The term University of Spoiled Children exists whether it's legitimate or not. Assuming it's legitimate it doesn't apply to every student or alumnus associated with USC. I have relatives where the term applies. I have friends where it doesn't apply.
.
It's April...so what!?
I'll take 'em down when I'm good and ready!
.
It's April...so what!?
I'll take 'em down when I'm good and ready!
.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
The term University of Spoiled Children exists whether it's legitimate or not. Assuming it's legitimate it doesn't apply to every student or alumnus associated with USC. I have relatives where the term applies. I have friends where it doesn't apply.
I don't believe censorship is ever a dead horse. I also didn't find the post offensive. We're becoming a society of no sense of humor and censorship.
There is a reason the HSBBW has flourished over the past umpteen years (I've been here since about 1998). I think that reason is this website is controlled primarily by "moderators" and not "dictators". Freedom of speech? Yes, I have what I consider freedom of speech on the HSBBW but those reading far outnumber me and they have freedom from inappropriate, damaging and hurtful comments. The way I look at it ---- moderators aren't here to moderate what ONE says, but rather what THOUSANDS read ..... The HSBBW has an agenda that is geared toward the uninformed, the "newbie" and the first time poster. That agenda was established at it's inception and has remained constant throughout the years. Moderating is the ONLY way that agenda can be maintained. Moderating is a healthy necessity. Evidently it works!
Fungo
Fungo
Jimmy03 and CPLZ have to absolutely correct on freedom of speech and what role it plays with government versus private individuals. Without coming across as a jerk I would like to ask how many of you actually read and researched the first amendment? As a teacher of social studies I come across many kids who have heard "Freedom of Speech" but they have no earthly idea what it means. They look at it from the simplistic viewpoint - ability to say whatever you want. But if that was actually true how do you explain slander being a criminal offense?
Please go to this website and read over it. It happens to be one of the best I've come across that explains what freedom of speech means.
First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
Here is cut and pasted what the first amendment says from that website
Here is the explanation of freedom of speech from that website.
I'm not trying to come off as some know it all jerk but American rights are not a simple concept. It takes work and effort to maintain what we have and without education the government will take these away from us. The first step towards establishing a dictatorship is making the populace uneducated. Without education the people have to rely on the government for everything.
Please go to this website and read over it. It happens to be one of the best I've come across that explains what freedom of speech means.
First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
Here is cut and pasted what the first amendment says from that website
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here is the explanation of freedom of speech from that website.
quote:Let’s examine the freedom-of-speech clause of the First Amendment. Contrary to what many people think, the free-speech guarantee operates only as a barrier to censorship by government officials, not on the right of private entities to refrain from publishing material they don’t like.
For example, consider a newspaper that publishes an article favoring a certain policy in the community. Imagine that opponents to that policy demand that the newspaper carry an article opposing the policy and that the newspaper refuses to do so.
Some people would undoubtedly cry, “Censorship!” and claim that the First Amendment was being violated. They would be wrong on both counts. Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty — the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect.
I'm not trying to come off as some know it all jerk but American rights are not a simple concept. It takes work and effort to maintain what we have and without education the government will take these away from us. The first step towards establishing a dictatorship is making the populace uneducated. Without education the people have to rely on the government for everything.
It seems to me Julie made a very sensible post about respecting the decision of the moderator.
Whether anyone considers it censorship or not, there are rules on these message boards that have worked, that have created and fostered a wonderful sense of participation and collegiality, along with lively discussion, and have led many to join and participate.
Whether we call it moderating or censorship, no one seems to object about removing posts focused on advertising.
If someone posted something pornographic, clearly everyone would likely demand those be moderated or censored.
Moderating is critical, as the above two examples illustrate.
Where it is difficult is when the posts are not at extremes.
This site has long been moderated so that negative or hurtful comments about amateur players were out of bounds. Recently, efforts to include more of a scouting of high school and college players was rejected.
Moderating is a difficult situation that involves balancing of interests, feelings and longer term goals on the site. Moderating is difficult because it evokes an immediate and visceral reaction from some.
Moderating on this site has been successful in effectively balancing what is best for the site, over the longer term. Heck, most of those who object to it continue to frequent and post.
Having posted on this site for many years with rz1, I am very confident and know there was absolutely no intent to offend on his part.
On the other hand, coming with the information fan posted, I can also appreciate why she responded as she did and felt the comment was hurtful.
Now RJM takes it on his own to re-post what had been removed, with the stated view he did not find the comment offensive.
I am not at all sure why, in the name of objecting to the rules on the site, and under the guise of objecting to "censorship," RJM found his views so important he would re-post what others, including fan, found hurtful and which our moderators chose to remove.
Someone needs to balance. The moderators and MN-Mom chose the balance on this issue. If it was not liked, why not PM them rather than re-post what had been deleted?
I really think some prior posts have it right. If the rules on this site are not to someone's liking, buy your own domain name, create your own website and create your own rules.
Otherwise, why not follow the ones that exist and accept that just like in baseball, someone needs to umpire. We cannot all be umpires. We may not like all the calls.
In the course of 9 innings however, umpires don't win or lose games by their calls. What they do is facilitate the game and allow it to be played fairly and within the framework of the rule book..just like the moderators try and do here.
Whether anyone considers it censorship or not, there are rules on these message boards that have worked, that have created and fostered a wonderful sense of participation and collegiality, along with lively discussion, and have led many to join and participate.
Whether we call it moderating or censorship, no one seems to object about removing posts focused on advertising.
If someone posted something pornographic, clearly everyone would likely demand those be moderated or censored.
Moderating is critical, as the above two examples illustrate.
Where it is difficult is when the posts are not at extremes.
This site has long been moderated so that negative or hurtful comments about amateur players were out of bounds. Recently, efforts to include more of a scouting of high school and college players was rejected.
Moderating is a difficult situation that involves balancing of interests, feelings and longer term goals on the site. Moderating is difficult because it evokes an immediate and visceral reaction from some.
Moderating on this site has been successful in effectively balancing what is best for the site, over the longer term. Heck, most of those who object to it continue to frequent and post.
Having posted on this site for many years with rz1, I am very confident and know there was absolutely no intent to offend on his part.
On the other hand, coming with the information fan posted, I can also appreciate why she responded as she did and felt the comment was hurtful.
Now RJM takes it on his own to re-post what had been removed, with the stated view he did not find the comment offensive.
I am not at all sure why, in the name of objecting to the rules on the site, and under the guise of objecting to "censorship," RJM found his views so important he would re-post what others, including fan, found hurtful and which our moderators chose to remove.
Someone needs to balance. The moderators and MN-Mom chose the balance on this issue. If it was not liked, why not PM them rather than re-post what had been deleted?
I really think some prior posts have it right. If the rules on this site are not to someone's liking, buy your own domain name, create your own website and create your own rules.
Otherwise, why not follow the ones that exist and accept that just like in baseball, someone needs to umpire. We cannot all be umpires. We may not like all the calls.
In the course of 9 innings however, umpires don't win or lose games by their calls. What they do is facilitate the game and allow it to be played fairly and within the framework of the rule book..just like the moderators try and do here.
.
.
.
Woody, I thought the picture of Blyleven was poignant....and hysterical.
I made the post in the form where it can be debated as opposed to someone believing the original post was offensive. What's wrong with a debate on what's offensive if it's not aimed at anyone? I also stated a stereotype joke doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.quote:Now RJM takes it on his own to re-post what had been removed, with the stated view he did not find the comment offensive.
I am not at all sure why, in the name of objecting to the rules on the site, and under the guise of objecting to "censorship," RJM found his views so important he would re-post what others, including fan, found hurtful and which our moderators chose to remove.
I'm not the parent of a young man who, 2 years ago, had a DIII as his best option, who worked his tail off through a year of JC, got offered a position at USC just as school started, and has a mother and father working as hard as they can possibly work to help him fulfill his dream.
Why not address your "debate" question to her and the moderators before assuming that because YOU didn't find it offensive, YOU would create the opportunity for a "debate."
I'm not into a "debate" because I don't think "fan" deserves or needs to have your views given credibility over hers and those of MN-Mom and the moderators.
Why not address your "debate" question to her and the moderators before assuming that because YOU didn't find it offensive, YOU would create the opportunity for a "debate."
I'm not into a "debate" because I don't think "fan" deserves or needs to have your views given credibility over hers and those of MN-Mom and the moderators.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
I made the post in the form where it can be debated as opposed to someone believing the original post was offensive. What's wrong with a debate on what's offensive if it's not aimed at anyone? I also stated a stereotype joke doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.
It's the equivalent of having a debate on the offensiveness of the "N" word, but to a lesser degree. The statement itself is offensive. It unfairly paints a whole group of people in a negative light.
Up until you brought that up, I had no idea that USC was considered that way. Using terminology like that around people, leaves a lasting, unsubstantiated, prejudicial and ugly impression. There is no connotation or context in which that can be taken either humorously or enlightening. Its whole intent is to bash and stereotype.
I don't see an intent to debate when I read that, it looks much more like intent to flame.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
Censorship is a form of morality judgement. Whose morality? Why is one sense of morality better than another?
That's not necessarily, or in the recent case here, true.
Let's say I own a website dedicated to the evolution of jazz from from Africa, to slave "call and reponse", to Louis Armstrong's "creation" of the swing shuffle to Miles Davis. Someone comes along and posts an example of 16th century harmony and its similarity to the Beach Boys. I delete the post as not being consistent with what I want on my site.
Nothing moral or immoral about the post or my decision.
Very basic. Owners of webites have every right to determine what they want on their websites. Participants in those websites have every right to determine whether or not to continue to participate.
quote:It unfairly paints a whole group of people in a negative light.
That was the issue entirely. I have no problem with the thread, and I have no problem with the moderators removing it.I post here, and they moderate, its their job so that we have a site.
As well no hard feeling to original posters.
You guys are all way over the top. I think you need to write a letter to the editor of the LA Times decrying 50,00 UCLA fans waving dollar bills at the USC fans at the USC-UCLA football game. It's a tradition that must be taken down in the name of political correctness.quote:Up until you brought that up, I had no idea that USC was considered that way. Using terminology like that around people, leaves a lasting, unsubstantiated, prejudicial and ugly impression. There is no connotation or context in which that can be taken either humorously or enlightening. Its whole intent is to bash and stereotype.
I lived in California for twenty-two years. Most people in California see it as a joke regardless of which side of the fence they're on. After I graduated from the other school both my roommates were from USC. We only made jokes about it. I can remember one joking he would beat me to death with his wallet, then joke I went to the state school.
Go into any educated neighborhood in southern California. You will find graduates of both schools. The lines aren't socially divided down the middle over a stereotype joke. Most USC graduates I know laughed and reveled in it.
I guess I should be offended when USC grads tell me their cheerleaders are better looking. It's a very sexist statement. It condemns all the UCLA female students, female alumnus and more specifically a set of young women performing on the sidelines.
Maybe I should have been offended attending a state sponsored college when USC had a poster "Poverty Sucks" where the picture was dripping of wealth. Or maybe the people at USC had a sense of humor too.
Geezzzzz!!!!
The condemned aka "Dead man walking" should say his peace.
I used the acronym, that a google search identifies more than 2 million hits, I confess, but it was taken by some personally, whom I hope I can still call friend, the wrong way. My intent was to question the agenda and actions of the USC athletic department which IMHO is pompous, not the student population. Other schools can be called out, why not USC? This site discusses colleges and programs for opinions and experiences in regard to their kids futures, now the USC program is exempt in regard to those opinions?
I apologize again to those posters I may have inadvertently offended, but moderators are moderators because they can jump outside the box and look at the "real" intent of the post. I can see where the moderator may have seen something that a few posters may have taken personally but at the same time it was not about them, it was about the program.
As I explained in a pm to another poster, this moderator thread was about "shaking out the rug" and fleshing out the notion that opinions should be shared as long as no personal attacks were involved, and I don't think I personally attacked anyone, just made a comment about an institution. Sharing thoughts and ideas is how we learn and identify truth, lies, and opinions.
I used the acronym, that a google search identifies more than 2 million hits, I confess, but it was taken by some personally, whom I hope I can still call friend, the wrong way. My intent was to question the agenda and actions of the USC athletic department which IMHO is pompous, not the student population. Other schools can be called out, why not USC? This site discusses colleges and programs for opinions and experiences in regard to their kids futures, now the USC program is exempt in regard to those opinions?
I apologize again to those posters I may have inadvertently offended, but moderators are moderators because they can jump outside the box and look at the "real" intent of the post. I can see where the moderator may have seen something that a few posters may have taken personally but at the same time it was not about them, it was about the program.
As I explained in a pm to another poster, this moderator thread was about "shaking out the rug" and fleshing out the notion that opinions should be shared as long as no personal attacks were involved, and I don't think I personally attacked anyone, just made a comment about an institution. Sharing thoughts and ideas is how we learn and identify truth, lies, and opinions.
I had a point to make, but it was "moderated", erased, that does not seem fair.
It often happens on these forums that the original topic takes a turn, a few turns, even a u-turn now and then.
My point was this, the acronym that rz referred to is not a new one, he did not make it up or invent it. It has been around for years and years and there are plenty of others not fit to print here on this website, just as there are for just about every college, usually drummed up by their rivals.
In my opinion, it was not a personal attack. Lighten up a little, get a sense of humor, even ask your kids who attend, they have heard of it, or something worse. It comes with the territory.
Rz did not say "every single person that attends a certain (will not insert name of university, as I am fearful of being moderated or erased) university is sp*****".
Obviously the two posters that were originally offened did not fit into that catagory, so why be take it so seriously? I'll bet you a Coach handbag and a BMW there might be a few sp***** ones out of the 30,000 plus that attend
Just my two cents....baseball is almost here
It often happens on these forums that the original topic takes a turn, a few turns, even a u-turn now and then.
My point was this, the acronym that rz referred to is not a new one, he did not make it up or invent it. It has been around for years and years and there are plenty of others not fit to print here on this website, just as there are for just about every college, usually drummed up by their rivals.
In my opinion, it was not a personal attack. Lighten up a little, get a sense of humor, even ask your kids who attend, they have heard of it, or something worse. It comes with the territory.
Rz did not say "every single person that attends a certain (will not insert name of university, as I am fearful of being moderated or erased) university is sp*****".
Obviously the two posters that were originally offened did not fit into that catagory, so why be take it so seriously? I'll bet you a Coach handbag and a BMW there might be a few sp***** ones out of the 30,000 plus that attend
Just my two cents....baseball is almost here
We have two very devoted posters on opposite sides of a dilemma.
As I posted before, I have absolutely no doubt that rz1 did not intend to inflame/flame or personally attack any parent or student(student/athlete) at USC with his post.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that fanofgame interpreted the comments as she stated and found, in her situation, the comments to be troubling.
So, what are we to do?
Nope, I don't think we tell fanofgame to toughen up, grin and bear it and the like.
I also don't view this as a situation where,despite his description, rz1 gets portrayed as the "Dead Man Walking."
What we have is a misunderstanding between posters(very devoted ones) living several thousand miles apart, with this site, and baseball, as their only common denominator.
I don't have a problem with the umpire(moderator) action on this one as I can easily see ways to discuss what some perceive as the arrogance of or issues within the USC athletic department, in other ways.
Since I wasn't too unhappy when Stanford went for 2 with a 48-21 lead, I might have a few things to contribute if that discussion gets its resurgence.
As I posted before, I have absolutely no doubt that rz1 did not intend to inflame/flame or personally attack any parent or student(student/athlete) at USC with his post.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that fanofgame interpreted the comments as she stated and found, in her situation, the comments to be troubling.
So, what are we to do?
Nope, I don't think we tell fanofgame to toughen up, grin and bear it and the like.
I also don't view this as a situation where,despite his description,
rz1 gets portrayed as the "Dead Man Walking."What we have is a misunderstanding between posters(very devoted ones) living several thousand miles apart, with this site, and baseball, as their only common denominator.
I don't have a problem with the umpire(moderator) action on this one as I can easily see ways to discuss what some perceive as the arrogance of or issues within the USC athletic department, in other ways.
Since I wasn't too unhappy when Stanford went for 2 with a 48-21 lead, I might have a few things to contribute if that discussion gets its resurgence.
I know a half dozen parents who send their kids to USC and they themselves refer to it as univ of spoiled children. It's a very well know acronym. People need to have a little thicker skin than that if it offended someone.
Heck, I've had someone on this site...who shall remain nameless...tell me on several different posts I have my head up my @#$. Even posted pictures to that effect. No one ever gave him a hard time...never even removed the pictures of a guy with his head up his @#$. It's not that big a deal. Thicker skin people.
Heck, I've had someone on this site...who shall remain nameless...tell me on several different posts I have my head up my @#$. Even posted pictures to that effect. No one ever gave him a hard time...never even removed the pictures of a guy with his head up his @#$. It's not that big a deal. Thicker skin people.
I will put this in simple terms because I am a simple person. Do you guys really want this site to be turned into another trash talking message board? Because without the moderators doing their job the way they do here that is exactly what almost every thread would turn into.
There are plenty of sites you can go to and can talk all the trash you want to talk. This is not one of them. When it becomes one of them then go at it. I wont see it because I will not be around.
We dont bash players on this site. And we dont bash schools. We have posters whos sons play at schools all over the country. They are very proud of the fact their child is at a certain school and has earned that opportunity. Posts like this one serve no useful purpose. Its called trash talking. Because its trash. Some dont mind and are quick to defend it. Until they are the target. Go figure.
There are plenty of sites you can go to and can talk all the trash you want to talk. This is not one of them. When it becomes one of them then go at it. I wont see it because I will not be around.
We dont bash players on this site. And we dont bash schools. We have posters whos sons play at schools all over the country. They are very proud of the fact their child is at a certain school and has earned that opportunity. Posts like this one serve no useful purpose. Its called trash talking. Because its trash. Some dont mind and are quick to defend it. Until they are the target. Go figure.