulterers(as dyams offers) that you had every right to beleive they were guilty just like OJ was still guilty after proved innocent in a court of law? And last but not least, if these men are found guilty, we willl have plenty of time to treat them as such and they will pay for their crimes. But if they are found innocent, you would have undeservingly treated them as guilty this entire conversation. And that would be an entire seperate injustice that happens everyday and will continue to happen. You have no idea how that makes you feel until it happens to you. Forgive me for defending them until they're proven guilty. They have an idictment not a finding. Ps. LBB chill with the minimum wage bozo shit please. I grew up/lived in low income housing for the first 25 yrs of my life. My father had an IQ of 158 but had to drive a cab for 15 yrs because he was disabled and all he could muster the stregth to do was steer a car. My mother was a waitress for 27 yrs of her life before she passed away from swollowing a toothpick in 1 of the club sandwhichs we use to get for free from her job. So please believe none of my opinions are rich vs poor motivated.
posted by RZA at 12:50 AM on December 20, 2005
I don't know where you're coming from with the girlfriend stuff, RZA. What do the ex-girlfriends of these players have to do with this? According to reports that have circulated around this event since it happened, many of the girls present were professionals, some flown in from several states away. It also sounds as if the charges were filed by the individuals not invited to the party, but there as employees of the boat company. When I made a post several weeks ago on SportsFilter regarding this boat trip, my link had a TV news interview with a relative of one of the boat employees, who says the girl in question was a young woman who was shocked and appalled not only by what was taking place sexually on the boat, but by the abusive attitudes by many of the players present. I don't think any of the players ex-girlfriends filed any of these charges. You also say you think the boat company knew ahead of time the trip would include these activities. If so, why did the boat return to dock an hour after it had left when it was scheduled to be out for another two hours? It also seems you only want to focus on Culpepper. If he was "only" involved in a lap dance, then I don't (at this point) even care to focus that much on him. You need to comment on the actions McKinnie and Smoot were reportedly involved in. You also keep saying how everyone is "innocent until proven guilty." I firmly believe this is the way all cases should be treated, but in this case, I think it's more a case of the rich, priviledged pro athletes who will, most likely, be represented by attorneys who will get these charges either thrown out or reduced to something utterly ridiculous. The pro athlete in this day and age, whether black OR white, is the one who goes into these type of proceedings holding all the cards. Look at Kobe Bryant and OJ Simpson as good examples. Regular schmucks like myself run a bigger risk of having any charges we may need to file against the rich and powerful only making ME look stupid should I choose to pursue them.
posted by dyams at 07:28 AM on December 20, 2005
Oh, I give up. You're right about everything, RZA. You were right when you said that everyone was up in arms because it was white women getting done (which we don't know), and now you're right when you say it was mostly black women (which we still don't know). Somehow you managed to be right both times even though those statements are contradictory, but you did it, you're right. You're right when you say that the boat company knew ahead of time what would go on because you were the fly on the wall when the deal was made. You're right when you say that these multimillionaire black athletes don't stand a snowball's chance of getting a fair trial, because gosh, every white person in America is donning a bedsheet and burning a cross over the possibility that these multimillionaire black athletes may have had sexual contact with a white woman (although, gosh, we still don't know about that either...but we care deeply, really we do). You're right that some hypothetical ex-girlfriend made it all up and got the charter boat staff to agree to lie in court about it. And you know what you're most right about? You're right about the fact that I have, in fact, prejudged the matter, that I've already decided what I think about these players' guilt or innocence. Can I just ask one thing? Please do drop me a note and tell me just what that prejudgment is, because I'm damned if I know. Jackass.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:05 AM on December 20, 2005
It never fucking fails with you better than everybody else types. No matter how much a person admits that all the facts are not known by either side, it appears that the thing you're attempting to do is convince me that YOU are right. And when that doest happen, you resort to name calling? LBB i've never purposely disrespected you in anyway with any sort of name calling in this thread. But because i disagree and feel just as strongly about my opinion as you do. You turn to verbal insults. What the fuck is your problem? A man that left you or some shit. Look you cant convince me of shit with that holier than thou uppity, i dont care how they're found in court, they are guilty and should burn in hell because i say so attitude. If either of you have a personal problem with the things black athletes do (see no reference of the convicted abuser mark gasteneu*spelling/or antics by john rocker) than i really could careless about it. Now i see why there was no1 else chiming in trying to convince you of anything. Why is the reference to only black athletes you racist, better than everybody else fucking cry babies? This is the exact type of shit that im going to be hollering about every time i fucking see it here. Areyou fucking people God and i just dont know it? What do you want from me? Do you want me to say linch them? The only thing i can say is. YOU WERENT FUCKING THERE EITHER!!!! Geez. Why discuss this topic as if a rape accured. Do either of you understand that the only actual victims in this crime were people that had to SEE something they didnt want to see. Uht OH, call the fucking linch mob, my precious fucking eyes were offended. You both can stick your upity, crybaby, racist bullshit in your least favorite place and draw up a petition to bring back public linchings. I still dont know how ANYONE saw something so specific unless they were fucking right up on top of what was going on. What was the prejudgment? A person with predetermined hatefull views such as yourself couldnt see if it was written on the next clan insert from your local newspaper.
posted by RZA at 10:37 AM on December 20, 2005
Hey, like I already said, you're right about everything. G'head and write some more about how racist we are; that'll be right too, by definition, since you wrote it. (oh, by the way: at the risk of suggesting that you're sometimes...well...not wrong exactly, but perhaps just slightly off...it's spelled "klan")
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2005
You both can stick your upity, crybaby, racist bullshit in your least favorite place and draw up a petition to bring back public linchings. Weak. I think this level of rhetoric in a sports-related discussion is a distraction and weakens your credibility when actual racism occurs. It's The Boy Who Cried Wolf-syndrome.
posted by yerfatma at 11:53 AM on December 20, 2005
Aw, your right, it is klan, and i see you pulled the old summon my spofi click when the going gets rough. Come now yerfatma, you're quick to address this discussion on racism, yet you were silent when i showed the old threads about the man running on the field with farve vs. the white guys that ran on the court in detroit? Chosing your comments wisely i see. LBB: "How not? You were the one who headed off into the weeds with your talk about them innernet sexual predators". I think you were going for "internet" as opposed to the "innercircle" you people have here. I love it, off into the weeds pointing out typos. Whats next? you gonna tell on me? Let your anger go. I dont know exactly why he/she left you, but im starting to understand.
posted by RZA at 12:29 PM on December 20, 2005
Hey RZA.... So what are you talking about on this thread, oh wait let me guess....
posted by tron7 at 12:55 PM on December 20, 2005
Come now yerfatma, you're quick to address this discussion on racism, yet you were silent when i showed the old threads about the man running on the field You just castigated me this week for what you perceived to be following you around threads badgering you. I said I would try to minimize my interference. Now I get dinged for it? Seems unfair.
posted by yerfatma at 01:29 PM on December 20, 2005
Seems unfair. He's got the market cornered. (hey, how are you getting your italics to work? mine seem to be busted)
posted by tron7 at 01:37 PM on December 20, 2005
"Why are they guilty until proven innocent? Is it because they are black?" Mark Chmura. Aquitted of all charges other than contributing to under aged drinking. Partying at a house he didn't own. White guy. NEVER played again. Always defaulting to racism as motivation, is weak and tiresome. He was a pro bowler and was cut by the Packers a year before he was aquitted. Since he was white I can safely call him a jack-ass for putting his career in jeopardy and getting burned. Since I called him a jack-ass, can I say the same about Daunte? Or would that make a racist?
posted by tselson at 02:16 PM on December 20, 2005
Dude, there were photos of him in a hot tub at a prom party. Not that he was the only Packer tagging high school chicks or anything.
posted by yerfatma at 02:42 PM on December 20, 2005
So, because Antonio Freeman is a black man, he's gotta be eatin' KFC? Buncha damn racists. /sarcasm, aimed squarely at everybody's favorite race-baiter (no, not you, yerfatma)
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:55 PM on December 20, 2005
i see you pulled the old summon my spofi click when the going gets rough. I did. I fired an email right off to yerfatma saying, "Yo, yerfatma! I need your help here! This guy's got me on the ropes with his brilliant logic, solid argumentation and factual examples. I know my case is weak and worthless, but since you always agree with me about everything, I'm counting on you to join the click pigpile on RZA so we can collectively squash him into a bad-smelling paste!" Really, I did. Just ask George W. Bush; he's monitoring my email.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:15 PM on December 20, 2005
I did say Chmura was a jackass. But what's really wrong with being thirty something and being in a hot tub at a prom party? He was with his date, wasn't he? "Mr. Freeman, I brought you a cheeleader, three peice meal, extra sporks and wetnaps! Can I have your... uh, nevermind."
posted by tselson at 04:33 PM on December 20, 2005
I fired an email right off to yerfatma Oh, this is funny on so many levels.
posted by yerfatma at 05:57 PM on December 20, 2005
Did I miss out on the "Grand SpoFi Conspiracy" again? You know, the one where all the posters but RZA are middle-aged white men and we get together to gang up on him when his crap gets so ridiculous THAT WE END UP TYPING IN ALL CAPS! THEN WE GATHER ROUND A FIRE AND PLOT AGAINST SHERMAN HELMSLEY WHILE URINATING ON A GLOSSY 8" X 10" OF JIMMY WALKER AND THEN SEND ANTI-SEMETIC RECIPES TO SOUPY SALES! WE ARE BEHIND THE CANCELLATION OF CHAPPELLES SHOW AND GOOD TIMES! WE MADE BIG SHIRLEY A LESBIAN! WE HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHING ESTELLE GETTY SO THAT SHE DOESN'T REMEMBER BEA ARTHUR! WE INSURED MATT LEBLANC HIS OWN SITCOM PRIOR TO FRIENDS 2ND SEASON. WE CONTROL YOUR TELEVISION SET! WE CONTROL THE VERTICAL AND THE HORIZONTAL! WE HAVE THAT POWER BECAUSE WE ARE ALL RACISTS. Or RZA is just a moron. I'll go with Occam's Razor on this one.
posted by lilnemo at 07:35 PM on December 20, 2005
I fired an email right off to yerfatma Oh, this is funny on so many levels. I thought you'd like it. I don't think RZA's gonna get it, though. Welcome to my click, BTW.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:46 PM on December 20, 2005
Say, "Plus change."
posted by yerfatma at 08:01 PM on December 20, 2005
WE ARE BEHIND THE CANCELLATION OF CHAPPELLES SHOW
posted by yerfatma at 06:19 AM on December 21, 2005
Are you fucking walmart shopping crackers that hrd up for friends in life, that you have to make this you're entire day? I'm having trouble between posting at work and firing some posts off be fore i goto bed, i cant keep up. There is a clinical diagnosis on what you guys are displaying, but i currently have it narrowed down to 4 mental ailments. i'll be glad to post the final 3 and then you each can choose. It's like you have a secret republican,dennis miller wannabe gang. And you all want to impress eachother so much, that you wil do or say anything. For example, yerfatma, you werent posting on this thread at all recently. What made you chime in as you do? You know what i mean. You get into debate after to debate that you cant win, so you "root" for one of your slow witted "debate typing militia" click members to accomplish what you couldnt? Or were you just killing time by "surfing"? MY nex qeustion is were you actually following the arguement in its entirty? And if so, Why? Do you have that much time on your hands? I gotta hint for ya.....Move!!!!!, get your blood flowing, step away from the candy, im kidding, lmao. But i will say, You're fat Mama!
posted by RZA at 06:52 PM on December 21, 2005
Tron? 1 thing. Did you actually click on my name, follow the link, to see everything i posted? Another 1 with to much time on his hands. Hint, get a girlfriend/boyfriend. whichever way you swing. or go out with your cousin elway fan. im sure you and him can find someone to pretend linch. i cant believe you would try to look at everything a person posts here. Lift some weights cracker.
posted by RZA at 06:57 PM on December 21, 2005
Lilmomo, you obviously were summoned by the click captain. You have no idea what the hell is going on, yet you chime in with the same quickness you displaywhen finishing sex with your boyfriend. Another expossed member of this click. hint, find some friends outside of the internet. are you the 40 yr old virgin guy? Or was that movie based on your life? next time you want to display racism, just call someone a nigger if your sissy ass dares. or you can just continue to put your tail between your legs everytime you're confronted by a black man in everyday life. im sure you've been waiting for the moment that you could join the spofi gang up on a person of color thread. You are obviously here to try to be funny, so one of the overweight women( if i can call them that) will show some sort of interest in you and hopefully it will lead to voice chat. Leave the porn alone, you're going to hurt yourself. lmao. And relax with the caps ya ass, its going to get read. thats an underlying problem you have calling attention to yourself. You struggle with attention in real life like that aswell probably. My only concern is, how long you actually sat at your pc to think of all that. you spent over an hour trying to get it right so people would think " you're the funniest". Now that funny
posted by RZA at 07:10 PM on December 21, 2005
tselson, here we have a white guy chiming in using mark chmura of all people as an example. i see you're point tselson, now go back to defending child molestors. "whats wrong with being 31 at a prom party"? enough said, i do believe that you were one of the guys on that tv show about the sting set up to catch internet prowlers. Now if that was TO instead of chmura, there wuold still be threads about it here on spofi calling for his head. but since he was white, our click will let it slide.
posted by RZA at 07:16 PM on December 21, 2005
Man you gotta let it go - you're going to give yourself a heart attack. No one forces you to join in. If you don't like this site so much why do you even bother. It seems to me that you are the one with too much time on your hands being able to write posts that long. Post articles about something stupid that a white athlete has done and I will call him an ass too.
posted by skydivemom at 07:42 PM on December 21, 2005
Last and least, LBB, here we have a woman who fills here days with typing all the arguments she wishes she could have with a man, on the internet. Its so obvious in the tone of her comments here that she has been left by every man(really only 3)that she has ever been with. So, every time there is a thread about any man (white or black...well more so black) that gets out of line in anyway. She pounces on it the same way she pounces on her vibrator. She has noone in her life to spend christmas with, she'll be 1 of 3 people (lilmomo will be another) adding comments to spofi about how all men should die because she has found the her true soulmate(yourfatmama), however yourfatmama has tried on several occasions to convince her that what they did at the spofi meeting picnic was just her experimenting with her masculine side and she really isnt bicurious. LBB, here it is, what all people here want to say to you, but dont want to hurt your feelings. YOU ARE NOT A MAN!!! No matter how hard you try to force your opinons on people. When will you get it? Your alone in life because of that manish attitude of yours. Stop being a control freak. You will die alone, if you dont. Its no fault of anyone here. So stop taking it out on innocent new members of spofi. And last but not least. No matter how how hard any of you try, you will never every control african americans anymore. We are taking over this country. We wanted to take your favorite thing first, sports. You are all so obviously jealous that you lack the athletic ability of black folk. All you can do is make up internet websites amongst yourselves to talk about how much black athletes bother you. And the sad part is, do you know what you'll do abou it? Nothing, you'll keep tuning in to watch us dominate your favorite sport and keep our paychecks rising. thanks whitey. Karmas a bitch aint it. We dont need reparations, we're getting them thru our paychecks from sports and entertainment, while you assholes serve us drinks at our orgies we have on boats. My the tide has turned hasnt it?????? remember when you were whipping us and raping our women? Now your women (the ones worth having anyway) dream of being with a black athlete or rapper or actor. Your kids run around with their pants hanging off their ass because they think that makes them like us. But you'll never be us though its not for a lack of trying. Yea, you still hate us, its just jealousy now. REAP THE WHIRLWIND OF SLAVERY WHITEBOY PS.now go buy your son/daughter our next album/jersey/sneaker/movie or video game for Christmas. Payback is a biotch aint it. I would say politics is next, but we dont need that underpaying shit. Shaq makes the presidents yearly salary by half time of every basketball game his team plays (whether hes in it ir not). keep hating
posted by RZA at 07:53 PM on December 21, 2005
Wow how long did it take you to write that? YOU ARE NOT A MAN!!! No matter how hard you try to force your opinons on people. When will you get it? Your alone in life because of that manish attitude of yours. Stop being a control freak. How does being a control freak mean your acting like a man. I guess it's ok to force issues on people cause your a man. Now you have insulted all us women and I take offense to that.
posted by skydivemom at 08:01 PM on December 21, 2005
RZA: irony meter crash test dummy.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:04 PM on December 21, 2005
Dude, once and for all...it's clique, not click.
posted by willthrill72 at 08:24 PM on December 21, 2005
I am the Click Leader! Now you have insulted all us women and I take offense to that. No, no, no, skydivemom -- just those uppity women who have the gall to disagree with him, even peripherally, about anything. The sad thing in all this is that RZA's rage is blinding him to the fact that the people he's attacking are not his enemies. And, unfortunately, when you focus your hostility on people who aren't your enemies, the people who are your enemies are creeping up on you all the while. And then you get bushwhacked, and the people who weren't your enemies all shake their heads and say, "What a shame," but they don't ride to your rescue, because they're concerned that you'd only rip their heads off by way of reward.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:36 PM on December 21, 2005
Hey skydivemom, you're another type here at spofi im attempting to expose. Those trolling around threads , just looking for an argurement. What will that get you? Further acceptance in some CLICK thats useless, you will be a part of those who will regret some of their own posts when this little experiment is complete. Skydivemom, i called her a control freak after the "manish" remark. women can be control freaks. I did not make reference to her acting like a man by being a control freak. i was obviously reffering to previous comments and the way they were made (being mentally forceful, narrowminded and abusive) all negative personality traits predominately exhibited by men (according to surveys taken at divorce seminars conducted at 20 different battered womens shelters on the east coast). Willnothrill, grade your own grade school grammatical/spelling errors. Here is yet another one, gets offended by what is directed towards someone 1 else, yet wants to be a part of the arguement so bad, he spends countless minutes trying to find the slieghtest little opening where he can project himself into a bunch of pointless bantor. The real question is, why would someone want to take part in any activity like this? The answer is coming.
posted by RZA at 12:35 AM on December 22, 2005
LBB, my favorite, sweetheart this is rage: Nor, I think, can you make the case that the jurisdiction in which these players were indicted has a burgeoning problem in sexual predators (and, really, who gives a shit if they're online or any other damn thing?), that they need to be attending to in an urgent manner. Funny thing is, you were the first to feel insulted, and the first to use profanity. Oddly enough, after several offers by me (the person you wanted to convince the most)indicating that maybe "we" were both jumping the gun and drawing prejudicial conclusions, you rejected my statements even further, going as far as "throwing a fit" with the entire "you're right about everything" post. There was no compromising with you at all. Me arguing that maybe it was blown out of proportion enraged you to the point that you started pointing out my typos, just to prove that i was capable of making a mistake and you wouldnt stop until you could prove it. You are definitely 1 of the 1's here that is almost incapable of seeing another persons point, regardless of how they present it to you. That type of emotional behavior is rooted in a deep pain that you suffered at some point in your life. It also indicates that something must have happen to you where you were the victim of something harsh and cruel and when you first presented the matter, someone you cared about deeply did not believe you. You have been a most interesting case study so far. im looking forward to sharing my findings with you after this is all said and done. However, i must continue, i have 2 more personality types to examine. They have evaded me thus far, but im sure they will show themselves soon enough.
posted by RZA at 01:07 AM on December 22, 2005
But if it didn't strike a nerve, and you feel that you have discussed it enough, then why try to shut down the discussion of others? Just decline, stay away, go start a thread about something else. But don't try to tell other people that they should shut up because the subject's been discussed enough. posted by lil_brown_bat at 4:09 PM CST on December 16
posted by RZA at 01:21 AM on December 22, 2005
What made you chime in as you do? You know what i mean. You get into debate after to debate that you cant win Sweettits, you put together a coherent argument where you stay on one side and use some facts and we can have a debate. Until then, I'm out. As for what made me chime in, I dunno, maybe it was you constantly calling me out as representative of the Grand Konspiracy against you? Who's stalking who now? There are a couple of shitty new members who were trolling you with insensitive/ racist comments. I'm sorry about that. But you used up everybody's sympathy about 15 comments ago.
posted by yerfatma at 06:28 AM on December 22, 2005
RZA- I haven't been offended by anything in this thread thus far. And really, it doesn't take countless minutes to find spelling/grammatical errors in your posts. The thing is the first time I saw you use click, I was confused by what you were attempting to say. And as far as projecting myself into a "bunch of pointless bantor" (most of which is yours, I might add), I was trying my best to stay out of this one because it is going absolutely nowhere. You have been irate, irrational, nonsensical and closedminded. I figured this was yet another thread you have turned into a platform for voicing your feelings on racism when the original post had absolutely NOTHING to do about race. I think all you have accomplished to this point is reveal you own biggotry and racism and it's getting quite old. It has gotten to the point where as soon as I see a comment from you on a thread, the thread loses it's legitimacy and turns into a race war. I believe at times you make good points, but you really need to quell you own anger and hatred to make people want to continue a dialogue with you. I'm new here, too, thus not a part of the "conspiracy" the paranoid part of you feels exists. You don't like it when someone disagrees with you and you single out and address directly those who rebut or refute your comments. I think you are a hypocrite. You say you have the right to say whatever you want but you don't afford everyone else the same "right".
posted by willthrill72 at 09:34 AM on December 22, 2005
Willnothrill, you'll know better next time than to stick your new nose where it doesnt belong. you should have atleast waited 6 months before trying to impose yourself into something that you have no idea where it stems from. But like most new members that wade thru these threads looking for a place to insert themselves with the hope that the majority will "like them" and "think they're witty", you actually have had no point what so ever. What has been your point? To annouce to the rest "who already knew" that someone was using the wrong spelling of a single word? Tell me what you think you gained by interjecting something so meaningless? Do you think you gained acceptance? Do you now feel like you're on the "winning team". Do you feel more confident about posting now? Or was your single selfcentered objective achieved when i addressed you directly? Is it possible that a person would require attention so much as to insert themselves into a off topic pointless argument over the internet?? Now that you have done so, please share your true reason for why you immposed yourself? Does the correct form of the word "clique" vs "click" have that much meaning to you? Or were you telling the truth when you wrote "you were confused when you first saw the word click, and you didnt know what i was trying to say"? If so, you mean to tell me that everyone else involved knew, and you didnt? Or maybe your intention was to give "your opinion about me" without feeling like you were just piling it on where it definitly wasnt needed. So, you address a pointless error, then you lie about being "actually confused", you reach your objective by having me address you, then all you had to add was this point is reveal you own biggotry need to quell you own anger Tell me how much of a dialogue there would be if we all pointed out, or had a complete post on spelling grammatical errors? I think maybe you have accomplished your true objective. You now have the attention of the arguement directed specifically on yourself. Why is it so hard for you to admit the truth?? You knew exactly what i meant when i used the word click. You didnt "try your hardest" to stay out of this foolishness. You tried your hardest to insert yourself into this foolishness. And now that you have done so much to cover up why you are even involved in this. What next? Does it actually make you feel better now that you have typed your worthless opinion in this thread? Do you think you've gained some new "internet" buddies or do you think you've made yourself look like a complete idiot by admitting that when you see my name in a thread you deem it illegitimate, yet you go as far as lying to get yourself thru the door of this one. Whats that make you? A seeker of illegitimacy? Or just more of a hypocrite than even you claim me to be? Please 'will the thrill" (clever) force more of your worthlessness on us, you're one of my last personality types, this ought to be good.
posted by RZA at 12:14 PM on December 22, 2005
u r fucking stoop1d.... u hav becum the peepz u hate
posted by yerfatma at 12:37 PM on December 22, 2005
Actually RZA, I've been a member slightly longer than you have. And I was being completely honest when I said it took me a while to figure out what you meant by click. And when is a good time to "jump into" a thread? Because someone doesn't comment within the first 20, then they are not allowed to comment at all? I was stupid for allowing myself to get sucked into your rhetoric and , admittedly, by my own doing, nonetheless. I'm done.
posted by willthrill72 at 02:16 PM on December 22, 2005
Willnothrill, you'll know better next time than to stick your new nose where it doesnt belong. you should have atleast waited 6 months before trying to impose yourself into something that you have no idea where it stems from. I don't get it? He has been here longer than you have but he has to wait 6 months. Hey skydivemom, you're another type here at spofi im attempting to expose. Those trolling around threads , just looking for an argurement. What will that get you? Further acceptance in some CLICK thats useless, you will be a part of those who will regret some of their own posts when this little experiment is complete. Oh goody I have been exposed and I am part of an experiment. Yippee I have always wanted to be part of an experiment. Hey do I get compensated for this experiment? Oh yeah - I may get to join a clique. Goody my life is so meaningless that I have to have an internet clique to belong to. Boy Christmas sure did come early this year!
posted by skydivemom at 02:27 PM on December 22, 2005
RZA, quoting me out of context while I was making fun of Chmura, I'll consider humorous. Calling me a child molester/internet prowler is simply unacceptable. Does somebody shit in your cheerios every morning? Geez.
posted by tselson at 02:32 PM on December 22, 2005
Oh yeah - I may get to join a clique. Actually, I think the word you're looking for is "click."
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:56 PM on December 22, 2005
Oh that's even better!
posted by skydivemom at 05:01 PM on December 22, 2005
What exactly are they saying about it on ESPN?